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:

f2k wrote:
The problem with Kill Team is that it really highlights how badly designed the game is.

Quite simply, the rules break down completely at those levels, requiring a lot of fiddling and gentlemen's agreements to get it to work. I think the Heralds of Ruin did a great job with their version, but that's really something that Games Workshop should have done themselves.

And honestly, if you want to play skirmish games there are much better rules out there.

EDIT:

A point I forgot...

There's also the pressure from the players themselves. Many players that I have talked to want to play at 1500+ points so they can have all the goodies in their army. And after all the time and money needed to collect a sizeable army, I can't really blame them. So when a newb comes along and wants to play a Kill Team game, not only does he have to content with a lot of house rules, he also has to find someone who'll actually bother to play such a small game.

I'm not sure if you've ever played Kill Team. And you obviously don't like 40k very much.

40k is optimized around a 6x4 or 8x8 (or larger) table with a lot of terrain and the largest miniature army that a person can practically transport. At it's best, the turns are about half an hour long, and a game is about 3-4 hours, plus some time for setup. This is what the rules are written for - a big game that takes the maximum length of time that the median player is able to play a game for.

Kill team is a subset of the rules where every model moves independently, and although taken as squads, are treated as independent units for all other purposes. You can take 0-2 troops, 0-1 FA, 0-1 Elites, and there are severe restrictions (such as no 2+ save models, no combined armor > 33, no W3+ models, minimum infantry, et cetera). The stated point level is 200 points, though of course, some people choose to increase this. Kill team is played on, and optimized for, a 4x4 table. Each turn takes about 5 minutes.

One game is not superior to the other. They are different There is a group of players at my FLGS who have moved to playing 75% of their games as Kill Team, even though most of them own 20,000+ points of models between their various armies, because these people don't have as much time, and many pop in for just an hour to play a single game. Once in a while, they'll still play standard 40k games, though -- basically, if they happen to have more time.

What I'm saying is, a veteran player doesn't have to play KT as a favor to a person with fewer models. It's a fun game unto itself, and you can play it with exactly the same models you use in standard 40k (ie the only thing you pack in addition is a sheet of paper with your KT list).

I'm not going to engage in "this skirmish game is better than that" because I don't think they're mutually exclusive, and at the end of the day, it's just all preference. But I will mention that if you buy WMH, it is NOT suitable to play on a 6x4 or 8x8 table with an army that fills out the table. The rules would be terrible (unplayable), and anyways, once you kill off the warcaster, the game's effectively over.

40K isn't optimized for anything other than wringing every last penny out of the few remaining players.

You're right - I don't like 40K. In fact, I don't like it at all. I used to, back in the days when it was a skirmish game, but every iteration seems to have made it worse. Fair enough that you want a mass-combat game, just don't base it upon skirmish rules. In fact, Games Workshop used to have a fairly good mass-combat game - it was called "Epic". Unlike that, 40K is not, in any way whatsoever, geared to be a mass-combat game. The level of abstraction is all wrong.

It's nonsensical. It's non-intuitive. It's bugged down by a ton of unnecessary special rules. In fact, I only hang on because I like the setting. Even though they seem to be doing their best to destroy that as well...

Right... Rant over... Back on track...

Yes, Kill Team comes with a lot of restrictions (as I already mentioned) but I still find it horribly unbalanced and way too easy to abuse. Even more so that 40K, you really need to play it with goods friends and plenty of beer and pretzels. As soon as someone decides to go competitive you're in for a world of hurt. The Heralds Of Ruins systems seems better, but I haven't tried it yet, so I'll withhold judgement for now.

GW stays afloat thanks to all the brainwahed fanboys scarificing their lives (money) to the Emperor of the imperium.

if you are stupid enough to throw away your money at GW then you deserve to be pennyless. If you buy an op and imba army and then they nerf it, then you deserve that pile of plastic garbage. If you buy their rule book and it gets out dated then you deserve that toilet paper. If you buy their tools and that breaks then you deserve to have shoddy farm impliments. If you buy their paint and it chips off easy then you desreve that bottle of slime.

I am 100% supportive of GW ripping people off and especially people on this forum.

 Filch wrote:
GW stays afloat thanks to all the brainwahed fanboys scarificing their lives (money) to the Emperor of the imperium.

if you are stupid enough to throw away your money at GW then you deserve to be pennyless. If you buy an op and imba army and then they nerf it, then you deserve that pile of plastic garbage. If you buy their rule book and it gets out dated then you deserve that toilet paper. If you buy their tools and that breaks then you deserve to have shoddy farm impliments. If you buy their paint and it chips off easy then you desreve that bottle of slime.

You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder there...

Bit early to be drinking isn't it?

Well, that there makes me look like a GW sympathizer....

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

They make sizeable profits. A company operating around the £10 million profit point that has actively cut its over heads is unlikely to go under anytime soon. They would be the envy of many. Biggest surprise yet......lots of us still like the worlds of warhammer.

Knockagh wrote:
They make sizeable profits. A company operating around the £10 million profit point that has actively cut its over heads is unlikely to go under anytime soon. They would be the envy of many. Biggest surprise yet......lots of us still like the worlds of warhammer.

Separation of artist and art. I like Ender's Game, but my do I despise Orson Scott Card.

 Filch wrote:
I am 100% supportive of GW ripping people off and especially people on this forum.

Well then....


I've not bought anything from GW since about 2012.

 Filch wrote:
GW stays afloat thanks to all the brainwahed fanboys scarificing their lives (money) to the Emperor of the imperium.

if you are stupid enough to throw away your money at GW then you deserve to be pennyless. If you buy an op and imba army and then they nerf it, then you deserve that pile of plastic garbage. If you buy their rule book and it gets out dated then you deserve that toilet paper. If you buy their tools and that breaks then you deserve to have shoddy farm impliments. If you buy their paint and it chips off easy then you desreve that bottle of slime.

I am 100% supportive of GW ripping people off and especially people on this forum.

Whoa there, easy Tex.
No one's stupid because they like a game. It's a matter of opinion and priorities.
For you, and a growing number of people...including me, GW seems silly and kind of lame. Not to mention expensive and rules made more for fleecing their customers than actual gameplay.
But some people don't mind the prices and like the game despite its many faults. Power to them. They're not foolish or stupid, they just have a different mind set. Their priorities are different than ours.
I like a game that has clear rules, allows player choice to determine winner, has interesting rule interactions, a healthy community and armies that aren't clearly superior to other armies.

 Filch wrote:
I am 100% supportive of GW ripping people off and especially people on this forum.

You have chosen a ranking track based on their IP. You clearly aren't actually that against their products.
Or you still really love them, underneath the vitriol.

 DarkHound wrote:

Knockagh wrote:
They make sizeable profits. A company operating around the £10 million profit point that has actively cut its over heads is unlikely to go under anytime soon. They would be the envy of many. Biggest surprise yet......lots of us still like the worlds of warhammer.

Separation of artist and art. I like Ender's Game, but my do I despise Orson Scott Card.

I've known Orson Scott Card for a while now. He's a great guy in real life. I just think his stroke has altered his mind in an unfortunate way.

 Talys wrote:

I hear your point of view, Deadnight, but miniature companies, wargaming companies and local hobby shops are in trouble if a wargame can't have an entry price of at least as much as a video game console and a title or two, with the same type of ongoing costs for content.
.

Which was my point?

 Talys wrote:

The problem with a game that costs $80 and nothing to keep playing is that how does a company make a business of it? Considering how tiny the gaming population is, if this is the true market, hobby shops are doomed. Especially since people expect to have a place to go and play for hours on end. I mean, who in their right mind would open up a hobby shop instead of sell consoles, $70 titles, accessories, and used games?

Theatre survives in the age of cinema, DVDs and tv. Tabletop wargames will survive in the same way.

To answer your question, 'buy moar' is the answer. the intro box shouldn't be 'the game'? It should be well representative of 'the game', but with enough of a hook to make you want to go out and expand your collection. Bigger armies? Sure...more factions? Sure. Expansions? Eg a cavalry expansion for a fantasy game, a spec ops expansion for sci fi etc. sure. campaign books? Lore books that expand on the IP in meaningful ways? Awesome. There is a lot of scope beyond just the 'all in one box' where a company can make a business. Add to that things like clear, open and two-way communication, support for organised play and you have enough materials to generate a self sustaining gaming ecosystem.

 Talys wrote:

If anything, I think that a miniature wargame should be priced at slightly higher than an XB1/PS4 as a starting point. You get a lot of physical "stuff", and much more importantly, it's an infinitely smaller niche.

non computer gamer here. How much is a ps4?

Personally, I think the £100 mark is solid for an all in one box, but this includes rules, tokens, gaming aids and miniatures for both sides.

 Talys wrote:

To satisfy the the one-time-purchase-and-play-forever, there are board games (Space Hulk, Bloodbowl are 2 of my favorites, Talisman too, though that has no models). The thing with board games, with the exception of a few like Talisman and Supremacy, is that once you buy it, that's more or less it. Other than the odd expansion here or there, you can't buy and customize what you play.

There is scope for wargames/board game crossovers too.

Sega (and other console makers) used to sell consoles at a loss. (Maybe still do?) The point wasn't to sell consoles, it was to sell games. Get someone to buy a console and they'll buy games.
That's how starter boxes should be (Maybe not at a loss) the entryway to buying more stuff. More units, more options, more factions, etc.

Seriously - RULE #1 - NOT OPTIONAL.

Regarding the rules not working at different sizes. 40K, as presented, is a game about large-scale battles. Nothing whatsoever in the rules or any of their published material (except, obviously, Kill Team stuff) even suggests that people should play the game with six models a side. Why would you do that? That's what Necromunda and Gorkamorka are for. And those rules DO work - Necromunda is the best game the GW ever produced.

They also don't suggest you play with ten thousand models per side. That's what Epic is for. Epic was overloaded with rules in its Space Marine days, but it was an insane amount of fun. They killed it almost totally by simplifying the rules due to player complaints.

40K is often presented by the GW themselves as a game where around 1500-2000 point battles are ideal, with larger games of 15000 points or so covered by Apocalypse.

It's hardly amazing that the rules don't always hold up when you're playing on a scale that many or most people simply won't play, and that the developers wouldn't have intended.

 Talys wrote:


I hear your point of view, Deadnight, but miniature companies, wargaming companies and local hobby shops are in trouble if a wargame can't have an entry price of at least as much as a video game console and a title or two, with the same type of ongoing costs for content.

They seem to do fine with X-Wing (as in, the only way to keep any stock is to nail it to the shelf), which you can get started for £30/$50, less than a new video game or the Space Marine army book.

The problem with a game that costs $80 and nothing to keep playing is that how does a company make a business of it? Considering how tiny the gaming population is, if this is the true market, hobby shops are doomed. Especially since people expect to have a place to go and play for hours on end. I mean, who in their right mind would open up a hobby shop instead of sell consoles, $70 titles, accessories, and used games?

Almost no-one just stops after their initial buy in, there's always something new to add, but it's optional and adds variety, rather than being required and repetitive. FFG bring out new waves of X-Wing ships every few months, which cost about $20 each, and there's 3 factions.

If anything, I think that a miniature wargame should be priced at slightly higher than an XB1/PS4 as a starting point. You get a lot of physical "stuff", and much more importantly, it's an infinitely smaller niche.

You can get a phenomenal amount of historics stuff for the cost of a PS4. Any wargaming product should have an entry point closed to a new game (indeed most can be started comfortably for £100/$150).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:

non computer gamer here. How much is a ps4?

Cheapest new one GAME sells is £329.

That's a starter box/set for: Flames Of War, Malifaux (Book + Army box), Bolt Action, Judge Dredd and Warmachine combined.

I don't think x-wing should be used to typify the market, as it will sell purely based on the brand. I think the game is great (it's based on wings of glory mechanics, so it's going to be) and it's great that it has bought a huge number of new people to miniature wargaming, but I wonder how many of the gamers it's attracted would be interested in moving beyond the star wars universe later on. Hopefully most, and the hobby will continue to grow and accommodate more and more great companies.

@Deadnight - I largely agree with many of your points. I was talking about your specific issue of front-loaded costs. I am only saying that I believe that the entry point of a wargame being in that low dollar range would make it difficult for a hobby shop.

@Herzlos - While I don't disagree that there should be gaming options that start around $150 or less, the original discussion was about buying the cost of a full-sized 1850/2000pt 40k army. Of all the non-historical games, 40k/WHFB is the largest scale (most miniature, largest table) game, and I think the starting price for filling a 6x4+ table game should be higher. If one's budget is lower, buy a game to fit a smaller gaming table.

@Deadnight/Herzog - I disagree with your price of a PS4/XB1.

PS4 + free game = $399 on Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/PlayStation-Console-Free-Remastered-Voucher-4/dp/B00RY3GIDE/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1434922650&sr=8-3&keywords=playstation+4


Xbox One + free game = $347 on Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-One-Assassins-Creed-Unity-Bundle/dp/B00NFXON1Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1434922705&sr=8-1&keywords=xbox+one

Those are good titles, too.

You can get the XB1 with the Halo Master Chief Edition for $350 as well, or the XB1 with 1TB and Master Chief for $400.

I think your average kid who gets into XB1/PS4will spend around $700-$800 in their first year, however, once you include accessories and more titles. For instance, rechargeable batteries & charging station, extra controllers, headsets, games, XBLive/PSNow subscription.

Likewise, I think **in my local scene** the average person who really gets into wargaming will spend in that price range in their first year.

And I guess I just don't see a problem with it. It averages out to about $70-$80 / month. I mean, really, is that such a huge deal for something you enjoy?

Also, I understand that there are front-end costs. But these existed in 1985, when I was in grade school, and made $15 a shot writing resumes or designing flyers. Back then, I saved up so that I could afford something that was a couple hundred dollars. Surely, people still do this, rather than expect that whatever luxury thing they want to get into should be something they can buy with spare change?

@MWHistorian - This iteration of XB1 is actually the first one Microsoft has sold the console not at a loss. The difference between console and wargames, of course, is that after an initial purchase, you MUST buy more games, and in a relatively short period of time or you have an expensive media player

 JamesY wrote:
I don't think x-wing should be used to typify the market, as it will sell purely based on the brand. I think the game is great (it's based on wings of glory mechanics, so it's going to be) and it's great that it has bought a huge number of new people to miniature wargaming, but I wonder how many of the gamers it's attracted would be interested in moving beyond the star wars universe later on. Hopefully most, and the hobby will continue to grow and accommodate more and more great companies.

As opposed to GW, who actively campaign to convince their customers that there is nothing to wargaming beyond their products?

 Azreal13 wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
I don't think x-wing should be used to typify the market, as it will sell purely based on the brand. I think the game is great (it's based on wings of glory mechanics, so it's going to be) and it's great that it has bought a huge number of new people to miniature wargaming, but I wonder how many of the gamers it's attracted would be interested in moving beyond the star wars universe later on. Hopefully most, and the hobby will continue to grow and accommodate more and more great companies.

As opposed to GW, who actively campaign to convince their customers that there is nothing to wargaming beyond their products?

Well, back in the day, it would have been pretty weird for TSR to advocate for any RPG other than one of theirs

JamesY has a valid point, though. XWing isn't at all typical of tabletop strategy/war games. It's probably the only one I can think of with prepainted models that's successful; partly because the models lend themselves to that. It is built on top of a very successful franchise -- probably the most successful scifi franchise of all time -- and although you have people who play other wargames try out XWing, the amount of crossover from people who got into XWing first and then try other stuff like Malifaux seems more limited.

I'm glad XWing is around though. I hope Halo will be good -- there's another franchise that could entice a few people into the miniature/tabletop/strategy world.

I really wish I'd posted after Herzlos to say that somebody would be along shortly to list all the reason why X Wing was a bad example. I didn't expect multiples!

There's a whole world of difference between not sending your customers to the competition and outright denying their existence to them.

Equally, did nobody buy Heroclix?

 Azreal13 wrote:
I really wish I'd posted after Herzlos to say that somebody would be along shortly to list all the reason why X Wing was a bad example. I didn't expect multiples!

There's a whole world of difference between not sending your customers to the competition and outright denying their existence to them.

Equally, did nobody buy Heroclix?

Isn't Heroclix prepainted marvel miniatures? I seem to recall that they looked very toy-ish or action-figure-ish. I recall some prepainted LoTR miniatures too.

To me, there's a world of difference between that kind of thing and 40k miniatures (and what I'm prepared to pay for them). Ironically, I would pay much more for an unassembled kit than a prepainted miniature hehe. Generally, "model kit" means more to me than "game piece". I suppose if I had never gotten into 40k, I would probably be building model Millennium Falcons and XWings and AWings. IIRC those kits aren't cheap either.

By the way, it isn't that XWing is a *bad* example. It's that XWing is rather unique, and (a) it would be hard for another company do something similar (though there's Halo, and that's a good thing), and (b) I'm not sure how much migration there is from XWing to other stuff.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Sega (and other console makers) used to sell consoles at a loss. (Maybe still do?) The point wasn't to sell consoles, it was to sell games. Get someone to buy a console and they'll buy games.
That's how starter boxes should be (Maybe not at a loss) the entryway to buying more stuff. More units, more options, more factions, etc.

Yes, they still do. The Wii sold at a profit for mostly reusing Gamecube tech, but other than that consoles sell at whatever loss the company things it can bare, and only make a profite on unit sales once production has advanced to a certain point, which is generally when you see the prices getting dropped further, but not always. The PS2, for example, was profitable even when selling for $99 at the end of its life.

 Powerfisting wrote:
So, this comes up every once in a while and I have not seen the whole scoop. Why is Games Workshop not tanking?

Two words: this guy.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/545092.page

Just scroll down for a while...

MWHistorian wrote:Sega (and other console makers) used to sell consoles at a loss. (Maybe still do?)

I can personally verify that Sega don't sell consoles anymore. Pardon me while I go cradle my old Saturn.

NoPoet wrote:Regarding the rules not working at different sizes. 40K, as presented, is a game about large-scale battles.

Aye, as presented. Not as originally developed.

Nothing whatsoever in the rules or any of their published material (except, obviously, Kill Team stuff) even suggests that people should play the game with six models a side. Why would you do that? That's what Necromunda and Gorkamorka are for.

Who said anything about six models? (Mind you, from some tales I've heard about grey knights...)

And those rules DO work - Necromunda is the best game the GW ever produced.

Wasn't that basically 2d ed 40K with no squads and a slightly wonky campaign system? Maybe not the best argument for 40K as a mass battle system, especially if Necromunda is the best rendition of it.
(I only 'discovered' 40K during 3rd ed, meself; but when some of us got round to looking at Necromunda, the rules weren't exactly a completely new experience)

They also don't suggest you play with ten thousand models per side. That's what Epic is for.

Hyperbole, or...?

Epic was overloaded with rules in its Space Marine days, but it was an insane amount of fun. They killed it almost totally by simplifying the rules due to player complaints.

Dunno about Epic 40K, but Epic: Armageddon is insane fun, mostly because the mission was to avoid overloading it with rules, and let the tactical mechanics shine through.

40K is often presented by the GW themselves as a game where around 1500-2000 point battles are ideal,

I'm gonna be honest with ye, these days I view 'presented by GW' with a similar amount of trust and enthusiasm as... 'written and directed by George Lucas', or 'a brand new miniatures line by wargames legend Tony Reidy!' Roughly how many models or units is 1500-2000 points, in seventh ed? (Genuine question) How much has that count changed over editions? What points level do folks really play?

with larger games of 15000 points or so covered by Apocalypse.

Ah, Apocalypse, where a single turn lasts longer than an entire game of Epic. Fantastic example of how 40K is geared for mass battles.

It's hardly amazing that the rules don't always hold up when you're playing on a scale that many or most people simply won't play, and that the developers wouldn't have intended.

Which scale is that, and who's playing it? As far as I can tell, this is what the developers intended.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
And the pool of people that like 40K is shrinking....

I don't agree with that, Not the amount of people that like 40k is shrinking (well maybe a little)
The amount of people that buy GW stuff is shrinking, Even in Japan at the board game days meetings i run into people who
switched to board games or play more smaller scale wargames

I wanted to buy the new interrogator chaplain for my guardians of the covenant
"army" But it cost 30$ for one plastic miniature? i rather buy a kingdom of the death boutique miniature for that kind of money.

For 30$ i can buy a PS4 game , or big gundam kit, or a bluray movie.

 Vermis wrote:

40K is often presented by the GW themselves as a game where around 1500-2000 point battles are ideal,

I'm gonna be honest with ye, these days I view 'presented by GW' with a similar amount of trust and enthusiasm as... 'written and directed by George Lucas', or 'a brand new miniatures line by wargames legend Tony Reidy!' Roughly how many models or units is 1500-2000 points, in seventh ed? (Genuine question) How much has that count changed over editions? What points level do folks really play?

1850 is a very popular North American tournament/event points level. The GW store hosts games (events) locally here at 1000, 2000, and 3000 points. I usually play with my friends at the 2000 or 2500 mark, but basically, if the number of models scales down, we scale up the number of points. It takes less time to tell 1 Imperial Knight what to do than a company full of tactical marines, right? (60 space marines = 420 points base, about the same price as a slightly upgraded Knight)

The rule of thumb is that for an average army played by a COMPETENT, quick commander, every 1000 points of models takes 15 minutes per full turn (your turn my turn). So 2000 points = 30 minutes to complete turn 1. 6 turns = 3 hours. Of course, it depends on how much BS and yabber the two players go at it, how experienced and used to playing with each other you are, and obviously how many models your army is. But a 2000 point game including setup can be comfortably completed in 4 hours, so from this perspective, I think it's about right. I'm talking about an army that has a mix of vehicles, infantry, specialists, etc.

In the hands of people who just are more social and move at a more glacial pace or get more animated in their turns, 5 hours for an 1850 point game would be more than ample (a pace that would irritate a more gogogo player).

A 2000 point game can range anywhere from a tiny number of models (think Imperial Knights), to a massive horde if it's truly MSU. But the it's usually somewhere in between, as neither of these armies are really super common. 30 - 100 models would probably cover a really large spectrum of stuff that people field. If you're really curious beyond that, I suggest just looking on the 40k lists forum, pick a faction and look at what people build.

When I first played Warhammer 40,000 during Rogue Trader, I think I fielded 3-4 tactical squads, a scout squad and an assault squad. There was also a medic and a couple of Personalities (ICs). No vehicles of any sort, and I didn't know how to assemble a (metal) dreadnought Keep in mind that tac squads were 10 back then, and you could really load them up with stuff (like, give sergeant a vortex grenade, take D-Cannon, rad/virus grenades, et cetera). So I would say, 50+ models?

The main difference as the years have gone by for me is not the number of models but the size and type of model. Now you have tons of tanks and little walkers and giant stompy robots and drop pods and jets and choppers. But the number of actual game pieces, at least for me, has not appreciably gone up or down as a result of this. Yes, yes, you can break this by just taking 7 flyrants, or 7 wave serpents or 5 knights or whatever... I'm talking about "normal looking armies"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

For 30$ i can buy a PS4 game , or big gundam kit, or a bluray movie.

In fairness, for $30, you can't buy a new release PS4 game or blueray movie, or at least not one I'd want to spend money on (and for $5 you can buy two old ones of either). You can also buy a box of 10 Kabalites for the same price. Or you can buy a WMH Warcaster for the same price too.

The character models are often paraded as "OMG miniatures are so expensive!" but actually, they're a terrible example of the price of miniatures. You don't buy very many of them, and if you can't afford them, you almost never need to buy one as you can kitbash it out of other stuff. I believe there's a plastic chaplain in the Reclusiam Command kit, for less than $100 you get a Rhino plus 5 models you can use as specialist characters, including a really nicely sculpted chaplain. Or take any space marine, stick on a Crozius and some purity scrolls, paint him black, done!

I don't get why X-Wing doesn't count as a game. Sure it's pre-painted, and is based on probably the strongest sci-fi IP (that I'm sure GW could have licensed), but it's a great game and despite possibly the lowest buy in, people drop crazy amounts of money on it.



I loved Heroclix too (I've still got a handful of uniques). It's not just marvel, they cover almost everything (including LOTR and Iron Maiden). Quite simple but brilliant system.

 Talys wrote:

@Herzlos - While I don't disagree that there should be gaming options that start around $150 or less, the original discussion was about buying the cost of a full-sized 1850/2000pt 40k army. Of all the non-historical games, 40k/WHFB is the largest scale (most miniature, largest table) game, and I think the starting price for filling a 6x4+ table game should be higher. If one's budget is lower, buy a game to fit a smaller gaming table.

I think that's goalpost shifting, but yeah, in the sci-fi/fantasy range in 28mm, WHF/40K are the biggest games in terms of figure count, but that doesn't mean it's good at those scales (I like 40K at Kill Team, it's a chore at 3000pts a side). There's loads of smaller mini scale games that play much better at huge model counts.

@Deadnight/Herzog - I disagree with your price of a PS4/XB1.

That'll be a US/UK thing, we normally pay about £=$ on consoles, so whilst it's $399 for you, it's £329 for us.

Likewise, I think **in my local scene** the average person who really gets into wargaming will spend in that price range in their first year.

Easily the same here for most games. Take Malifaux for example, we've got a fairly active scene, and whilst it costs £45 to get playing (crew + rules + cards), no-one has stopped there, everyone has multiple super-sized crews (standard games are 25-50pts, and most will have 100+ points of crew). The distinction being that you can start at a tournament ready level and add variety.

And I guess I just don't see a problem with it. It averages out to about $70-$80 / month. I mean, really, is that such a huge deal for something you enjoy?

Not at all, $80/month is pretty low for a hobby spend. But you can get so much more from non-GW companies for your $80.

Also, I understand that there are front-end costs. But these existed in 1985, when I was in grade school, and made $15 a shot writing resumes or designing flyers. Back then, I saved up so that I could afford something that was a couple hundred dollars. Surely, people still do this, rather than expect that whatever luxury thing they want to get into should be something they can buy with spare change?

When I got into gaming in about 1996, GW was still mostly metal and did everything in blisters so you could buy things with pocket money every week, even if it was just a blister of 3 metal guardsmen. No need to save up and buy in bulk.

@Herzlos - Well, you can't buy blisters for pocket money, but a box of 10 Imperial Guard are still pretty darn cheap (barely more than 10 Guardsmen in 1985, especially adjusted for inflation). Sure, they're plastic, but those plastic kits aren't cheap to tool up for, and the models are way better when finished.

But in 1996, buying 3 metal guardsmen would be as useless as buying 1, 3, or 10 plastic guardsmen in 2015. You can't do anything with them, until you buy and paint all their buddies. I mean, what did you do with your blister, other than collect it and paint it until you had 20 more blisters?

I think that you prefer smaller games. I can appreciate that, but it's not for everyone. My enjoyment comes in playing 6x4 and larger tables, with ample terrain and 50+ models a side (minimum!). I just don't get the same enjoyment out of a smaller game. I also like a visual feast. I would rather play a computer game than play in the barren desert and paper boards that fill the gaming tables of many other games.

While there may be other games that are large-scale, not a single one is scifi, so that doesn't help me any. Note that I also don't play Warhammer Fantasy Battle, so it's not a "I support GW" thing. I like big scale Scifi games, with all the bells and whistles: jets, stompy robots, infantry, tanks, exotic guns, kits that have a bazillion options -- the whole nine yards. I think the 40k experience is rich and endless, whereas every other game world I've played is finite and can be quickly exhausted if I put my mind to it.

A $50-$150 kit every time I go to the hobby shop, whether it's a twice in the same week or once in a month might not be pocket change -- but as far as the credit card goes, it's not a big hit. I mean, that's groceries, dinner out, a night at the movies, a video game... whatever. It just doesn't feel like a crushingly expensive hobby -- and I buy way, way more than most people.