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.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So, like he said, he got what he considered to be some of the greatest fantasy sculpts ever produced for a little less than $3 a model, whereas what he considers the rather clumsy, over the top GW models aren't noticeably cheaper.

Plus the core troop boxes are the least egregious of GWs pricing sins.

So, you've not really refuted his point, you've just listed some prices.

Actually, if you read his post more carefully, he was the one who brought up the issue of price.
He also said what he considers, which is a matter of opinion.
He also cites gripping beast as being a good alternative, but I' m not convinced.

Example, 12 undead for $28.17

http://www.grippingbeast.co.uk/REV02_Revenant_Booster_One_12--product--5185.html

GW has 20, that can be assembled in many different ways, not including all the extra bits for $35

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Vampire-Counts-Zombies

Quality wise, I don't see a lot of difference, but YMMV.

And at no point did he argue the metal elves were cheaper.

Yes, value is a matter of opinion, hence why I used the word 'considers' twice in my post quite deliberately.

He was citing prices quite heavily , what do you think he meant?

i think it is quite fair for anybody to say that they prefer the aesthetic of range of miniatures from a particular producer...
it is quite unfair to say that anyone who likes GW's aesthetic is mental...

Tom Meir is an amazing sculptor, and a really nice guy, but i have absolutely zero interest in painting Thunderbolt Mountain minis...
Reaper has had some really great artists sculpting for them, even my personal favorite, Werner Klocke, yet i have never been inspired enough to paint any of the 100 or so Reaper minis i own...
same goes for a lot of other manufacturers out there, like Darksword...
i buy their models because i want to give some support to the company, but can never quite get up the interest in painting them...

on the other hand, as i've said before, Rackham, Illyad, Crocodile Games, GW, PP, and Freebooter, are all screaming out to me to be painted...
i'm not even a big fan of Fantasy stuff compared to Sci-Fi, but all of these guys have produced Fantasy minis that i find inspiring to work on...
some stuff just resonates with a person more than other stuff...
it's not even a thing that can be logically explained easily...
just a feeling you get from the stuff that is right for you...

here is something to chew on, if you want something, but feel it is too expensive, how bad did you really want it???
for me, if i REALLY want something, price doesn't matter one bit...

cheers
jah

 Hulksmash wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:


But, I suppose that Stockholm Syndrome is pretty strong when dealing with people who are basically held hostage by a company like GW.

MB

Oh good. If my opinion differs from yours I'm someone suffering from a psychological disorder.....

Not only that, but held hostage.

Relapse wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So, like he said, he got what he considered to be some of the greatest fantasy sculpts ever produced for a little less than $3 a model, whereas what he considers the rather clumsy, over the top GW models aren't noticeably cheaper.

Plus the core troop boxes are the least egregious of GWs pricing sins.

So, you've not really refuted his point, you've just listed some prices.

Actually, if you read his post more carefully, he was the one who brought up the issue of price.
He also said what he considers, which is a matter of opinion.
He also cites gripping beast as being a good alternative, but I' m not convinced.

Example, 12 undead for $28.17

http://www.grippingbeast.co.uk/REV02_Revenant_Booster_One_12--product--5185.html

GW has 20, that can be assembled in many different ways, not including all the extra bits for $35

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Vampire-Counts-Zombies

Quality wise, I don't see a lot of difference, but YMMV.

And at no point did he argue the metal elves were cheaper.

Yes, value is a matter of opinion, hence why I used the word 'considers' twice in my post quite deliberately.

He was citing prices quite heavily , what do you think he meant?

What he said, rather than something..else?

Let's end the psychological disorders discussion tangent there - Thanks. All are free to post their opinions and agree / disagree, and you're only mental for loving Dakka

 Azreal13 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
So, like he said, he got what he considered to be some of the greatest fantasy sculpts ever produced for a little less than $3 a model, whereas what he considers the rather clumsy, over the top GW models aren't noticeably cheaper.

Plus the core troop boxes are the least egregious of GWs pricing sins.

So, you've not really refuted his point, you've just listed some prices.

Actually, if you read his post more carefully, he was the one who brought up the issue of price.
He also said what he considers, which is a matter of opinion.
He also cites gripping beast as being a good alternative, but I' m not convinced.

Example, 12 undead for $28.17

http://www.grippingbeast.co.uk/REV02_Revenant_Booster_One_12--product--5185.html

GW has 20, that can be assembled in many different ways, not including all the extra bits for $35

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Vampire-Counts-Zombies

Quality wise, I don't see a lot of difference, but YMMV.

And at no point did he argue the metal elves were cheaper.

Yes, value is a matter of opinion, hence why I used the word 'considers' twice in my post quite deliberately.

He was citing prices quite heavily , what do you think he meant?

What he said, rather than something..else?

What he was saying, taken in context with his other posts on the subject is that these companies miniatures are cheaper and better.

 Talys wrote:
@korraz - that's as effective as 4 boxes of tactical marines. You kind of need a Warcaster.

An average army of AoS is a varied army that contains heroes, warmachines, troops, et cetera. It will be 30-40 models, because much more and the game plays badly. Just price out any army in the Warmachines lists forum.

By the way, the AoS pricing includes 33 Sigmarites, plus neatly as many Chaos. And if you think 40 fennblads is comparable to the 33 models I listed (not to mention around 30 Chaos models)... well, I don't think any objective, impartial person who didn't just dislike GW would see that equivalence.

We're talking this:


Almost all of this (3 rows of it):


Versus 4 boxes of:



Which are better models? I mean, really?

$100 at online stores.
35 point army. And its a well balanced army unlike GW beginner boxes that usually have the worst models in terms of competitiveness.
And Trolls are easily the most expensive army to collect. It's not as many models as the GW ones, but it's a much larger percentage of a completed army.

i don't think anyone has said that the PP army boxes are a bad deal...
likewise, most agree that the AoS starter box is a good deal, too...
its only advantage is that it comes with two forces, so it can be played with an opponent right out of a single box...

my only gripe with the Khador box is that it comes with Winterguard, and has restic minis...
Assault Commandos are way cooler looking, to me, and restic is a no-go as far as i'm concerned...
HIPS plastic is much better than restic in my book...
restic gets none of my money, no matter who is making it...
i look forward to PP releasing their 'Jacks in HIPS...
the sprue shot in the PP N&R thread here is a joy to behold, and i look forward to getting back to collecting more PP stuff again...

cheers
jah

 Talys wrote:

Spoiler:

@korraz - that's as effective as 4 boxes of tactical marines. You kind of need a Warcaster.

An average army of AoS is a varied army that contains heroes, warmachines, troops, et cetera. It will be 30-40 models, because much more and the game plays badly. Just price out any army in the Warmachines lists forum.

By the way, the AoS pricing includes 33 Sigmarites, plus neatly as many Chaos. And if you think 40 fennblads is comparable to the 33 models I listed (not to mention around 30 Chaos models)... well, I don't think any objective, impartial person who didn't just dislike GW would see that equivalence.

We're talking this:


Almost all of this (3 rows of it):


Versus 4 boxes of:

Which are better models? I mean, really?

I own the Fennblades and after having seen the Stormcast Eternals in person. I would pick the Fennblades everytime. The Stormcasts look out of proportion, overdone, and quite gaudy. Battlecat looked better unpainted, but overall I was disappointed in the design of the new models. Haven't seen the chaos guys in person yet, but that big monster thing is a horrible looking model in the pics. Easily as bad as that bug-eyed boar thing the Beastmen had.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Spoiler:

 Talys wrote:
@korraz - that's as effective as 4 boxes of tactical marines. You kind of need a Warcaster.

An average army of AoS is a varied army that contains heroes, warmachines, troops, et cetera. It will be 30-40 models, because much more and the game plays badly. Just price out any army in the Warmachines lists forum.

By the way, the AoS pricing includes 33 Sigmarites, plus neatly as many Chaos. And if you think 40 fennblads is comparable to the 33 models I listed (not to mention around 30 Chaos models)... well, I don't think any objective, impartial person who didn't just dislike GW would see that equivalence.

We're talking this:


Almost all of this (3 rows of it):


Versus 4 boxes of:



Which are better models? I mean, really?

$100 at online stores.
35 point army. And its a well balanced army unlike GW beginner boxes that usually have the worst models in terms of competitiveness.
And Trolls are easily the most expensive army to collect. It's not as many models as the GW ones, but it's a much larger percentage of a completed army.

Spoiler:

I wasn't the one who pointed out the trolls. I was responding to someone who arbitrarily picked 40 crappy troops as a comparison.

The battle boxes are a great value! I should know: I have purchased 4. It's fair to compare them to the AoS starter box -- but from a model standpoint, I still do not believe any objective person would say that they are a better deal. From a gaming standpoint, they're both a good deal, and both eminently usable in their respective games.

You don't NEED to spend any more than $125 on the AoS starter box, which gives you great models from TWO factions.

On the other hand, the Warmachiens or Hordes 2-faction starters (that are about $100) give you relatively weak models (dare I say, barely better than Dark Vengeance in terms of long term model usefulness). Only the 1 faction boxes really provide great usability usefulness.

By the way, I think that all of these are good value. I even think that Privateer Press models -- taken outside the war boxes -- are not extraordinarily expensive. I was simply saying that an AoS army is or can be about the same price as a WMH army. Of course, you can make either much more expensive depending on the models you choose. As it should be!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jah-joshua wrote:

my only gripe with the Khador box is that it comes with Winterguard, and has restic minis...
Assault Commandos are way cooler looking, to me, and restic is a no-go as far as i'm concerned...
HIPS plastic is much better than restic in my book...
restic gets none of my money, no matter who is making it...
i look forward to PP releasing their 'Jacks in HIPS...
the sprue shot in the PP N&R thread here is a joy to behold, and i look forward to getting back to collecting more PP stuff again...

Restic is awful. But then again, Finecast definitely had its issues too. Each company has to learn from its mistakes, right? I'm with you though: I generally avoid these materials, though I'll buy them for character models or special models if I really like them.

Finecast and restic go in the same category for me...
no way i am buying it for my collection...
it's a shame, because it makes me pass on some nice looking minis...
having worked with the both materials for clients, i will stick to proper resin, metal, and proper plastic for my collection...

i am working on two Legion of the Damned squads for a client right now, and it is a nightmare...
so many warped parts, none of which are actually miscast, or even full of bubbles, but just slightly "off "...
it is fine for tabletop stuff, though it needs a lot of prep...
for display, i'll stick with metal or HIPS over Finecast or restic...

cheers
jah

@jah - I hate the "slightly off" resin models. It's one of the awesome things about GW HIPS -- almost every kit made in the last 5 years matches so exactly, which allows me to choose exactly what I want to paint as subassemblies or completed assemblies -- instead of being forced to put most of it together by warming up pieces, doing pagan dance rituals and making bargains with Chaos Gods. It just makes the whole project way more fun, in my book.

The bigger the model, the more it matters, too.

i am cleaning the new plastic SM Termie Librarian...
design-wise, this guy puts the Space Hulk Termies to shame...
the large negative space between the cloak and loincloth, the cloak being a whole piece (instead of two parts like Sgt. Lorenzo), the swinging keys...
it's a clear evolution in design, and has as much character as the previous metal sculpt...
the only flaw is a slight bump along the right foot, where the greave meets the boot, that has to be carved down about 2mm...

i am glad i have the previous one in metal for myself, but it is great to see the Finecast replaced with an amazing new plastic version...
this new version shows why i keep saying that i support the design studio, regardless of how the suits run things...
these guys are giving me higher quality sculpts every year, and as long as they keep doing that, i'll keep buying...
when they do something i don't want, like Finecast, i go buy Infinity...

luckily, it looks like Finecast is on the way out, and instead we get amazing models like the Tech-Priest in plastic...
this guy is my pick for mini of the year honors, so far...
last year was Borka on his bear as my favorite, so PP gets props too....

cheers
jah

I utterly despise restic. I have a couple of Warzone armies whose sculpts I really like and I like the game but I just can't bring myself to finish them. I have most of my Capitol actually assembled (although the Sea Lions were the most infuriating models I have made since the old Dwarf Gyrocopter) but I just have no enthusiasm to paint them.

I would much prefer that they were metal.

Finecast always was a stop gap between metal and an all plastic line. I never had a bad one, albeit on 5 models.

No, Talys, in that comparison you DON'T need a warcaster, because we were talking specifically about model count. Why? Because with Age of Sigmar you simply cannot do an army comparison anymore, since a single clan rat is an "army" in AoS. Comparing army costs would be an exercise in insanity, since you could just paddle back and say "Yeah, well, but you only need HALF the models to make an army!", over and over again.

Fennblades are NOT the equivalent of Tactical Marines, they are about the same size of the Sigmarines, which is specifically why I picked them. As for better models? I'd say they are on par, but you can't argue about taste.

I picked four boxes of Fennblades because I couldn't be arsed to expand more energy on this pointless exercise. Exactly this line of arguing has been chewed through at least a dozen times, PP Army Costs have been put together at least as often, and the goalpoasts have been moved every single time. But good on you for completely ignoring the two player starters and army complete deals in my post, I guess. Now they are weak models? The material is awful? This sounds very much like arguments that, when brought up against GW boxes or productions, are readly deflected by certain people. How is this in any way relevant to the discussion? For all we know, every single model released for AoS so far could be borderline unplayable weak. I mean, you can win the game instantly by playing Kairos and a Doom Bell after all, how can a few crappy troops compare?

 jah-joshua wrote:
My only gripe with the Khador box is that it comes with Winterguard, and has restic minis...
Assault Commandos are way cooler looking, to me, and restic is a no-go as far as i'm concerned...

I also hate the restic minis. They paint up OK, however the clean-up is unacceptably onerous. As a WM/H player, it makes sense to include the Winterguard as they are an oft used (if not overused) unit. Assault Kommandos are extremely lacklustre in terms of game-play. Including Assault Kommandos would be akin to GW packaging the current SM battleforce with command squad w/ a techmarine instead of a tactical squad and a captain. Modelling heaven, but much less likely to get used in a game.

The "army-size" argument is stupid anyways. Why would it be more acceptable for a miniature to cost more (assuming identical miniatures for the moment) if you need less of them in a particular game? Should I pay GW twice of what they ask, if I only buy miniatures for Kill-Team? Should they give me a 50% discount if I am painting up for a big Apoc-Event? Doesn't make sense.

Given how many people buy miniatures just for painting, or you could always proxy miniatures from one line for another game, only miniature by miniature prices offer any real insight.

If I know I want to play with more miniatures, obviously it is going to be more expensive, and as a customer, I might opt for miniatures that trade quality for affordability, but even this decision cannot be made in a meaningful manner, unless you have a solid price/miniature-baseline that tells you how expensive/cheap a give miniature is at a given quality.

I would have bought that khador box but I already have most of those. Throw in a unit of Man O' Wars and a solo and you pretty much have my army.

 Talys wrote:
On the other hand, the Warmachines or Hordes 2-faction starters (that are about $100) give you relatively weak models (dare I say, barely better than Dark Vengeance in terms of long term model usefulness).

The WM 2P starter contents was constrained by what had been made into plastic at that point. Both casters are very good and see decent amounts of play. While they lack the weapon options, the included warjack kits are the same as the normal retail kits meaning that you can easily re-weaponize the hulls or convert them to their character warjack counterparts through the PP parts store. No disagreements about the MOWs and the Cinnerators being largely garbage though... but again - its largely a factor of what had been converted to plastic at that point. Hillariously, I actually bought a 2P starter box because I needed a Khador Destroyer to build Black Ivan and a unit of MOWs... it was a no brainer considering that $35MSRP warjack + $45MSRP unit... get everything else for $20!!!!!

I disagree that the Hordes 2P starter contains weak models. The warspears in pretty good on their own and have good synergy with pLylith- adding the Chieftain only adds to their potency. The skinwalkers become much better as soon as you add the Alpha attachment. The Carnivean isn't the best, but it can easily be re-purposed into a scythean or ravagore, both of which see tons of play. The only duff models on the circle side are the Argii.

Wonderwolf wrote:
The "army-size" argument is stupid anyways. Why would it be more acceptable for a miniature to cost more (assuming identical miniatures for the moment) if you need less of them in a particular game? Should I pay GW twice of what they ask, if I only buy miniatures for Kill-Team? Should they give me a 50% discount if I am painting up for a big Apoc-Event? Doesn't make sense.

2 factors:

1. Cost to play; people will tolerate higher prices if they need less of them. It's about $20 for an X-Wing ship, but you only really need 2-5 to play (cost to play = $20-100), but $5 for a Macedionian Phalanx infantry might be regarded as steep, if you field them in 3 blocks of 40 (cost to play = $600)
2. Cost of production; the design/tooling cost is relatively fixed, so needs to be split over expected sales. An item you only need 1 of will sell less on average than one you can use 100 of.

Wonderwolf wrote:
The "army-size" argument is stupid anyways. Why would it be more acceptable for a miniature to cost more (assuming identical miniatures for the moment) if you need less of them in a particular game? Should I pay GW twice of what they ask, if I only buy miniatures for Kill-Team? Should they give me a 50% discount if I am painting up for a big Apoc-Event? Doesn't make sense.

Given how many people buy miniatures just for painting, or you could always proxy miniatures from one line for another game, only miniature by miniature prices offer any real insight.

If I know I want to play with more miniatures, obviously it is going to be more expensive, and as a customer, I might opt for miniatures that trade quality for affordability, but even this decision cannot be made in a meaningful manner, unless you have a solid price/miniature-baseline that tells you how expensive/cheap a give miniature is at a given quality.

That really depends on the criteria.

If we're comparing miniature ranges, then yes, comparing typical prices is a fair assessment.

Most of the time though we're comparing cost to play a game, and that isn't so fair. For instance, comparing X Wing to pretty much anything else on a model for model basis would make it look staggeringly expensive, but in reality the rules are free to download and the main components of a worlds winning list can be had for around £50-60. One can build a strongly competitive list for as little as ~£30.

A fair while ago, I knocked up a formula which expressed the cost of the miniature relative to the % of the accepted typical list size it took up in an army, that gave a much better idea when it came to assessing cost to play, and GW seldom came out that well.

EDIT
The formula was calculate a given models points value as a percentage of a typical army size, and divide the RRP by that number.)

Herzlos wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:
The "army-size" argument is stupid anyways. Why would it be more acceptable for a miniature to cost more (assuming identical miniatures for the moment) if you need less of them in a particular game? Should I pay GW twice of what they ask, if I only buy miniatures for Kill-Team? Should they give me a 50% discount if I am painting up for a big Apoc-Event? Doesn't make sense.

2 factors:

1. Cost to play; people will tolerate higher prices if they need less of them. It's about $20 for an X-Wing ship, but you only really need 2-5 to play (cost to play = $20-100), but $5 for a Macedionian Phalanx infantry might be regarded as steep, if you field them in 3 blocks of 40 (cost to play = $600)
2. Cost of production; the design/tooling cost is relatively fixed, so needs to be split over expected sales. An item you only need 1 of will sell less on average than one you can use 100 of.

Re 1: That is personal preference and shouldn't figure into any objective comparison. I can easily play 40K XS-Kill-Team with 2-5 models or I might want to do the Battle for the Death Star with 100s of X-Wings.

Gaming-preferences differ and, as said, it's obvious that if you want (!) more models, they cost more. Meaningful consumer choice depends on an objective baseline, which demands taking preferences for game-size out of the equation.

Re 2: Costs of production are negligible for all but the smallest (as in 1-2 person max) companies. Companies like Dreamforge is proof that you can produce several dozens of injection-moulded plastics with slide-core molds for under 500 customers and under US$ 250.000,-. Hawk Wargames, Kingdom Death, etc.. all produced dozens of sprues of the highest fixed-cost medium. If you're talking restic or metal, fixed prices are even more irrelevant, especially compared to far, far, far more significant other factors (e.g. location of manufacturing, USA, EU or China, direct sales vs. retailers who take a cut, etc., etc.., etc..).

If you bring up things like this, there're probably 500 other factors with bigger impacts that need to be considered first.

Dreamforge got a deal from their production company as the production company wanted to showcase their abilities, and even GW have a cogs of almost 25%, much of which will be production, so you can't call that negligible.

Wonderwolf wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:
The "army-size" argument is stupid anyways. Why would it be more acceptable for a miniature to cost more (assuming identical miniatures for the moment) if you need less of them in a particular game? Should I pay GW twice of what they ask, if I only buy miniatures for Kill-Team? Should they give me a 50% discount if I am painting up for a big Apoc-Event? Doesn't make sense.

2 factors:

1. Cost to play; people will tolerate higher prices if they need less of them. It's about $20 for an X-Wing ship, but you only really need 2-5 to play (cost to play = $20-100), but $5 for a Macedionian Phalanx infantry might be regarded as steep, if you field them in 3 blocks of 40 (cost to play = $600)
2. Cost of production; the design/tooling cost is relatively fixed, so needs to be split over expected sales. An item you only need 1 of will sell less on average than one you can use 100 of.

Re 1: That is personal preference and shouldn't figure into any objective comparison. I can easily play 40K XS-Kill-Team with 2-5 models or I might want to do the Battle for the Death Star with 100s of X-Wings.

-edit- Keep in mind that it is entirely possible to play against YOURSELF. So you are entirely correct that it is personal preference.

If you intend on playing pick up games with other people... Each gaming community will tend to gravitate towards an unspoken agreement as to what standard game size is. This is the benchmark by which you determine how much needs to be spent to reasonably play pick-up games within that community. Sure you can go far above or below that standard number, but this usually requires pre-planning with a fixed opponent and would a statistical outlier. I can say with a high degree of certainty that if I strolled into my local GW store with a single sternguard and a single scout that I'm not going to get in any games, kill-team or not!

 keezus wrote:

I have to disagree here. Each gaming community will tend to gravitate towards an unspoken agreement as to what standard game size is. This is the benchmark by which you determine how much needs to be spent to reasonably play pick-up games within that community. Sure you can go far above or below that standard number, but this usually requires pre-planning with a fixed opponent and would a statistical outlier. I can say with a high degree of certainty that if I strolled into my local GW store with a single sternguard and a single scout that I'm not going to get in any games, kill-team or not!

I don't play at local stores. Nobody I know has done in years. Basing these sort of calculations on such sub-factions of customers is equally wrought with statistical outliers and skewed samples. As are "guesses" (especially the biased ones favouring smaller companies) on fixed costs.

There's no way to get down to an objective benchmark with this outside of 1 Miniature vs. 1 Miniature.

 RiTides wrote:
Let's end the psychological disorders discussion tangent there - Thanks. All are free to post their opinions and agree / disagree, and you're only mental for loving Dakka

We're all mad here.

I'm mad.

You're mad.


Hatters Gotta Hat by YeAuldGrump, on Flickr

The Auld Grump - a hatter am I....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

2. Cost of production; the design/tooling cost is relatively fixed, so needs to be split over expected sales. An item you only need 1 of will sell less on average than one you can use 100 of.

Which is actually a fair argument against making character models in HIP.

Especially given that so many of GW's character models are single pose.

Assuming normal figure sizes, of course - the amount of metal to make an ogre character is more than it takes to make a halfling character....

The Auld Grump

Wonderwolf wrote:

 keezus wrote:

I have to disagree here. Each gaming community will tend to gravitate towards an unspoken agreement as to what standard game size is. This is the benchmark by which you determine how much needs to be spent to reasonably play pick-up games within that community. Sure you can go far above or below that standard number, but this usually requires pre-planning with a fixed opponent and would a statistical outlier. I can say with a high degree of certainty that if I strolled into my local GW store with a single sternguard and a single scout that I'm not going to get in any games, kill-team or not!

I don't play at local stores. Nobody I know has done in years. Basing these sort of calculations on such sub-factions of customers is equally wrought with statistical outliers and skewed samples. As are "guesses" (especially the biased ones favouring smaller companies) on fixed costs.

There's no way to get down to an objective benchmark with this outside of 1 Miniature vs. 1 Miniature.

Yes there is, it's especially easy with all of the major systems outside of GW as they run officially sanctioned events with officially sanctioned game sizes. Only in GW land is the "feth it, do whatever you want" attitude so prevalent as to not allow for a universal agreement on typical game size (and even then, I'd still expect the majority to argue for either 1500 or 1850.)

Secondly, why are you dismissing other people's arguments as guessing then using what is tantamount to your own guesswork as evidence to dismiss them?

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

2. Cost of production; the design/tooling cost is relatively fixed, so needs to be split over expected sales. An item you only need 1 of will sell less on average than one you can use 100 of.

Which is actually a fair argument against making character models in HIP.

Especially given that so many of GW's character models are single pose.

Agreed. Which is why almost everyone else does their character/low production run figures in metal, for a fraction of the GW plastic price. Only GW and Wyrd are pushing for all plastic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wonderwolf wrote:
[
Re 1: That is personal preference and shouldn't figure into any objective comparison. I can easily play 40K XS-Kill-Team with 2-5 models or I might want to do the Battle for the Death Star with 100s of X-Wings.

You could, but that's not how either is intended, designed or marketed to be played.

Re 2: Costs of production are negligible for all but the smallest (as in 1-2 person max) companies. Companies like Dreamforge is proof that you can produce several dozens of injection-moulded plastics with slide-core molds for under 500 customers and under US$ 250.000,-. Hawk Wargames, Kingdom Death, etc.. all produced dozens of sprues of the highest fixed-cost medium. If you're talking restic or metal, fixed prices are even more irrelevant, especially compared to far, far, far more significant other factors (e.g. location of manufacturing, USA, EU or China, direct sales vs. retailers who take a cut, etc., etc.., etc..).

If you bring up things like this, there're probably 500 other factors with bigger impacts that need to be considered first.

I'm not so sure as I don't have the numbers, but it depends entirely on the sales numbers. We're probably down to $15,000 for a steel mould now (maybe half of that for an aluminium mould), which if you sell 15,000 sprues is $1/sprue in costs. Are GW selling 15,000 of Space Marine Captain #29?

There will be other factors at play though, and cost of production is a small one. GW's worked on a sell for what they can get away with pricing plan for years.

So me and the local guys at the club got together and basically discussed what they wanted going ahead, and it looks like aos is a non starter, no one wants it, so we continue to play 8th ed fantasy, I've also advised the shop owner that we have no interest in the game but are happy to show others how to play it if he wishes etc.

Age of Sigmar is dead.
Long live fantasy.