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.

 Talys wrote:
For example, I do not consider playing D&D a hobby

On that note, we'll have to disagree. Fairly strongly.

As a new GM, the amount of work and time spent lovingly writing, crafting, and preparing entire story arcs as well as all the possible forks and environments they can go down, RPGs are absolutely a hobby in my eyes. They even still allow for modelling/painting if that's what you base your definition on.

I think he's trying to say that "GW" is a hobby, but D+D is not.

Because D+D is a part of the RPG hobby, yet, because reasons, GW is not part of the wargaming hobby?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

GW may disagree with you. First page of content in the BRB says: "At its heart, a game of Warhammer 40,000 is a shared experience between fellow hobbyists."
.

Where is it defined that "hobbyist" is "player and purchaser exclusively of GW products" and not simply "wargamer and modeller."

Why keep arguing with Talys? His view on the wargaming hobby is his view, he is not going to change it.

I see it clearly games works shop tactical marines 40$ 10 marines
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Space-Marine-Tactical-Squad

Valkir heavy troopers 59$ 20 troopers
http://dreamforge-games.com/collections/everything/products/eisenkern-valkir-heavy-trooper (now on sale for 41.30$)

What I don't understand is this:

Yes, GW figures offers "customization" in the sense that you get X many parts and can build what you like. My argument to this is that it's an illusion. That customization is basically meaningless; there's zero differentiating an Ultramarine with MkVI armor and a purity seal on his left leg, wielding a boltgun with a Marksman trophy dangling on the edge from an Ultramarine wearing MkVII armor with a studded MkIV-era (or was it MkV? I forget) shoulderpad, a purity seal on his right shoulder and wielding a boltgun with the winged skull or from an Ultramarine wearing MkVII armor with no purity seals, a chestpiece with tubing and a boltgun with the Aquila on it.

These are illusionary choices and are superfluous. You have customization where none is needed, and this is generally used as an excuse to justify high prices (e.g. But I get 75 pieces in the kit! Yes but you can still only make 10 guys. Who cares about 75 pieces?) or disparage other companies e.g. Privateer where you have like 3-4 different torsos, maybe 2-3 different heads and everything else looks identical.

The crux of this issue I think is the difference between someone who "collects 40k miniatures" and someone who "plays Warhammer 40k". The collector is going to care more about being able to customize individual guys in a unit with umpteen different parts so no two are alike. The gamer isn't going to give a monkey's butt about that, because they're all the same on the field, so getting extra parts to make this guy have X markings and this other guy have Y markings is minutiae.

GW definitely wants to cater to the first group (to the exclusion of all else) and that's what is causing the divide. If I'm not mistaken, someone like Talys seems likely to be more of the collector; he (?) wants to have lots of pieces and build Brother Argentum, who fought on Caspia IV and earned a marksmanship award for shooting down Badtoof the Ork Nob, and Brother Remus whose faith is an inspiration to his battle-brothers and always goes to battle adorned with purity seals with litanies of valor, and all the rest. So those individual parts that ultimately mean nothing mean a lot to Talys because it lets him customize what he wants.

To someone who plays the game first and cares about customization second, those bits are irrelevant bits and bobs that might as well not exist and just exist to jack up the cost of an already-expensive kit. You're building 7 Space Marines with boltguns, one with a flamer, one with a missile launcher and a Sergeant with a powerfist, and that's all you're doing. The rest is extras that aren't needed.

That's the difference. The GW price is acceptable to the person who cares about getting 72 pieces in a kit that builds 10 guys because those 72 pieces lets him build 10 unique (or largely unique anyways) guys and each one has a different story, and Brother Argentum is not the same as Brother Remus who is not the same as Sergeant Julian. The GW prices are not acceptable to anyone who cares more about building 10 guys with X/Y/Z weapon options. Neither side is wrong, but both sides need to understand that the price is not "okay", it's just whether or not you accept it.

The collector will, the gamer will (probably) not. The underlying problem is that GW only cares about the former, and not about the latter while paying lip service to the latter and trying to build a game that caters to both while selling in a way that only caters to the former (e.g. 5 guys in a box when a gamer wants 10, and not providing enough weapon options for the entire squad because a collector is more likely to build one of each rather than double up)

WayneTheGame wrote:
These are illusionary choices and are superfluous. You have customization where none is needed, and this is generally used as an excuse to justify high prices (e.g. But I get 75 pieces in the kit! Yes but you can still only make 10 guys. Who cares about 75 pieces?) or disparage other companies e.g. Privateer where you have like 3-4 different torsos, maybe 2-3 different heads and everything else looks identical.

Well, they're not quite illusionary. They're illusionary if you don't mind your 30 tactical marines to have just 3 styles. If you want your 30 tactical marines to look different from each other, then it's kind of important. There are also three types of customization:

1. The "illusionary" ones -- like rifle scopes, belt accessories, purity seals, grenades, and that kind of thing
2. The WYSIWYG gaming ones -- plasma rifles, lascanons, bolt pistols, and chainswords all do different things in the game
3. The significant pose ones -- Whether a space marine is leaning back and aiming, standing at ready guarding, or leaping into the air (with a jetpack) make models totally different

To a lesser degree, different marks and styles of power armor falls into category 1, although some are quite different from others. For instance, Grey Knights look *totally* different from Iron Hands.

WayneTheGame wrote:
The crux of this issue I think is the difference between someone who "collects 40k miniatures" and someone who "plays Warhammer 40k". The collector is going to care more about being able to customize individual guys in a unit with umpteen different parts so no two are alike. The gamer isn't going to give a monkey's butt about that, because they're all the same on the field, so getting extra parts to make this guy have X markings and this other guy have Y markings is minutiae.

GW definitely wants to cater to the first group (to the exclusion of all else) and that's what is causing the divide. If I'm not mistaken, someone like Talys seems likely to be more of the collector; he (?) wants to have lots of pieces and build Brother Argentum, who fought on Caspia IV and earned a marksmanship award for shooting down Badtoof the Ork Nob, and Brother Remus whose faith is an inspiration to his battle-brothers and always goes to battle adorned with purity seals with litanies of valor, and all the rest. So those individual parts that ultimately mean nothing mean a lot to Talys because it lets him customize what he wants.

To someone who plays the game first and cares about customization second, those bits are irrelevant bits and bobs that might as well not exist and just exist to jack up the cost of an already-expensive kit. You're building 7 Space Marines with boltguns, one with a flamer, one with a missile launcher and a Sergeant with a powerfist, and that's all you're doing. The rest is extras that aren't needed. That's the difference. The GW price is acceptable to the person who cares about getting 72 pieces in a kit that builds 10 guys because those 72 pieces lets him build 10 unique (or largely unique anyways) guys and each one has a different story, and Brother Argentum is not the same as Brother Remus who is not the same as Sergeant Julian. The GW prices are not acceptable to anyone who cares more about building 10 guys with X/Y/Z weapon options. Neither side is wrong, but both sides need to understand that the price is not "okay", it's just whether or not you accept it.

You hit the nail on the head! I think you understand it perfectly. Although, in fairness, I do play probably as much as a lot of casual players (up to 20 hrs a month?). To me the individual parts are valuable to customize the models, because a model is no different than a Dungeons & Dragons character sheet -- there is a story to the character, and eventually, when the model is retired, the model is an epitaph to their glorious deeds. Just like in D&D, the "Character Background" is just as important as Constitution; Charisma is not a wasted stat. I want to have fun with my models, even if they get rolled over by some Ork horde.

I guess, more broadly, I just have fun building or painting scifi stuff, and I don't have much interest in building the same thing over and over again, though I don't mind building variations of the same thing, especially when I can play a game with those variations.

Anyhow, thank you for understanding my viewpoint, even if it's different than yours (and probably a lot of gamers).

WayneTheGame wrote:

The collector will, the gamer will (probably) not. The underlying problem is that GW only cares about the former, and not about the latter while paying lip service to the latter and trying to build a game that caters to both while selling in a way that only caters to the former (e.g. 5 guys in a box when a gamer wants 10, and not providing enough weapon options for the entire squad because a collector is more likely to build one of each rather than double up)

Well, this is a problem for both. I think the vast majority collectors still want to collect useful models that fit the fluff. They might build ONE guy with a heavy bolter because it looks cool, but they sure aren't going to outfit every tactical squad they model with them. And I pretty much guarantee you the heavy bolter guy gets the bits (torso/legs/etc.) that are the least favorite of the bunch The coolest bits go to the grav gun, the plasma, the meltagun, that kind of thing.

It is a particular pain with units like Grotesque, which come in 1s but are played in minimum 3. Of course, when GW gives people all of the weapons options for a box, everyone screams that jetbikes with scatter lasers on each one is massively overpowered, made worse by the fact that they come that way in boxes, so everyone can actually play them that way

I am also very happy to concede that a huge portion of the 40k fanbase doesn't play 40k the way Games Workshop does. I'm as scenario-minded and "narrative" a player as any, and our group doesn't come close to the type of battles that they seem to outline in their "battle reports" (if you can call them that). As a game, 40k has lots of room for improvement. While I might argue that the miniatures are a good deal for modelling, I'd never argue the rules are a good deal for gaming! But still I have a lot of fun with it, shortcomings and all.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Talys wrote:
For example, I do not consider playing D&D a hobby

On that note, we'll have to disagree. Fairly strongly.

As a new GM, the amount of work and time spent lovingly writing, crafting, and preparing entire story arcs as well as all the possible forks and environments they can go down, RPGs are absolutely a hobby in my eyes. They even still allow for modelling/painting if that's what you base your definition on.

Upon reflection, you are probably right. I've never thought of them as a hobby (any more than MMORPGs), even though I have played RPGs dating back to the 80s. But yes, the loving work spent on creating the game world and such, as you put it, most certainly qualifies it as a hobby.

Maybe it's just because most of my RPG groups eventually devolve into an hour of "What do you doooooooooo?" "Let's order pizza!"

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Why keep arguing with Talys? His view on the wargaming hobby is his view, he is not going to change it.

I see it clearly games works shop tactical marines 40$ 10 marines
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Space-Marine-Tactical-Squad

Valkir heavy troopers 59$ 20 troopers
http://dreamforge-games.com/collections/everything/products/eisenkern-valkir-heavy-trooper (now on sale for 41.30$)

I have worked with Dreamforce kits, can't even compare to GW IMO. Did not have fun assembling them, did not enjoy the available poses so on and so forth.

Also why is something that is opinion based being argued? It's an OPINION. Talys I think is arguing against the people stating opinions as facts. Yes x costs more than y. That is objectively true. However the VALUE of x and y are purely subjective to each individual. Saying something is more expensive is pointless without considering the value of what you are comparing. Once again value is not solely in currency.

You compare those heavy troopers to marines, easy enough. However what if I want to trade? I think it would be much easier to trade those marines than the heavy troopers. What about accessibility? Maybe my local game store does not stock it and I prefer to support them. Aesthetics. Maybe those models don't fit with the rest of the GW range or my army/not the size. Maybe they don't look fun for me to paint or pose? Maybe they are not quite the right size giving me an advantage/disadvantage in game?

What if more actual models is a burden and so I need fewer models to go farther rather than more models? With the marine kit I can magnetize all the options so that I don't have to make a marine for each option. Now those 10 marines in the kit could count as 15+ models in my collection that I would have had to assemble and paint otherwise. Also reduces my storage. Now because of those options I can now travel easier with my army, bringing multiple lists and options with me using the same models. Combined with the electronic codexs on my iPad and the new GW cases I can actually travel very light with a full army with many options.

All of these things can factor in for me when looking at a model range.

Once again price is objective, value is subjective.

Without having a shared definition of what a war gaming hobby, or just a hobby in general is then a conversation of what constitutes one or the other is also pointless.

No, I'm not trying to argue something subjective is "wrong" because it doesn't align with my view (can't speak for anyone else, obviously) I'm saying that one cannot put forward one's own personal experience as a support for a view when one's experience differs widely from they typical.

One cannot say "x is better than all other examples of its type" then respond to "here's y" with "ah, but y doesn't have the a that x has" when a was never part of the original conversation either.

It's fine to like things, but if you try and justify them rather than simply be content to proclaim your liking of those things, expect people to examine your justification and challenge it where they feel it warrants challenge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Leth wrote:

Without having a shared definition of what a war gaming hobby, or just a hobby in general is then a conversation of what constitutes one or the other is also pointless.

Seriously?

If you need these things defined for you, this probably isn't the discussion for you.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, I'm not trying to argue something subjective is "wrong" because it doesn't align with my view (can't speak for anyone else, obviously) I'm saying that one cannot put forward one's own personal experience as a support for a view when one's experience differs widely from they typical.

One cannot say "x is better than all other examples of its type" then respond to "here's y" with "ah, but y doesn't have the a that x has" when a was never part of the original conversation either.

It's fine to like things, but if you try and justify them rather than simply be content to proclaim your liking of those things, expect people to examine your justification and challenge it where they feel it warrants challenge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Leth wrote:

Without having a shared definition of what a war gaming hobby, or just a hobby in general is then a conversation of what constitutes one or the other is also pointless.

Seriously?

If you need these things defined for you, this probably isn't the discussion for you.

If we had a shared definition then group membership would be clear cut, but it is not, That is my point. Without having a strict set of inclusion and exclusion criteria arguing is or isn't is pointless. It's like arguing semantics while speaking a different dialect.

I also included in my post(that you decided not to quote) things covering my subjective preference. I have no problem being challenged when it is presented as an inquiry. What I don't like is being challenged and insulted for my preference.

Secondly in your example there is no way to directly compare x and y outside of very few objective metrics. The rest of the comparisons are subjective and so any direct comparison is flawed from the start.

What does the price of a war machine model matter if it doesn't help me play the game I want to play. I bought a full cryx army, enjoyed the models, did not like the game at all. Regardless of price those models were less valuable to me because I did not enjoy playing with them.

Same token I bought a grey Knights army, enjoyed them for a little bit but then did not enjoy playing them. They lost their value and so I traded them. It is not system specific.

I have thought about starting infinity or malifaux, great models. However I am intimidated by the infinity models for painting, I am not as much of a fan of the aesthetic and I just don't have the ability to start and learn multiple new games right now, much less become good enough to play them well.

Just because it is not for me does not mean I feel the need to insult other people's choices. I recognize that other people place different values on other things than I do and I respect that. All I ask is the same in return.

 Leth wrote:


If we had a shared definition then it would be clear cut what is and isn't. That is my point, without having a strict set of inclusion and exclusion criteria arguing one is or isn't does not make sense.

hobby1
ˈhɒbi/Submit
noun
1.
an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure.
"her hobbies are reading and gardening"
synonyms: pastime, leisure activity, leisure pursuit, leisure interest, amateur interest, sideline, diversion, avocation, divertissement, enthusiasm; recreation, relaxation, entertainment, amusement; informalthing
"her hobbies are reading and gardening"

Leth wrote:Secondly in your example there is no way to directly compare x and y outside of very few objective metrics. The rest of the comparisons are subjective and so any direct comparison is flawed from the start.

Of course there is.

You say "show me a plastic kit that has as many pieces as a GW kit for less money."

This is an objective measurement, a clear set of criteria it's easy to compare.

I say "sure, here's this kit, it has x pieces which is the same as y GW kit, but it costs z% less."

I have, objectively, provided evidence to fulfil your demand.

It is then unacceptable to turn around and say "ah, but I didn't mean that sort of kit" after the fact. Which is essentially what Talys did and what sparked this tangent.

You might as well just ask "show me another company that is making a plastic kit which look like GW Space Marines, but cost less, and BTW I have to like them as much as GW SM." Which would be more up front and would save us all wasting a bunch of our time.

Just because it is not for me does not mean I feel the need to insult other people's choices. I recognize that other people place different values on other things than I do and I respect that. All I ask is the same in return.

I'm not seeing many insults, I'm seeing people expressing a preference, feeling compelled to justify the preference and then getting defensive when people challenge their justifications.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Leth wrote:


If we had a shared definition then it would be clear cut what is and isn't. That is my point, without having a strict set of inclusion and exclusion criteria arguing one is or isn't does not make sense.

hobby1
ˈhɒbi/Submit
noun
1.
an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure.
"her hobbies are reading and gardening"
synonyms: pastime, leisure activity, leisure pursuit, leisure interest, amateur interest, sideline, diversion, avocation, divertissement, enthusiasm; recreation, relaxation, entertainment, amusement; informalthing
"her hobbies are reading and gardening"

I may be going out in a limb here, but would the "wargaming hobby" be a pastime that fulfils the above criteria whilst doing some,thing in and around wargaming?

I mean, call me crazy!

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion, Leth.

You're arguing symantics, now.

It's a good line of thinking to ask for a comparison, it doesn't hold to move the goal when some shows you one.

Another case in point is Vic's miniatures. Her quality is well ahead of the curve for the price.

When someone calls all people who do x a negative, I do x, they are saying something negative about me. Also the condescending tone can be insulting as well. As if you were talking down to a child.

Also great, anything can count as a hobby. So if that is the definition then what is the point of even talking about it?

I never moved the goal so I am not sure what you are referencing.

Yes Vic has great quality and if I was just collection models to collect models then they might be in the running if it weren't for other companies like raging Heros.

Sorry, there's a lot of rant there dude and not a lot of content.

The point of talking about it is that "Warhammer" is not a hobby in and of itself, that's just GW marketing doublespeak and needs to be addressed whenever people start to get drawn into that way of thinking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You're also taking a lot of stuff which was directed at another person's posts as if they were directed at you. Probably best you don't do that for the sake of your continued sanity.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Sorry, there's a lot of rant there dude and not a lot of content.

The point of talking about it is that "Warhammer" is not a hobby in and of itself, that's just GW marketing doublespeak and needs to be addressed whenever people start to get drawn into that way of thinking.

What rant? I am confused as to where you are getting the rant from?

Warhammer according to your definition is a hobby. Anything done in leisure time is a hobby. Warhammer includes all the aspects from building, planning, painting and playing, each component could be considered a hobby. While someone might not engage in all aspects of the Warhammer hobby it is still a hobby none the less

I don't take them as directed at me unless people talk about it in generalities. If you say "x person" then that is one thing, but if you respond to them with "all of x type of people" then it is a generalization

 Azreal13 wrote:
Sorry, there's a lot of rant there dude and not a lot of content.

The point of talking about it is that "Warhammer" is not a hobby in and of itself, that's just GW marketing doublespeak and needs to be addressed whenever people start to get drawn into that way of thinking.

Its actually kinda hilarious if you think about it. It is a subcategory of a hobby but saying its not part of the wider hobby is like saying a poodle is a poodle but not a dog

Sooo... Any idea on what other prices are to be bumped up?!

Since that's what the thread is for and all...

 Leth wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Sorry, there's a lot of rant there dude and not a lot of content.

The point of talking about it is that "Warhammer" is not a hobby in and of itself, that's just GW marketing doublespeak and needs to be addressed whenever people start to get drawn into that way of thinking.

What rant? I am confused as to where you are getting the rant from?

Warhammer according to your definition is a hobby. Anything done in leisure time is a hobby. Warhammer includes all the aspects from building, planning, painting and playing, each component could be considered a hobby. While someone might not engage in all aspects of the Warhammer hobby it is still a hobby none the less

I don't take them as directed at me unless people talk about it in generalities. If you say "x person" then that is one thing, but if you respond to them with "all of x type of people" then it is a generalization

Well, the post before the edit didn't make a lot of sense, and then you went back and added stuff in, which is sometimes a sign that someone is getting worked up and posts without actually fully gathering and expressing their thoughts.

Intentional or not, you're coming over as a bit worked up, so if that's the case, I was just suggesting taking a breath as there's real,y no need.

You keep saying I'm making some sort of generalisation which seems to have offended you, but you're going to have to help me out here, cause I'm not seeing it.

Lord Corellia wrote:
Sooo... Any idea on what other prices are to be bumped up?!

Since that's what the thread is for and all...

Historically the annual GW price hike was everything they sell in one go. It got to the point we could set our watches buy it before GW stopped it in favour of each new kit being more expensive than the last *cough*70AUDfive man boxes*cough*. Now it appears we're just getting both types.

Although maybe I'm just cynical and it will only be the items listed in the OP.

Lord Corellia wrote:
Sooo... Any idea on what other prices are to be bumped up?!

Since that's what the thread is for and all...

Yeah, I saw this thread had amassed a few pages since I saw it last and assumed there was some rumours about the price hike. I want my time back for reading through all these pointless posts

You could have walked away at any time.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Leth wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Sorry, there's a lot of rant there dude and not a lot of content.

The point of talking about it is that "Warhammer" is not a hobby in and of itself, that's just GW marketing doublespeak and needs to be addressed whenever people start to get drawn into that way of thinking.

What rant? I am confused as to where you are getting the rant from?

Warhammer according to your definition is a hobby. Anything done in leisure time is a hobby. Warhammer includes all the aspects from building, planning, painting and playing, each component could be considered a hobby. While someone might not engage in all aspects of the Warhammer hobby it is still a hobby none the less

I don't take them as directed at me unless people talk about it in generalities. If you say "x person" then that is one thing, but if you respond to them with "all of x type of people" then it is a generalization

Well, the post before the edit didn't make a lot of sense, and then you went back and added stuff in, which is sometimes a sign that someone is getting worked up and posts without actually fully gathering and expressing their thoughts.

Intentional or not, you're coming over as a bit worked up, so if that's the case, I was just suggesting taking a breath as there's real,y no need.

You keep saying I'm making some sort of generalisation which seems to have offended you, but you're going to have to help me out here, cause I'm not seeing it.

O not at all, I am trying to type it all on my iPad and it's doing a lot of auto correcting or weird sentence stuff that is not making sense. It also means that I am trying to get my idea across quickly since its kind of annoying to type. I am then going back and re reading some of my stuff and realizing that it doesn't make sense or I am leaving out something necessary for it to flow correctly.

I am 100% open to the idea that it is a carry over from a majority of threads like this where what I am describing has occurred and that it is not the specific poster that I am referring to that has done it, but rather a one off here or there that has tainted my perceptions of the thread overall.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You could have walked away at any time.

But you normally assume when a *rumours* thread clocks up several pages in a day that there might be, oh, I dunno, maybe some discussion of the rumours or possibly even a new rumour

Maybe we should start a new thread "Is GW overpriced and what is the definition of a hobby" ??

 Azreal13 wrote:
You could have walked away at any time.

You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave after reading through this one.
Just going to go on ahead and put it out there, that other companies figures are out there. They can be used in addition to the game components inherent for the game. Any game works the same way.
You could play it with green army men if you so choose.
Wargaming is the hobby. Not companies inherent products.
GW uses basic level sales to push product, make a sale, and make a profit. They didn't invent the tabletop gaming industry. They use the perceived value to justify the price hikes. You don't have to like it, at the end of the day, it is what it is. If I crank out a 2 buck sprue, and charge you 10 for it, it's a profit.

Other then that, the price hike is more then likely going to come in both the new stuff coming out, and circular through the year as we get dazed with more diamonds.
Price for the walking tank is up to 60 bucks, local from my FLGS.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You could have walked away at any time.

But you normally assume when a *rumours* thread clocks up several pages in a day that there might be, oh, I dunno, maybe some discussion of the rumours or possibly even a new rumour

Maybe we should start a new thread "Is GW overpriced and what is the definition of a hobby" ??

Already there. It's an ongoing theme.

 Leth wrote:

Spoiler:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Why keep arguing with Talys? His view on the wargaming hobby is his view, he is not going to change it.

I see it clearly games works shop tactical marines 40$ 10 marines
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Space-Marine-Tactical-Squad

Valkir heavy troopers 59$ 20 troopers
http://dreamforge-games.com/collections/everything/products/eisenkern-valkir-heavy-trooper (now on sale for 41.30$)

I have worked with Dreamforce kits, can't even compare to GW IMO. Did not have fun assembling them, did not enjoy the available poses so on and so forth.

Also why is something that is opinion based being argued? It's an OPINION. Talys I think is arguing against the people stating opinions as facts. Yes x costs more than y. That is objectively true. However the VALUE of x and y are purely subjective to each individual. Saying something is more expensive is pointless without considering the value of what you are comparing. Once again value is not solely in currency.

You compare those heavy troopers to marines, easy enough. However what if I want to trade? I think it would be much easier to trade those marines than the heavy troopers. What about accessibility? Maybe my local game store does not stock it and I prefer to support them. Aesthetics. Maybe those models don't fit with the rest of the GW range or my army/not the size. Maybe they don't look fun for me to paint or pose? Maybe they are not quite the right size giving me an advantage/disadvantage in game?

What if more actual models is a burden and so I need fewer models to go farther rather than more models? With the marine kit I can magnetize all the options so that I don't have to make a marine for each option. Now those 10 marines in the kit could count as 15+ models in my collection that I would have had to assemble and paint otherwise. Also reduces my storage. Now because of those options I can now travel easier with my army, bringing multiple lists and options with me using the same models. Combined with the electronic codexs on my iPad and the new GW cases I can actually travel very light with a full army with many options.

All of these things can factor in for me when looking at a model range.

Once again price is objective, value is subjective.

Without having a shared definition of what a war gaming hobby, or just a hobby in general is then a conversation of what constitutes one or the other is also pointless.

I rest my case, i have put together GW kits since the 90's as well as the dreamforge kits, and the only thing that is different is that GW kits do not require much skill, and the Dreamforge ones need a little more skill, still less than when you go into bandai HG or Tamiya kits.

What i tried to point out is that certain people will NOT change their view even if you come with reasonable arguments or examples.

So what ever i say or point out will not change your view. I am heavily invested in the GW "HHHobby" but i know (and buy)that are things from other companies that are cheaper and/or have better quality than GW.
One simple reason to see that GW is getting too expensive is by seeing how many recasts are available on GW products compared to the other makers.

When a conversation is degenerating into a last-word competition, it's probably at an end.....

 Blacksails wrote:
The simple fact is that other companies can produce multi-part plastic kits with as much technical skill as GW for roughly half the cost or even cheaper.

Some of them use injection moulding technology that makes GW's look like rock carvings. Bandai have kits with multi-coloured plastic sprues and moving parts; they must be using slide-moulds or something but I can't even figure out how they do it. But they still managed to come in much cheaper even after international shipping.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
I am being perfectly honest when I say, there are no companies that produce company-scale scifi model collections with the versatility of GW factions, aesthetic notwithstanding. Disagree? Give me a link. Just one!

But since it's science fiction, why are you confining yourself to a single source? You can buy GW mini's to field in Deadzone, or Foundry mini's to field in 40K. You keep talking about the range of GW, but if you combine *everything* you'll get a much bigger range and something more suited to you personal tastes.

I mean, I get that you've got no interest in anything based on history, but that doesn't mean historic mini's can't be used as conversion fodder, or that historic mini's somehow don't count for comparisons (even if they are sculpted by the same people, using the same techniques, and cast in the same way). It's not that historics are cheaper to make - there's potentially more research involved in making sure it's correct (because historics have more rivet counters than sci-fi) - it's just that there's no restrictions on use and they tend to be built for larger games. Perry mini's are a good example at a pretty round 50p/mini. Sculpted by the guys who did most of the LOTR/Hobbit stuff for GW, using Renedra for the casting, but done with the intention of fielding *huge* armies. Like, 400+ mini's a side armies on 12' tables. That's still only £200/side in minis at RRP.

There are also plenty of "wargamers" that play multiple games. I have armies for: 40K, Fantasy, Malifaux, Bolt Action, Flames Of War, Roman-era 28mm, Spartan=era 15mm, Steampunk, and no doubt a few I've forgotten about. So there's plenty of overlap between genres for most people and you must be aware that you're sci-fi only interest and huge throughput are somewhat unique.

@Jehan-reznor -- I have nothing at all against Dreamforge. I own a few Eisenkern sets and a Leviathan, and I hope they succeed.

It's funny you should say that DF kits "require more skill", because that's just code for, "the parts don't fit perfectly". With GW plastic kits, we get irritated if two pieces don't fit to the fraction of a millimeter. It's only ironic because that leads into the whole "quality" thing. But anyhow, that conversation is a total waste of time.

I certainly agree that you get more parts and more models per dollar from Dreamforge (ergo: better value, for sure). However, I don't think their kits offer as much as GW kits if you take price out of the equation. In other words, if you have a shelf with all the GW human bits and a shelf with all the Dreamforge human bits, the unique looking stuff you can build out of the GW collection just stomps the DF collection.

That leads to two things: first, and most obviously, DF's collection is tiny. I mean, it's so tiny, that you can easily buy everything in one trip to the hobby shop. When I decided to get into Dreamforge, that's actually what I did. It was really cool, and then they had nothing new, well, it seemed like forever.

Which is the second problem: they take forever to come out with new stuff. To mean, this is a big turn-off, because new stuff excites me and keeps me going within an ecosystem. Not only does GW's library dwarf DF's, but in 2015, GW has already produced many multiples of brand new models than DF has ever produced since its inception.

Let's count 'em -- Harlequins - several kits, Skitarii - several kits, Cult Mechanicus - several kits, Necron Overlord, Eldar Jetbikes, Autarch and Farseer on Bike, Bloodthirster, 4 assassins, and IK update. Within the next few weeks we'll have several new Space Marine kits. You can't even say they're just rehashed stuff, because AdMech is extremely unique, and like nothing produced by GW or other companies, the Harlequins have lots of new stuff, and the Bloodthirster is totally new.

Look at last year -- everything from Nagash and Treeman Ancient to Imperial Knight and Glotkin. Those are not rehashed models. They are awesome, creative works of art (to me).

For some people, this is a detractor, because "they can't keep up". For me, it's not just cool... it's AWESOME to see an avalanche of kits pumped out at this cadence -- essentially, something new every week. Yeah, I would not be happy if they were just all Rhino chassis tanks. But that clearly isn't the case. No, I can't model everything that GW produces at this rate, but that is a wonderful thing, because it means, there will always be something that I love to work on waiting for me.

For me, I will never be happy with a company that has one sculptor/designer (Dreamforge) as my primary hobby, and while I like supporting small indie companies, and Mark is an awesomely talented fellow, it's just not big enough for me. I don't know if he'll ever grow the company from a design standpoint (since he hasn't in over a decade...). Incidentally, you can't have been modelling Dreamforge kits since the 90s, as the company didn't exist until some time after the change of the millennium.

I think the point Talys was making was that if you want to buy Space Marines, then the only option (other than from some darker, hidden Chinese or Russian corners of the internet, but that's a story for another time..) is to buy them from GW. That will obviously be worth the purchase to someone who wants those things, even if the cost is relatively more if one compares the template of "28mm plastic man with gun".

That's probably a big reason why Fantasy sales appear to have dropped, there are any number of high quality alternatives these days for anyone who wants to make an Empire or Undead army, and they're often substantially cheaper. In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw a WFB army that didn't have miniatures in it from Mantic or Perry. It could also be why GW apparently plan to launch a version of 'historical space marines' if rumours are true, again so that if someone wants to play a game within that universe, only their own higher-priced miniatures will do.

Now, the big question that introduces itself here is where exactly this 'value' lies and how much you rate these miniatures when compared to other miniatures on the market. And this is partly why GW makes every effort to distance its own wargaming miniature and paint line from others within the same industry, perhaps why they don't have any official presence at the biggest international games expos. How much does this price elasticity stretch which will make someone buy one of these things over say an Infinity trooper or a Mantic Corporation guy? Hell, a Maelstrom's Edge trooper? At what point does someone say "jeez, why can't this game be as cheap as the one the guys are playing over there?" This point will probably be different for everyone.

What I think is undeniable is that there are more and more wargamers that have turned to the plethora of other games and miniatures on the market. This is evidenced by the massive growth of the industry over the past 3-4 years and GW's 'holding station' and even decline of sales over the same period.

Herzlos wrote:

But since it's science fiction, why are you confining yourself to a single source? You can buy GW mini's to field in Deadzone, or Foundry mini's to field in 40K. You keep talking about the range of GW, but if you combine *everything* you'll get a much bigger range and something more suited to you personal tastes.

You misunderstand me. I buy tons of stuff from companies other than GW. I don't dislike any other company's offerings, but for my primary hobby, I like the big collection.

Herzlos wrote:
I mean, I get that you've got no interest in anything based on history, but that doesn't mean historic mini's can't be used as conversion fodder, or that historic mini's somehow don't count for comparisons (even if they are sculpted by the same people, using the same techniques, and cast in the same way). It's not that historics are cheaper to make - there's potentially more research involved in making sure it's correct (because historics have more rivet counters than sci-fi) - it's just that there's no restrictions on use and they tend to be built for larger games. Perry mini's are a good example at a pretty round 50p/mini. Sculpted by the guys who did most of the LOTR/Hobbit stuff for GW, using Renedra for the casting, but done with the intention of fielding *huge* armies. Like, 400+ mini's a side armies on 12' tables. That's still only £200/side in minis at RRP.

There are also plenty of "wargamers" that play multiple games. I have armies for: 40K, Fantasy, Malifaux, Bolt Action, Flames Of War, Roman-era 28mm, Spartan=era 15mm, Steampunk, and no doubt a few I've forgotten about. So there's plenty of overlap between genres for most people and you must be aware that you're sci-fi only interest and huge throughput are somewhat unique.

I also have some painted Warhammer Fantasy miniatures, enough Malifaux to be playable, everything in 3 Infinity factions, and about 40% of Privateer Press' miniatures (though only a tiny percentage of that painted). Ironically, I never got into LoTR/Hobbit. I really didn't love the models (even though I loved LoTR, the movie). I bought 1 box of elves and 1 box of riders when they were being cleared out for $10, and that's it Oh, yes, and I have about 150 Reaper miniatures, about half of which are painted. Some, actually pretty good paintjobs.

I'm not a big fan of taking Eisenkern and making them Imperial Guard. I'm just fine with other people doing it, but for myself, I like my 40k units to codex I am willing to make my own meltaguns, but dammit, they better look exactly like real meltaguns. I don't want a stand-in. Besides, why not just model the Eisenkern as Eisenkern, and the Leviathan as a Leviathan?

Because the ethos of GW was (when I started back in the 90's) "Do whatever you think looks cool". Why should my IG look like the codex IG? Why do I need to field bobbleheaded Rambos? Why can't my Sentinels look more like those Star Wars walkers they are a clone of? Why can't I field ewoks as ratlings?
Part of that was also that a lot of units in the codex didn't even have models, but they've fixed that now... by removing entries from the codex.

You certainly collect more than I do, but I take it you prefer things to be in discrete collections i.e. a Dreamforge shelf, a PP shelf, etc, rather than in categories like a sci-fi shelf and a fantasy shelf?

 Talys wrote:
That leads to two things: first, and most obviously, DF's collection is tiny. I mean, it's so tiny, that you can easily buy everything in one trip to the hobby shop. When I decided to get into Dreamforge, that's actually what I did. It was really cool, and then they had nothing new, well, it seemed like forever.

I don't understand why this matters. Can't you just mix and match or do you need to stick to specific companies? I tend to buy the stuff I like as I encounter it regardless of who it's from (my to-do box has stuff from probably 20 manufacturers).

I get that GW's release rate dwarves most individual companies, but it's dwarfed by the sum of all other companies. I literally cannot keep up with the new releases coming out of the hobby and my to-buy list is growing faster than I can spend my money.