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.

Of course X-Wing is a game, so is Heroclix. However they both are different kinds of games to 40K, because you buy relatively small boxes of pre-painted units that also come with their rules, and there is a collectible element to it.

The Heroclix models are pretty nice, actually, slightly taller than 40K but can be used for various purposes such as RPGs, or squads of alien creatures or robots that are a different size to humans. I have a collection of Halo Spartan Marines, for instance. I got them cheaply after the craze for the game had finished.

Back on topic, although Talys is correct that there are various price points and so on, the bare fact is people who used to play 40K have given up because of the prices. I gave it up when the rules went from £30 to £50 and codexes went from £15 to £30, with no added benefit.

As I have said before in these kind of threads, once I didn't buy the new rules and codexes, I didn't bother buying any new models either. Now that I am two years behind the curve, I am unlikely ever to buy back in even though Gw have realised their error and attempted to compensate by issuing old-style softback codexes at £25 rather than £30 for the hardback. However it is sill too expensive, and too little too late (there isn't even a proper schedule for issuing the "cheap" codexes.)

So GW have entirely lost me as a customer. I am not unique, therefore there must be a fair number of ex-players in a similar situation.

To be frank, you only need to have read DakkaDakka and seen the progress of the forum over the past few years to know that many players who used to be pretty hardcore GW have given it up and turned their attention to many different other games ranging from Infinity to X-Wing to Historicals.

Most of the moderators are in this category. Think of that! The biggest wargame forum in English and the most pro-40K, but most of the "staff" have moved on to other things. It surely helps explain GW's consistent reductions in sales revenue over the past few years.

GW are still in profit at the moment. If the sales decline should continue they will find themselves in loss in a couple of years, though. Then it will all fall apart very quickly.

GW guards monkeys are a joke. 10 guys for THAT much money compared to e.g. Perry's models...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GW guards monkeys are a joke. 10 guys for THAT much money compared to e.g. Perry's models...

So incoherent he said it twice.

Anyhoo to the subject; I just ran a Dunn & Bradstreet report on GW and they are current rating GW as 4A1 (this is good) with an overall risk rating of 97% of UK companies are in a higher risk category than them. This equates to a 0.03% chance of failure vs. an industry (HOBBY, TOY & GAME RETAILERS) average of 1.18%.

They are reasonably cash and assets rich and generate cash at good rates.

They pay in good time and usually to terms (55%) and when late (44.8% of the time) it is still within 30 days. Which is good and denotes little in the way of supply chain issues.

So what are GW still alive because they have a core of sound Financials, as you would expect being as they are run by accountants.

Now, this based on their 2014 accounts and while monitored and updated throughout the year will not be reflective of the latest report (when it is published) for a month or so.

GW are running a cash surplus, so should have no problems with liquidity in the short term. What happens when that changes is anyones guess.

 Talys wrote:
@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.

They went from 20/box for ~£18 to 10/box for ~£18 a few years ago, for a huge jump.

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?

Except they cost like £4 a blister, and some units were useful (like ratlings or ogyrns, or comissars) out of the blister. Sure you couldn't do anything with them officially, but you could paint them up during the week and then buy more, adding them to your army in bits.

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.

I prefer smaller games with appropriate detail, and large games with appropriate detail. My next planned game is an English Civil War game, with a target of 500 mini's a side. Most of my armies are in 15mm so I can field hundreds of mini's a side, all nicely ranked up. I also have games with 3-10 figures a side. Both can be good.

No board should be barren unless that's the theme, even with 8 mini's a side you can have an involved game where it looks good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

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.

I thought I'd resurrect this, because I remembered my experience gaming at Warhammer World. 40K works best on much larger tables than that. For 1000-1500pt games it works so much better on an 8x6 or an 8x12 than it does on a 6x4, because the range is meaningful (you can be out of range for all but the largest of weapons like the Earthshaker) and the position of units matters. It turns it from carparkhammer into an almost strategic game. Unfortunately, it requires an inordinate amount of space to play. That's why I dropped down to 15mm for my large scale games - I can field 20 tanks and 2 infantry companies on a 6x4 table whilst still having space to manoeuvre.

Fantasy isn't as bad on a 6x4 but I bet a standard 2000pt game would work so much better on a table 2-4 times that size.

I like how I can now play Epic Armageddon with my Warhammer collection! Knights and everything!

Do a forum search for this same topic and you will have entries dating back for a decade. People always say the sky is falling on GW. They don't collapse because people still buy and play their games, regardless of how much they hate prices.

"People have always said this, therefore they have been and always will be wrong."

Air tight argument.

 bdix wrote:
Do a forum search for this same topic and you will have entries dating back for a decade. People always say the sky is falling on GW. They don't collapse because people still buy and play their games, regardless of how much they hate prices.

Yeah, we'll just ignore such things as earnings statements and other forms financial reporting that show that GW is hemorrhaging cash and just say that what came before will always be....speaking of the sky is falling, the people in the resort areas around Mt. Vesuvius felt much the same way as you and that completely worked out, right?

 Talys wrote:
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.

There is a chaplain in that kit. The Reclusiam is MSRP $110CDN.

TBH: Compared to other games in a vacuum, pricing model for model, it isn't bad. For us grognards, its the knowledge that any "bundle box" you buy is 10% of what you need that makes the vets give their heads a shake. The new battleforces are a pale imitation of the bundles of yesteryear. The current SM bundle saves you $15. The original SM battleforce gave you a free squad of terminators (MSRP $45) and terrain (MSRP $10). I know the contents have rubbish options by today's standards, but when it was released, those kits were from the current model line.

1998 SM Battleforce: MSRP: $100CDN ($139 2015 dollars): 10x Tac Marines, 5x Terminators, 3x Bikes, 1x Landspeeder, Gothic Ruins
2005 SM Battleforce: 10x Tac Marines, 5x Tac Marines, Command Squad, Razorback
20?? SM Battleforce: 10x Tac Marines, 5x Tac Marines, 5x Assault Marines, 5x Scouts, 1x Rhino
2015 SM Battleforce: MSRP: $120CDN: 10x Tac Marines, Captain, Dreadnought

I think that GW's hard core approach to sell each customer one army and then cut them loose is their primary problem. For super-enthusiasts that are not fussed about the present prices... if the models were cheaper, you'd just buy more AMIRITE??!???? On top of that, cheaper models would make impulse buying and one-offs a thing again. The current prices don't support that.

Actually, these days the bundles match up to formations.

 keezus wrote:
On top of that, cheaper models would make impulse buying and one-offs a thing again. The current prices don't support that.

What? You mean people just don't walk into a FLGS or GW and impulse buy over $100 in rulebooks plus another $120 to get a single unit that isn't enough to field a legal army? Insanity!!


/pithy comments.

You mean like the 10 man assault squad?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:
What? You mean people just don't walk into a FLGS or GW and impulse buy over $100 in rulebooks plus another $120 to get a single unit that isn't enough to field a legal army? Insanity!!

Ya... But you lots of extra value with enough bits to upgrade your whatevers to whichevers, if you choose to buy them. This works especially well with the vehicle kits.

In all seriousness though, the move to make the chapter upgrade sprues separate is what they should have done ages ago. This lets the enthusiasts buy as many as they need and allow the players to NOT PAY for them if they don't need them. They should do this with the vehicle kits. @_@.

 keezus wrote:

In all seriousness though, the move to make the chapter upgrade sprues separate is what they should have done ages ago. This lets the enthusiasts buy as many as they need and allow the players to NOT PAY for them if they don't need them. They should do this with the vehicle kits. @_@.

Tell me about it!

I totally went crazy on the chapter upgrade sprues. They are perfect -- and in the grand scheme of things, "well priced".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

I thought I'd resurrect this, because I remembered my experience gaming at Warhammer World. 40K works best on much larger tables than that. For 1000-1500pt games it works so much better on an 8x6 or an 8x12 than it does on a 6x4, because the range is meaningful (you can be out of range for all but the largest of weapons like the Earthshaker) and the position of units matters. It turns it from carparkhammer into an almost strategic game. Unfortunately, it requires an inordinate amount of space to play. That's why I dropped down to 15mm for my large scale games - I can field 20 tanks and 2 infantry companies on a 6x4 table whilst still having space to manoeuvre.

Fantasy isn't as bad on a 6x4 but I bet a standard 2000pt game would work so much better on a table 2-4 times that size.

This is a good point. However, as others have brought up before when I throw on a picture of a larger table, 6x4 or 8x8 is the largest size that most people have access to.

Personally, I do not like 8x12; I think 7' deep is the deepest useful size -- but I don't have gorilla arms It's just, anything deeper than 6' and I can't reach the midtable comfortably, or I might knock things over reaching units.

Incidentally, I agree with you that technically a smaller scale like 15mm is superior for this size of play. However, I don't like 15mm miniatures, as they don't allow me to express my creativity to the same degree; each model doesn't feel "personal". For instance, I couldn't get into Epic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be frank, you only need to have read DakkaDakka and seen the progress of the forum over the past few years to know that many players who used to be pretty hardcore GW have given it up and turned their attention to many different other games ranging from Infinity to X-Wing to Historicals.

Most of the moderators are in this category. Think of that! The biggest wargame forum in English and the most pro-40K, but most of the "staff" have moved on to other things. It surely helps explain GW's consistent reductions in sales revenue over the past few years.

It's a pity. And I get that the price bothers a lot of people, though for most people who are employed and have a little bit of spending money, I think that the needle moved from something that had toy-like prices to an something that has hobby-like prices. Sure, in 1990, 40k was a really cheap hobby, accessible with allowance money (maybe?), and now it's probably out of that range (for most kids?). But most hobbies have "overperformed" inflation too, like RCs and model trains, and you don't hear that crowd complain to nearly the degree of the 40k crowd. Most kids' electronics have really gone up in price too.

I guess I have simply been fortunate enough to have gainful employment most of my life, to the degree that $50 or so here and there has just never been a big deal. I probably visit 3 different hobby shops each 1-4 times a month, and I usually buy *something* even if it's small (like a White Dwarf). I have never, ever been in the situation where I had to think "do I buy a Wraithknight or pay rent?" though certainly, I've thought, "do I buy a Wraithknight or an airbrush?"

I guess what I'm saying is, I imagine that for some people, the increase in price is more a psychological hit than an affordability issue. They are less bothered by similar prices from companies like Privateer Press because the prices from them started out a lot higher per miniature, and, to an extent, GW's price increases have desensitized people to 25mm models being anywhere from $5 to $30 per model.

Incidentally, if other companies (like Mantic) start to have more vehicle kits like GW, there is a high probability I would shift some more of my hobby spending their way.

Holy crap. 7 feet deep? I think that 4 feet is plenty for my T-Rex arms...

As a side note to the upgrade sprue thoughts... if GW had separated out the base kits and the upgrade kits ages ago AND priced them reasonably - I doubt we would see the proliferation of magnetizing as it is a stopgap which arose from the increases in price AND GW's frustrating many kits, 1 body policy.

*On another tangent* Here in Toronto, price of real estate is getting up there as well. There really isn't the room for my many bawkses of 40k stuff anymore. This has really informed my buying in the last 10 years.

=TalysIt's a pity. And I get that the price bothers a lot of people, though for most people who are employed and have a little bit of spending money, I think that the needle moved from something that had toy-like prices to an something that has hobby-like prices. Sure, in 1990, 40k was a really cheap hobby, accessible with allowance money (maybe?), and now it's probably out of that range (for most kids?). But most hobbies have "overperformed" inflation too, like RCs and model trains, and you don't hear that crowd complain to nearly the degree of the 40k crowd. Most kids' electronics have really gone up in price too.

I guess you don't hear the RC and Train crowd complain because what they do with their stuff hasn't got demonstrably worse for many, and tech has measurably improved many aspects alongside the price.

Aesthetics aside, a 1999 plastic kit and a 2015 kit from GW don't differ in any meaningful way, yet the price is higher. For many the rules have eroded the enjoyment they get from the game, or simply various factors have driven people out so they can't get a game. Yet if they wish to keep playing they are required to buy more, more expensive, models in order to tread water, yet those models offer small, incremental, improvements over their 20 year old equivalents, in fact some people seem to be of the opinion that some of the changes (ie more greeble, more bit) are for the worse.

For an Rc racer, perhaps an equivalent car costs 20-30% more than 20 years ago, but I bet that person can point to a bunch of things which make the modern car superior. Put the new devastators next to the old, I could point out differences but not necessarily improvements.

You don't hear near so many complaints outside of the GW sphere either.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Aesthetics aside, a 1999 plastic kit and a 2015 kit from GW don't differ in any meaningful way, yet the price is higher. For many the rules have eroded the enjoyment they get from the game, or simply various factors have driven people out so they can't get a game. Yet if they wish to keep playing they are required to buy more, more expensive, models in order to tread water, yet those models offer small, incremental, improvements over their 20 year old equivalents, in fact some people seem to be of the opinion that some of the changes (ie more greeble, more bit) are for the worse.

I get what you are saying... kits now-a-days have gone into the "almost self-parody" grimdark skulls mode, but lets not discount the fact that the MKII Rhino, Landraider and Terminators were giant leaps forward for GW.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Aesthetics aside, a 1999 plastic kit and a 2015 kit from GW don't differ in any meaningful way, yet the price is higher. For many the rules have eroded the enjoyment they get from the game, or simply various factors have driven people out so they can't get a game. Yet if they wish to keep playing they are required to buy more, more expensive, models in order to tread water, yet those models offer small, incremental, improvements over their 20 year old equivalents, in fact some people seem to be of the opinion that some of the changes (ie more greeble, more bit) are for the worse.

Ya know, Az, I love ya I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I hear this ALL THE TIME, and I dunno how people get this, man, I really don't. Compare these two:





I mean, seriously?

Look at the basic space marine:



This is not just "skulls and purity scrolls". A blind man with a stick could tell the one on the right is a better model, man.

Now go back and read the bit where I said "aesthetics aside" and the other bit where I was comparing plastic kits to other plastic kits.

Then have another go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hell, scale aside, there's little difference between the modern Rhino and the original RT era one. Other than its ~6x the price.

@Talys: Dude. There is functionally almost no difference between SM circa 1998 and today, other than addition of more greebles. -edit- The screamer killer was a product of its times... this is the same era that provided this:



@Azreal: I hear what you say about aesthetics! We are on the same page there! I have to respectfully disagree about the rhino! The RT era Rhino is half a kit mirrored w/ no interior. Aesthetics aside, the current Rhino added an interior (albeit crude), an operable ramp (albeit crude) and included crew (albeit crude!!!!). IMHO, these are additional features that go beyond aesthetics.

 keezus wrote:
@Talys: Dude. There is functionally almost no difference between SM circa 1998 and today, other than addition of more greebles.

@Azreal: I hear what you say about aesthetics! We are on the same page there! I have to respectfully disagree about the rhino! The RT era Rhino is half a kit mirrored w/ no interior. Aesthetics aside, the current Rhino added an interior (albeit crude), an operable ramp (albeit crude) and included crew (albeit crude!!!!). IMHO, these are additional features that go beyond aesthetics.

Wow, sorry, I totally disagree with both of you. Aesthetics aside, they're not even close to comparable. I mean, really, you think the original metal Carnifex is an amazing model? All of the original space marines in the plastic kit had that silly hunchback pose. Now, you can pose them in shooting position, standing at ready, running, leaping, looking back, and any number of things. If you don't appreciate that sort of modelling flexibility, GW kits were definitely not made with you in mind.

Put it another way, could GW or any other company sell the original carnifex or original space marine today, at any price?

If you just want to talk about game functionality, attach a cardboard triangle to a round base, and that will be as functional now as it was then.

@keezus -- look at the pose of that model and how awkward it is. Plus, consider how many head/weapon options you have now. But, modern GW kits are all about tons of tiny details and many kitting options. If that's not your thing, I doubt you'll enjoy GW products as a hobby. Again, you couldn't sell that model on the shelf today, not even for $10.

As a person who loves space marines, I even appreciate the difference between the 2005 Devastators and today's Devastators. I think the difference is phenomenal, much less compared to the old 1988 heavy weapons guys. I guess, to each their own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alright Az, Keezus, please tell me you can see the difference in detail between these two pairs of legs, and that the difference isn't just "greeble":

Those were the Marines that were 30 to a box for £10.

I prefer them to the modern ones, especially the metal ones of that era. Each one was a character, 3 for £2.50

@Howard - Fair enough, but they are comparable because they're non-character models which now come in 10's for Tacticals and 6's for devastators. If you want to compare metal models (which were way more expensive than the plastic 30s), you would have to compare them to modern plastic character models, like this:



The technical capabilities of multipart plastic cannot be denied. With metal models, you have many undercuts; for instance, there is nothing between the back leg and a cape, or behind a tabard but solid metal. If these things don't matter to you -- in other words, both technical complexity and aesthetic improvements -- NOTHING would justify price increases beyond inflation.

Incidentally, I have almost every one of those metal models painted

 Talys wrote:

 keezus wrote:
@Talys: Dude. There is functionally almost no difference between SM circa 1998 and today, other than addition of more greebles.

@Azreal: I hear what you say about aesthetics! We are on the same page there! I have to respectfully disagree about the rhino! The RT era Rhino is half a kit mirrored w/ no interior. Aesthetics aside, the current Rhino added an interior (albeit crude), an operable ramp (albeit crude) and included crew (albeit crude!!!!). IMHO, these are additional features that go beyond aesthetics.

Wow, sorry, I totally disagree with both of you. Aesthetics aside, they're not even close to comparable. I mean, really, you think the original metal Carnifex is an amazing model?

I love that model. Sure, it's relatively simple, but it's got a ton of character to it an a very "80's scifi/heavy metal" look to it that really defined 40k. It's not a stellar model by today's standards, but it's got enough "cool factor" to still stand on its own.

Put it another way, could GW or any other company sell the original carnifex or original space marine today, at any price?

The original Space Marine plastics? Probably not, but then, stylistically they're not really "it" either, a lot of their goofy dimensions weren't entirely by mistake, they matched the artwork of the day very well, and when painted well they don't actually look really stylistically similar to something you'd see out of a comic book of the time. When you match those RTB-01 plastics to the cover art of the box (and the RT rulebook since it's the same image), their goofy dimensions fit the artwork of the time.

The old Carnifex could probably be sold and still makes sales today. Not at $60 or whatever a Carnnifex goes for now, but at $30? Yeah that model could sell.

 Talys wrote:
Alright Az, Keezus, please tell me you can see the difference in detail between these two pairs of legs, and that the difference isn't just "greeble":

Hi. 1998 calling and noting that we're talking about the 3rd Ed marines that haven't seen any improvement in 15 years and not the difference between RT and current models.

Y'know: These guys:



vs



There's some refinement to be sure, but nothing like MK1 rhino to MK2 rhino scope of improvement.

Thanks.

The earliest metal figures don't compare well to today but the later ones do. When GW switched to Finecast many figures previously in metal were reproduced in resin, they're still available now. The price made a leap and frankly the quality was abysmal. Figures made since then have mostly been in plastic and while multipart is nice, the detail isn't as good as metal or what resin could be if they actually tried. Forgeworld are leading the way here but they are a small part of GW. It's not a problem with the casting material, it's a problem with GW. There are many companies making better quality figures in metal/resin than GW and they charge less.

I prefer RT era for stylistic reasons. I can see the more recent ones are better for detail but generally compared to the wider modern marketplace, they aren't all that.

You have to see them side by side, but the most recent Tactical box is far ahead of the 3rd edition one.

Nomeny wrote:
You have to see them side by side, but the most recent Tactical box is far ahead of the 3rd edition one.

In what way? Most of the additional parts added to the kit are purely superficial. They're constructed in exactly the same way.

I wonder if there is a point where too much bling actually reduces a persons' desire to buy a model, especially a noob that is learning how to/never painted before?

 Talys wrote:

 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

Back in the day, TSR used to have advertisements from other RPG companies in Dragon Magazine, and even *gasp!* did reviews of them - often positive. (More often than not - somebody had to want to review them.)

And they had occasional bad reviews of TSR products. (Including at least one that I liked - the review of the Birthright setting in Dragon was not a positive one.)

The Auld Grump

Grimtuff wrote:

Nomeny wrote:
You have to see them side by side, but the most recent Tactical box is far ahead of the 3rd edition one.

In what way? Most of the additional parts added to the kit are purely superficial. They're constructed in exactly the same way.

If by a leg, two torso bits two arms a weapon and a head, yeah. If you mean the quality of the plastic output, it isn't even close. The newer plastics are smoother, crisper, mote detailed, with deep, clean recesses and sharp relief. The new poses and armor plates are excellent.

If these types of things don't excite you, another company's products will serve you better. For me, seeing every incremental improvement in plastic is really exciting. The modeling aspect is very cool, for me, and I would rather pay more for a more complex kit. Also, go look at a 2000 sprue versus a 2015 sprue and tell me you don't see a ton more stuff per frame.

Easy E wrote:I wonder if there is a point where too much bling actually reduces a persons' desire to buy a model, especially a noob that is learning how to/never painted before?

This is a valid point. Keep in mind that there are simple models and complex ones. Almost all the very blingy models are space Marines, too (or Imperium). Most of the Xenos are quite straight forward in comparison (look at eldar, necron, tyranid) as well as imperial guard, minus characters and special units.

Space Marines also have by far the most gearing/configuration options. No other faction has multiple armor marks, different types of helmets, an avalanche of special weapons, and so on. Pick necron, and suddenly your gearing options and model build options are a lot simpler.

In comparative terms, it takes me 2-4 times longer to paint a space marine than almost any other faction in infantry size. Now, mind you, I go the distance, even when it's just a basic tactical.