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.

If you really want to compare apples to apples look at the price of Dreamforge plastic kits compared to GW.

Their design work is equal to or superior and the the 28mm Leviathan was the best cast plastic kit I had ever seen and may ever see. It was hard to find mold lines on that kit.

 Bottle wrote:
As the painting and modelling side of of the hobby is what I love the most. £22 doesn't seem too bad for a centrepiece model considering the amount of time I would get for modelling and painting the piece (and admiring it once I am done). And I can't wait to get one for my AdMech.

I do though gawk at the price for a "standard" 40k army. But what it tells me is that people should be playing smaller games! For me a 2000 point army is something I will work to collect over many years. Not bulk buy at once.

But that's just my opinion on things, people can play the game how they want.

Indeed, this is my opinion exactly. 22GBP for a centerpiece model doesn't feel expensive at all, because it's not the mean or median price of models. it's the price of ONE model to stare at and admire, and for all your friends to be wowed by its awesomeness.

For me, relative to the amount of time I spend on each model (anywhere from 6 to 100+ hours), I am more interested in having the better model than the cheaper price. Hence my excitement over things like the new Devastator and Assault squads, despite the prices being more.

 Talys wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Yet one is made from injection molded plastic, and the other is resin.

The one made from plastic has a production cost measured in pennies.

Though I am unlikely to buy either, I would consider the Borka to be marginally more reasonable in its pricing.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* The bear seems to do a better job of filling its base, as well. Why is the GW figure on a 50mm. base, anyway?

Borka is way more expensive than Dominus (40%), though I assure you neither model is priced based on material costs -- which is pennies in both cases. As a relative percentage to the sale price, the cost of the plastic or resin is virtually zero. Both are priced being based on being great sculptures. If you read the PP forums, people are begging for injection molded plastic (and this is the direction of PP).

Dominus fills out his 50mm base nicely. In 40k, the alternative would be a 40mm base, and he would be too big for the base.

To pick another "smaller" 50mm base miniature that I love, Bradigus is also $35, and if you take away the cape (which is just a very simple piece of resin) the miniature is quite small:



And this 40mm base Scaverous, actually belongs on a 50mm base (IMO), and is $40:


Anyways, my point is simple -- why is a well-sculpted 40mm-50mm warcaster in the $40 - $60 range NOT too expensive, when the same price for a 40k HQ is too expensive? My answer is that neither is too expensive. You only buy one for your whole army, so the true cost of the model for PP or GW is high (few sales compared to opportunity costs of modelling it, since every AdMech player will probably buy just 1). I would rather have an expensive, spectacular HQ unit, than a cheap, unspectacular one.

Having worked with resin - the cost of Borka likely is measured in dollars - though not a lot of them. (2 or 3 dollars worth of resin.)

Borka fills his base - and only the DRAMATIC! POSING!!! style posing allows Dominous to look good on the 40mm base, let alone the 50mm base he comes on. (In case you couldn't guess - I do not like the posing on Dominus, at all. I feel that he would have been better at about the same size as my good friend Fabius Vile.)

By comparison, Borka's pose is dynamic - and looks like he has been caught in the middle of an action, rather than trying to fill up a base that is too large for him.

And, as I said - I think that Borka is only marginally the more reasonably priced of the two. (Better pose, better material, and bigger impact on his game, but a lot more expensive.)

I would not purchase either - but Borka is still the better of the two.

Dominus actually combines several of the problems that I have with recent GW figures. I do not consider him well sculpted - and rather suspect that he started as a smaller miniature and was scaled up to a larger size to have a more expensive model. On a smaller scale... I might have liked him more.

And while I do not like Dominus, he is still a better buy than what they did with Naggaroth for Warhammer.

The Auld Grump - cheap high impact plastic is cheap high impact plastic.

 SickSix wrote:
If you really want to compare apples to apples look at the price of Dreamforge plastic kits compared to GW.

Their design work is equal to or superior and the the 28mm Leviathan was the best cast plastic kit I had ever seen and may ever see. It was hard to find mold lines on that kit.

Dreamforge is great, but the collection is incredibly tiny (you can paint every model they produce in a month), and because it's ONE GUY, the only sculptor will die a happy old man before the collection is a size of significant modelling value.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Yet one is made from injection molded plastic, and the other is resin.

The one made from plastic has a production cost measured in pennies.

Though I am unlikely to buy either, I would consider the Borka to be marginally more reasonable in its pricing.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* The bear seems to do a better job of filling its base, as well. Why is the GW figure on a 50mm. base, anyway?

Borka is way more expensive than Dominus (40%), though I assure you neither model is priced based on material costs -- which is pennies in both cases. As a relative percentage to the sale price, the cost of the plastic or resin is virtually zero. Both are priced being based on being great sculptures. If you read the PP forums, people are begging for injection molded plastic (and this is the direction of PP).

Dominus fills out his 50mm base nicely. In 40k, the alternative would be a 40mm base, and he would be too big for the base.

To pick another "smaller" 50mm base miniature that I love, Bradigus is also $35, and if you take away the cape (which is just a very simple piece of resin) the miniature is quite small:



And this 40mm base Scaverous, actually belongs on a 50mm base (IMO), and is $40:


Anyways, my point is simple -- why is a well-sculpted 40mm-50mm warcaster in the $40 - $60 range NOT too expensive, when the same price for a 40k HQ is too expensive? My answer is that neither is too expensive. You only buy one for your whole army, so the true cost of the model for PP or GW is high (few sales compared to opportunity costs of modelling it, since every AdMech player will probably buy just 1). I would rather have an expensive, spectacular HQ unit, than a cheap, unspectacular one.

Having worked with resin - the cost of Borka likely is measured in dollars - though not a lot of them. (2 or 3 dollars worth of resin.)

Borka fills his base - and only the DRAMATIC! POSING!!! style posing allows Dominous to look good on the 40mm base, let alone the 50mm base he comes on. (In case you couldn't guess - I do not like the posing on Dominus, at all. I feel that he would have been better at about the same size as my good friend Fabius Vile.) *EDIT* For the record - Bradigus shares the problem of DRAMATIC!! POSING!!!. He does not need a huge base, either.

By comparison, Borka's pose is dynamic - and looks like he has been caught in the middle of an action, rather than trying to fill up a base that is too large for him.

And, as I said - I think that Borka is only marginally the more reasonably priced of the two. (Better pose, better material, and bigger impact on his game, but a lot more expensive.)

I would not purchase either - but Borka is still the better of the two.

Dominus actually combines several of the problems that I have with recent GW figures. I do not consider him well sculpted - and rather suspect that he started as a smaller miniature and was scaled up to a larger size to have a more expensive model. On a smaller scale... I might have liked him more.

And while I do not like Dominus, he is still a better buy than what they did with Naggaroth for Warhammer.

The Auld Grump - cheap high impact plastic is cheap high impact plastic.

 Talys wrote:

 Dendarien wrote:
In regards to PP pricing vs GW you also need to consider the in-game value for each model relative to their respective game systems. I'm not super familiar with WMH, but a Warcaster or even a big solo is going to make a considerable impact on your army list. The Dominus will certainly add value to your army as well, but not on the same level as a WMH solo or caster.

The hobby is wargaming, not warmodeling, warconverting or warpainting. Gaming is what allowed GW and other companies to grow to the size they are. It's obvious not even GW really believes their "we cater to an incredibly small niche of collectors." Look at the amount of rules they sell now, it's more than any game system I've ever heard of.

Nope, I wholeheartedly disagree. The hobby is what you make of it: whether it's gaming, painting, converting, modelling, or simply collecting brand new boxes.

Games Workshop's attitude is that 40k is a game for like-minded hobbyists. The whole ecosystem, and the White Dwarf magazine is as dedicated to painting as it is to modelling as it is to the game. For instance, from a game perspective, what does it matter what the difference is between a Mk VI and Mk IV armor? Or from a space marine in a robe versus one in a plain Mk7 armor versus one in an artificed armor? For that matter, from a *wargaming* perspective, why not just use paper cutouts on round bases for all miniature-based games?

Of course, in a game with 25 miniatures, your one centerpiece model will make more impact, than a game where the median army size is 3 times larger, and the table is almost 2 times larger. In a game with 8 miniatures, each miniature has even more game value, so should each miniature be sold at a price of 4x more? That logic just doesn't make any sense at all, except to say that for some people, 40k is too expensive a game because it requires too many miniatures.

I just disagree with the premise that a model is should sell for more money because it has a bigger impact on the game. A model should sell for more money if it's a fancier model, and it's a smaller run with less sell-through potential. A model should sell for less money if it's a more basic model, and it's a bigger run, because the company is going to sell a hundred times as many. If it were my company, this is how I would price it.

I should start by correcting my stance a little. Painting, modeling, etc. are of course hobbies and are also part of the greater hobby we call "wargaming." In my personal experience, most people buy models because they intend to use them in a game system. Of course the other aspects like collecting and painting come alongside that for many, but for most the heart of this hobby is putting our little toy soldiers on a table and rolling dice. For some people, which seems to be correct in your case, the artistic side of the hobby is what you engage more in. That is of course totally fair and acceptable (and your models look great!), but I think it is a reasonable conclusion that what drives this hobby and the companies producing models is the financial investment of gamers.

Games Workshop got to where they are because they sold models for the games they made, not because some rich elite of collectors and painting machines bought them to put in display cases. "Forging the narrative" and all of this collection marketing speak GW uses is not what their core business was always focused on, and I would argue not even what their core business is focused on today. Yes, their setting and modeling and painting have always been a part, but gaming was at the center of it. Most people bought the models, converted and, painted them to play in the game. Again, if the hobby is not primarily centered around gaming, why does GW flood their flagship product with rulebook after rulebook? GW, despite their best efforts to not know or engage with their consumers, must know that a large percentage (dare I say, majority?) of these consumers buy their models for use in game.

Their competitors are gathering a larger share of the market because they are making games GW abandoned (Epic, Mordheim, Blood Bowl, etc.) or are selling models compatible with 40k/fantasy (Mantic, Dreamforge and so on). And here again we see how gaming drives this hobby, Mantic, PP, Corvus Belli and so on are not growing because they only appeal to painters and collectors. While I do find PPs pricing to be expensive, I think it is easier for people to swallow knowing they only need 1 box or blister to actually put the models on the table as a usable and impactful part of their army. So yes, in a sense, much of the pricing problem for 40k and fantasy is that you need way too many models that cost way too much on a per model basis. My primary game system is Infinity and it is much easier for me to spend 40 dollars for a 5 man link team (Infinity's fancy term for a squad) on a box of 4 Loup-Garous and the sniper blister. This single unit will make up approximately 1/3 of my entire army list and each model can heavily contribute to winning the game. By comparison, a box of 5 assault marines for $41 is not even a full unit most would use in game, nor will each model contribute significantly to winning the game. Sure maybe the sergeant with this powerfist, melta bombs, or someone with a special weapon will make an impact. But the chumps with bolt pistols are really just wound counters who, at best, will typically only kill your enemy's similar wound counters (boyz, guardsmen, etc.).

@Dendarien - I totally agree with your revised position

I think to some degree, Games Workshop sees it too, if the rumors of a Fantasy skirmish game are true. If that takes off, I'm pretty sure they'd make a 40k skirmish game, too.

I totally understand and can sympathize with people who like the 40k universe, but can't possibly find the time to model and paint -- or pay for -- a modern 40k army. If GW is to grow its marketshare (which may or may not be a part of its mission or vision, who knows), I think this is an important issue to tackle.

Aside from the arms race, bigger models, more complexity, and higher prices, people in 2015 as compared to 1990 generally have less time, and generally have less disposable income to spend on entertainment and hobby. These are indisputable facts, as average wages have not kept up with inflation, and the median number of hours people work and commute to make a living have gone up. Whether GW wants to accommodate those changes in the world, or embrace its core fanbase (or seemingly more intelligently, both...) is up in the air.

The obvious solution for GW is to take a page from PP, and have a good game which requires fewer models, and to keep the existing game, to cater to the demographic which enjoys that.

But what do I know!

By the way, thank you very much for the compliment

 Talys wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
If you really want to compare apples to apples look at the price of Dreamforge plastic kits compared to GW.

Their design work is equal to or superior and the the 28mm Leviathan was the best cast plastic kit I had ever seen and may ever see. It was hard to find mold lines on that kit.

Dreamforge is great, but the collection is incredibly tiny (you can paint every model they produce in a month), and because it's ONE GUY, the only sculptor will die a happy old man before the collection is a size of significant modelling value.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the point SickSix was making. GW's model engineering and production quality is poor when compared to what Wargames Factory has been doing working with Dreamforge, Wyrd, Kingdom Death, and others. You can argue aesthetics and the extensive 20+ year GW catalog all you want, but it does not change the fact that GW has largely done little when it comes to evolution or innovation in model manufacturing in the past 10 years. Other companies are the one leading the way, GW is the one falling behind, as they would rather spend their money on dividends, executive salary, and upgrading their website than actually investing in their own business.

To be honest I'm not sure I want a lot of advancement in 28mm figures. Assembling a whole army of infantry that each require about 20 parts would be a nightmare.

Large models like robots and vehicles are a different matter, though, and GW are 25 years behind the curve on those.

 Talys wrote:
@Dendarien - I totally agree with your revised position

I think to some degree, Games Workshop sees it too, if the rumors of a Fantasy skirmish game are true. If that takes off, I'm pretty sure they'd make a 40k skirmish game, too.

I totally understand and can sympathize with people who like the 40k universe, but can't possibly find the time to model and paint -- or pay for -- a modern 40k army. If GW is to grow its marketshare (which may or may not be a part of its mission or vision, who knows), I think this is an important issue to tackle.

Aside from the arms race, bigger models, more complexity, and higher prices, people in 2015 as compared to 1990 generally have less time, and generally have less disposable income to spend on entertainment and hobby. These are indisputable facts, as average wages have not kept up with inflation, and the median number of hours people work and commute to make a living have gone up. Whether GW wants to accommodate those changes in the world, or embrace its core fanbase (or seemingly more intelligently, both...) is up in the air.

The obvious solution for GW is to take a page from PP, and have a good game which requires fewer models, and to keep the existing game, to cater to the demographic which enjoys that.

But what do I know!

By the way, thank you very much for the compliment

Glad to see a response like this. Too often these conversations about GW devolve into shouting matches because people are emotionally tied to their models, hobby, etc. (and there is no judgment in that, I am certainly attached). I think most people, including those who have drifted from GW and those who continue to be customers, would be better served by a more cohesive ruleset and reasonable pricing structure. I think GW would also gain tremendously from focusing on their rules more, engaging with their customers and reconsidering their ever-increasing prices. Re-expanding their business model to compete with the plethora of skirmish, naval and mass battle systems can only help them.

Personally, gaming is what brings me to this hobby. There is something about moving models around, rolling dice and building armylists that is just not satisfied by any other game (CCGs, video games, etc.). I do not buy GW's models anymore, not because they are not great models or simply because of their price, but because I do not enjoy the rules they have been releasing since the end of 5th edition. I absolutely love my orks and still paint them, but the rules have gutted them. To even get back into the game I would be shelling out hundreds for just rules, not to mention the models I will need just to get my orks to the bottom of the dogpile. If GW wrote an amazing ruleset I'd be a lot less sensitive to their prices.

@Dendarien - Yes, it's nice to agree on things For me, it's miniatures first, gaming second, though it wasn't always this way. In the 90's, it was gaming first, and miniatures second. But really, there's no reason both camps can't be equally catered to.

By the way, I don't think cheap prices are a good excuse for poor rules or models, and vice versa. I wouldn't want to play a game that wasn't fun, even if it were cheap, and I wouldn't want to build models I didn't like, just because they cost less. There are just so many interesting things to do in this world, and relatively little time

@Kilkrazy - I think we're almost there in the GW hobby.

The typical basic, modern GW humanoid infantry model consists of, at a minimum - lower torso, upper front, upper back, left arm, right arm, weapon, backpack, head. So 8 pieces for your simplest model. For most space marines, add 2 more for shoulder pads; for some models, add a second weapon (like a pistol in one hand, a sword in another). Mind you, this was also the plastic marine of the late 80's -- it's just that most models produced are like this now, whereas back then, you could buy one-piece metal minis.

There are many optional adornments like belt accessories (pistols, pouches, grenades, knives, etc), banners, pelts, auspex or iron halo -- some have a game function, others are cosmetic.

So, I think we're pretty close to 11-15 pieces for the most basic unit, "fully built". Another way to look at it is that Death Company is a 5 man unit, and contains 94 pieces in the kit (though of course you won't use them all). I don't think the model complexity will shrink, as GW is moving towards scenic bases and 2-part legs.

It actually takes a lot of time and thought to put together something as basic as a tactical squad, if you want it to look nice -- matching shoulder insignia, looking of singular purpose and unified as a squad, without looking "samey", and so on.

If you don't enjoy that kinda thing, yeah, building 2 tactical squads, 3 assault squads and some devastator and centurion squads would really suck... It would be, "give me snapfit or give me death!"

 Talys wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
If you really want to compare apples to apples look at the price of Dreamforge plastic kits compared to GW.

Their design work is equal to or superior and the the 28mm Leviathan was the best cast plastic kit I had ever seen and may ever see. It was hard to find mold lines on that kit.

Dreamforge is great, but the collection is incredibly tiny (you can paint every model they produce in a month), and because it's ONE GUY, the only sculptor will die a happy old man before the collection is a size of significant modelling value.

Your logic is completely backwards. If anything the single guy sculpting all his miniatures and with a smaller catalog should be charging MORE for his product. GW is a multi-hundred million dollar company with an established production system, design system and it's own distribution. Many of their models have been 'paid for' long ago. They should be undercutting every other producer out there!

And size of catalogue has NOTHING to do with detail quality, production quality and price LOL.

 SickSix wrote:
Your logic is completely backwards. If anything the single guy sculpting all his miniatures and with a smaller catalog should be charging MORE for his product. GW is a multi-hundred million dollar company with an established production system, design system and it's own distribution. Many of their models have been 'paid for' long ago. They should be undercutting every other producer out there!

And size of catalogue has NOTHING to do with detail quality, production quality and price LOL.

1. A single person making all the decisions has way less overhead than a large company doing a lot of stuff. Why does the lone programmer cost less per hour than someone with less skill at Accenture? Why does a solo homebuilder/contractor cost less than a large construction company? Why does an independent electrician cost less per hour than the big company that wires up the condo building? There are economies of scale, yes. But generally speaking, a 1-man show is much more efficient than a large corporation with many mouths to feed. The 1-man show can win out on everything except the basis of scale and certainty. If the one guy gets hit by a bus or wins a lottery, that line of products has a good chance of ending.

2. Size of catalog has EVERYTHING to do with detail quality, production quality and price:

- It's MUCH harder to make a hundred plus new models a year designed by a team of people over 30+ years to be consistent in theme, continuity, and quality, than a couple of models each year designed by 1 guy.
- As you use molds, they degrade. The more times you use it, the poorer the cast. So small run companies (like Forge World) will have fewer mold lines and better casts than mass produced product.
- A large catalog is really expensive to produce, stock and distribute. The easiest way to save on prices is to have fewer SKUs, and sell more of a smaller number of sets.

That being said, frankly, none of this I really care about, because none these things are is my problem. I like modelling cool stuff, and I like having cool stuff to model. With Dreamforge, as I said, after 1-2 months of fun, everything is built and painted, and then it sits in a display case for 3 years, before there are enough models to give another couple of weeks of fun. The release cadence is just not suitable for me to carry as a primary hobby. It doesn't mean I won't buy their stuff, it just means it can't keep me busy.

I have great respect for Mark Mondragon.

So much fallacy so little time.

There's quite a bit here, and I'd normally multi quote and respond to each point, but it's late and I'm tired, so..

Whoever said the thing about the legality of GW refusing to supply third parties who deep discount? Don't be so naive. They don't refuse to supply on those grounds, they find some other reason, manufacture one if needed. I think one could even argue they've made wholesale changes to their Trade Terms in order to get the result they want. I can't decide against employing a woman on the grounds that she is female, or not attractive, or any other gender reason. I simply declare I don't feel she'd be a good fit in the company and unless I'm an utter moron and spew the real reason everywhere, no one can prove any different.

Secondly, the point several have made about "prices aren't important, I don't pay RRP." For heavens sake, basic maths people! 20% discount on £50 is still a greater total than 20% discount on £45, just because you've convinced yourselves that you've somehow mitigated the cost doesn't mean you're unaffected.

Incidentally, these are price rises on products that are produced, designed and manufactured for approx 1/4 of RRP. Double the traditional retail mark up. These are also prices that, in the main, are derived from petrochemicals, when the price of crude is at a decently low price, and lower than it has been than over the last several years. In addition to all this, this is a price rise when UK inflation is in the negative for the first time in over half a century.

There is no justification for the rise outside of GW's inefficiencies, inadequacies or greed, all masked under the guise of giving Malibu Stacey a new hat.

Finally, GW IS NOT A HOBBY!

@Az - People sue for that getting terminated because of illegal reasons and win all the time. But anyhow, there are TONS of stores that sell at 25% discount, including the best known, DarkSphere. Why would GW care if one store discounted 25% while others don't? I'm not saying it doesn't happen; I'm wondering why they would do such a thing.

In my area, within 20 minutes driving distance of a GW store, there are 3 stores that discount between 10% and 25% (some have a "volume" thing going, so if you buy more you get a bigger discount). Nobody other than GW has a walk-in price of retail.

Now, of course MSRP prices are important. However, as I pointed out, as the years (decades) have progressed, the stores I shop at have gone from no discount to upwards of 30%. The reason is because on the bigger ticket items, they make more money per sale, and they just are able to discount them more heavily. In 1990, I didn't know of any store that discounted 25% for walk-in. If this doesn't happen in your neighbourhood, I'm sorry for you, man.

The justification of raising prices is profit maximization, which in a free market system, is something that most companies endeavor to do. Why does maximizing the profit on their new product make them any greedier than any other company? It's not just Ferraris and Chanels, man. Nike does the same thing every year with their shoes. Nestle does it with your shrinking chocolate bars and rising prices every year. Lays does it with potato chips, and Maxwell House coffee tins shrink as the price rises. Do you think those shoes made in China at slave-labour wages have the savings passed on to you, or do you think they sell cross-trainers at the highest price that the market will bear? When a Reeses Peanut Butter Cups shrink, are those savings in manufacture on to you? Nope. Outside of a short sale period to promote the new product, the price goes up.

If you don't like the way the world works, I get it. But you're kinda stuck with it, and it's not just GW.

Finally, nobody is disputing that GW models are expensive. I've merely pointed out that there are PP models that have just as wide a profit margin, that don't cost more to produce -- not in a material way, anyhow -- and they don't get the same angst.

Yeah, people sue all the time.

Firstly, they don't win all the time, and secondly, you really are being naive if you think every job you didn't get was purely and simply because there was a better candidate. (Well, maybe not in your very specific case, but it happens all the time.)

I can tell you this because I've been involved with recruitment and have witnessed it. Mostly on the side of skills winning out, I'm glad to say.

I've even resigned from a job because a candidate was hired for his looks over another candidate who had direct relevant experience. The appointment was not my decision in that case, but I had input, and it turned out to be so disastrous that it cost me money as a consequence in lost bonuses.

It happens all the time and it's only the really dumb people who give others sufficient reason to even suspect, let alone enough to sue.

How exactly is a price rise profit maximisation when their profits are shrinking? It only counts as profit maximisation when, you know, profits are maximised. If you're driving away your customers because prices are too high all it is is a dumb idea. Doubly so when prevailing economic conditions don't support it.

As for PP? Well, hasn't that discussion been done to death, but it boils down to the fact that people don't care because PP act like they give a gak.

@Az - Oh, I misunderstood. Sure, lots of people are selected for reasons other than merit; the workplace surely is not a meritocracy. But nobody ever said you had to hire the smartest or hardest working candidate either; a lot of unbiased employers will hire someone based on their personality, a better connection, or whatever.

On the other hand, firing someone for a bad reason is a good way to be sued or taken to the labor dispute board (or equivalent) in a first world nation. I think that's a better analogy to GW axing a distributor for discounting. In most jurisdictions, there's a way to get rid of an employee without actually firing them, too. I mean, you don't have to hold on to someone you don't like, for whatever reasons, forever -- unless it's a union.

Going back to profit maximization, I didn't say that GW is successful at it I don't know to be truthful -- perhaps, even if they lowered their price, they would make even less, because no matter what, people would STILL buy other stuff instead. I have no idea. I'm just saying that they aren't particularly greedy (anymore than any other company) for wanting to make the most money they can.

And yeah, PP may "feel" like they give a crap about their players, but it doesn't much change what I can buy at the store and how much it costs I know that a lot of people have a hard time having fun with GW rules, so I certainly can't fault those people for not liking GW; that just isn't the case in our group. Not that we play every 40k rule exactly as written (does anyone?); the rules are just not a hindrance to our fun.

It's a fairly normal state of affairs that your average consumer is happier to pay a premium for a variety of reasons, one of which is they feel the manufacturer or retailer warrants their support for some reason. PP tap into this very successfully, whether one personally believes it to be genuine enthusiasm or cynical capitalism, much like Apple, it doesn't really matter.

Oh, and "the rules aren't a hindrance to our fun" is the greatest damning with faint praise of a GW product I've read in some time. The rules should really be supporting or enhancing your fun when you meet up to play a game, don't you think? I mean I don't count "I went to a restaurant and didn't get food poisoning" to be a great night out. But then I guess it depends how remote the part of Canada you live in is!

LOL Az

It's all what you make of the game, man. I played AD&D from the ages of 10 - 25 pretty much religiously, LOVED the game, but we teaked all sorts of rules.
When Rogue Trader came out, there weren't even (real) lists. Players made their own.

So, I guess I just herald from the days of yesteryear when a rulebook was just a bunch of words on a piece of paper, and if you didn't like it, you changed it. Our group (which includes people from approx 18 - 55, plus some of their girlfriends who come and play once in a blue moon) doesn't treat 40k like a video game, and have no issue with rules coming out of the box not optimal for our gaming scene. Sometimes, when a person has a really nice model they like to play, but it's just crappy weak in the codex, we'll do our own buff to it. And tone it down in a couple of weeks if it doesn't work out. When I say that we tweak the rules, it's not an indictment of the game, for us. It just means that we don't take 40k rules -- or any other game we play, for that matter -- as gospel that can never be changed for the benefit of our entertainment.

Again, I know this isn't everyone situation, and if you want something that's more straightforward, with relatively clean rules that you can just pull out of the box and play... 40k is just the wrong game. And yeah, in a lot of situations, to make the game work competitively, you have to tweak it -- but obviously, some people have done this (ITC for instance).

I wouldn't care about the rules being gak if they weren't priced as if they were well-designed.

That's the problem with "houserule 40K". If I'm going to basically just be making up my own rules, why am I paying top dollar for theirs?

If 40K's rules were just PDF's that you download for free from GW's website, no one would ever complain about their lack of of value.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I wouldn't care about the rules being gak if they weren't priced as if they were well-designed.

That's the problem with "houserule 40K". If I'm going to basically just be making up my own rules, why am I paying top dollar for theirs?

If 40K's rules were just PDF's that you download for free from GW's website, no one would ever complain about their lack of of value.

If the free PDFs were fun to play, then yeah, nobody would complain about the lack of value. However, if they didn't provide a fun framework (modified or not), then they'd be as worthless as their price.

I guess this is what I mean my rules being fun for us -- what comes in the codices and in the BRB is pretty cool stuff. Our group has in common that we love the 40k game world, and the art, and fluff and all that, and we actually like about 99% of the rules. We drool and things like the cool robot pope, even if his army isn't all that, and his giant robots look dorky. The little bit that we don't like is just not that big a deal.

Yes, there are a lot of books, and yes, they're expensive, but you surely don't need to buy *every one*. For most people, I think a $20 (or free) mini rule book plus 2 codex (max) for about $50 -- less whatever discounts -- should do the trick. If you can't have fun with that, whether the total price is $25 or $125 really won't help either way... because you'll just be wasting $25 and more importantly, your time afterwards.

 Talys wrote:
If the free PDFs were fun to play, then yeah, nobody would complain about the lack of value. However, if they didn't provide a fun framework (modified or not), then they'd be as worthless as their price.

The rules are worthless and unplayable whether they're free or not, and GW has not shown anyone that they're capable of changing that...in fact the game is just getting worse. So if I had to choose between free .pdf's of unplayable rules or paying $200+ for the bare minimum I need while still getting the same worthless, unplayable crap for rules then I know what I'd rather have.

At least then some of the GW faithful would actually have something to back up these constant accusations of being whiny or "entitled" when complaining about GW's poor product. "You can't complain about the free rules, you got what you paid for!"

 Talys wrote:
LOL Az

It's all what you make of the game, man. I played AD&D from the ages of 10 - 25 pretty much religiously, LOVED the game, but we teaked all sorts of rules.
When Rogue Trader came out, there weren't even (real) lists. Players made their own.

So, I guess I just herald from the days of yesteryear when a rulebook was just a bunch of words on a piece of paper, and if you didn't like it, you changed it. Our group (which includes people from approx 18 - 55, plus some of their girlfriends who come and play once in a blue moon) doesn't treat 40k like a video game, and have no issue with rules coming out of the box not optimal for our gaming scene. Sometimes, when a person has a really nice model they like to play, but it's just crappy weak in the codex, we'll do our own buff to it. And tone it down in a couple of weeks if it doesn't work out. When I say that we tweak the rules, it's not an indictment of the game, for us. It just means that we don't take 40k rules -- or any other game we play, for that matter -- as gospel that can never be changed for the benefit of our entertainment.

Again, I know this isn't everyone situation, and if you want something that's more straightforward, with relatively clean rules that you can just pull out of the box and play... 40k is just the wrong game. And yeah, in a lot of situations, to make the game work competitively, you have to tweak it -- but obviously, some people have done this (ITC for instance).

This post made me think. It really did. The conclusion I came to is that the 'you get out what you put in' mindset is complete BS. I could sit down and put a lot of effort into rebuilding the rules in a way that would be fun to play imo, but I'd never be able to find an opponent.

I'd be changing the game drastically so although my local GW redshirt is a cool guy and would probably allow me to play it in store I would not try to force it on people there looking for pick up games of 40k. That's unfair on them and impractical to actually teach the game at the table.

I could take it to the local warhammer club but I do not like those guys (or rather I should say I dislike the club and everything about how it is run). I stopped going there a year or two ago because they had 0 interest in other games and where all the kind of players to jump on the latest cheese filled netlist.

There is a new group I do play with regularly but none of them have any interest in GW games or products and I doubt even half of them have ever assembled a GW model as a lot of them are new to the hobby and we play x wing and warmahordes fairly exclusively.

The final option I have is my roommate, who likes the setting but not the rules, likes narrative campaigns and is generally exactly the kind of person I'd want to do a project like this with... But has already turned it down as only playing each other and only 2 person map based campaigns sound like they'd get boring quickly to him.


The entire argument of being able to fix the rules becomes irrelevant if you're not lucky enough to have a sufficiently large group of like minded people.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Talys wrote:
If the free PDFs were fun to play, then yeah, nobody would complain about the lack of value. However, if they didn't provide a fun framework (modified or not), then they'd be as worthless as their price.

The rules are worthless and unplayable whether they're free or not, and GW has not shown anyone that they're capable of changing that...in fact the game is just getting worse. So if I had to choose between free .pdf's of unplayable rules or paying $200+ for the bare minimum I need while still getting the same worthless, unplayable crap for rules then I know what I'd rather have.

At least then some of the GW faithful would actually have something to back up these constant accusations of being whiny or "entitled" when complaining about GW's poor product. "You can't complain about the free rules, you got what you paid for!"

I guess it is a good thing for people like me who enjoy 40k that there are other people who also enjoy the game too =]

Though no doubt it is only in the alternate reality pocket dimension in which I live.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@jonolikespie - you get what you out in has nothing to do with making rules better. It has to do with enjoying the hobby. In other words, if you lovingly craft your models, you'll probably appreciate them more.

In terms of the game it means, the effort you put into a group to make it successful makes or breaks the group. It doesn't imply that you can make something that you see as totally not fun into something awesome by giving it love and attention. For instance, nothing that I can do will make me love golf more. I hate it and hate that I have to participate in it now and then.

If you feel 40k RAW is so different from your idea of a good time, you should pick up another game; there are so many that may be a better fit!! If you think you might like it, but can't find play partners, I dunno, start at an FLGS and try to fire something up. By the way, I picked up the hobby with just 1 friend into it, and it's turned into something that's kept a couple of guys doing the same game from grade school into our forties -- along with a half dozen or so that have joined us along the way. It's really turned into the best of friendships.

 Talys wrote:
Though no doubt it is only in the alternate reality pocket dimension in which I live.

Admitting you live in an alternate dimension is the first step towards phasing back into reality.

 Azreal13 wrote:
So much fallacy so little time.

There's quite a bit here, and I'd normally multi quote and respond to each point, but it's late and I'm tired, so..

Whoever said the thing about the legality of GW refusing to supply third parties who deep discount? Don't be so naive. They don't refuse to supply on those grounds, they find some other reason, manufacture one if needed. I think one could even argue they've made wholesale changes to their Trade Terms in order to get the result they want. I can't decide against employing a woman on the grounds that she is female, or not attractive, or any other gender reason. I simply declare I don't feel she'd be a good fit in the company and unless I'm an utter moron and spew the real reason everywhere, no one can prove any different.

Secondly, the point several have made about "prices aren't important, I don't pay RRP." For heavens sake, basic maths people! 20% discount on £50 is still a greater total than 20% discount on £45, just because you've convinced yourselves that you've somehow mitigated the cost doesn't mean you're unaffected.

Incidentally, these are price rises on products that are produced, designed and manufactured for approx 1/4 of RRP. Double the traditional retail mark up. These are also prices that, in the main, are derived from petrochemicals, when the price of crude is at a decently low price, and lower than it has been than over the last several years. In addition to all this, this is a price rise when UK inflation is in the negative for the first time in over half a century.

There is no justification for the rise outside of GW's inefficiencies, inadequacies or greed, all masked under the guise of giving Malibu Stacey a new hat.

Finally, GW IS NOT A HOBBY!

feeling a little bit condescending and dismissive today, Az??
that post seems a bit harsh...

i can do basic maths, and you are right, getting the same % of discount on a $35 product versus a $30 product still puts me a few bucks more out of pocket, but the addition of new legs, terrain bits, and new weapons (way cooler than Malibu Stacy getting a new hat, imho) makes that a product i will happily pay a few bucks extra for...
there is no need for me to "convince myself that i have somehow mitigated the cost", since the actual cost doesn't matter to me anyway...

i am not effected by a 5 Squid price rise, because i do not FEEL effected by it...
i am still going to buy the product regardless of the fact that a new kit is more expensive than the previous version, simply because i think the new kit looks better than the old one...
if i use up all the money in my pocket, i just go make more...
GW obviously knows what they are doing, because last month i didn't feel the need to buy another box of Assault Marines, but this month i certainly do, and i'm not the only one in this thread saying they are excited about the new kits...

as i clarified before, i don't mind paying retail for something if that is the only option...
my opinion is that someone would be crazy to turn down a discount if it is available, not that the retail price is too expensive...
there is a difference...

i have never once said that i think something is too expensive at RRP, because that doesn't even factor into my logic...
the only question i ever ask myself about any product is, "do i want it???", and "can i get a hook-up???" not "how much does it cost???"...
i don't care about how much something costs, as if i am doing some value versus cost equation in my head...
i go purely on heart and soul, not logic...
all i care about is how cool do i think something is, and how badly do i want it...
in my opinion, money is only there to get cool stuff...
that is the whole purpose to money in my world...

GW may not be a hobby, but collecting and painting miniatures certainly is...
if Space Marines are my favorite thing to collect and paint, does that mean i am doing it wrong???
getting maximum enjoyment out of my time and effort certainly seems to be a worthwhile way to hobby...
i've said it again and again, as much as i love Infinity, Rackham, Ilyad, Studio McVey, PP, and the rest, nothing gets me as excited to paint as a Space Marine mini...
the new sculpts get me even more excited than a 20 year old Marine sculpt, so i am happy about these new kits, and will happily pay a few bucks more for the new ones...

cheers
jah

He's not being condescending. He's just frustrated by wilful blindness (a common symptom when sunlight shines off polished white armour).

 jah-joshua wrote:
i am not effected by a 5 Squid price rise

But it's five whole squid! Do you know how much fried calamari you can make with that?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
He's not being condescending. He's just frustrated by wilful blindness (a common symptom when sunlight shines off polished white armour).

sorry, mate, i don't think i am being wilfully blind, or a White Knight...
i just like what i like, and state that i am fine with paying the price i have to in order to have cool stuff that makes me happy...
i have never said that GW can do no wrong, or that i buy every product they produce, nor been unwilling to praise, buy, and paint the great models produced by other companies...

no need to be so snarky...

cheers
jah

Talys and jah-joshua yes we know you don't mind the prices, and it that it is great value to you.

But the fact of the matter, the amount of people that consider it great value is shrinking, with so many other kickstarter and game systems (Start Wars Armada and x-wing, imperial assault will surely get an upswing after the movie release in December). The gaming world stage is changing, If GW doesn't change their modus operandi others will swing in and claim dominance.