Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/12/28 04:53:27
Subject: Re:Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
it is definately a work in progress. it has been a royal pain in the _____ to get a balanced game. the scenarios are pretty sucky. we generally try to stick with battallion boxes now. overall what we have found turning off newer players is the almost complete lack of any rational structure. that and the size of some of our fights has made the sticker shock for buy in to AoS no better than warhammer. the only difference is you can buy "what you want" not necessarily "what you need" for a legit army.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/12/28 07:55:15
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
jonolikespie wrote:I think "success" is defined by GW management as whatever the hell they say it is, with no actual metric behind it. If Kirby says it is a success it is a success and 40k is boned.
As long as the company makes a profit it is by definition successful.
The arguments around GW's performance centre on two key points:
1) Even a profitable company should worry about long-term decline in sales.
2) GW could be selling more and therefore making even more profit with a different strategy (a larger portfolio of games, better marketing, etc.)
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/12/28 09:23:17
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
jonolikespie wrote:The rules do suggest 100 models a side is an evenings worth of gaming, so I take that to mean that is their expected size, but that seems, from the outside at least, grossly bloated for a skirmish game.
i don't take it is as expected size, i just take it as what it says. If you have a full evening to play then you can probably fit in 100 figs. If you have only a couple of hours then roughly halve it. The events at warhammer world have so far been 30-60 models that I've seen.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/28 09:23:43
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/12/28 10:39:50
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Using Object Source Lighting
|
Kanluwen wrote:If anyone would like, I can post photos of Archaon and some Varanguard with a Venerable Dreadnought for scale.
Might not happen tonight, but I can put it on my to-do list.
Please do. Thanks.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/05 17:35:40
Subject: Re:Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
GW will charge the absolute highest cost for a model that players will pay. It can be argued if this is good business, that it may be short sighted, or that it's a premium product for a premium price. I think they are taking steps to keep the prices in line, and I feel like they have reached the ceiling or close to it.
There will always be whales buying 2,000 dollar castles, and there will always be scratch builders making something the same size for 30 bucks with a lot of foam and glue.
For the average player, it all has to do with what they have in expendable income, and what the value of what they are buying on a personal level. I assume that like most players, I use other products in a similar range to decide if this is worth my money. When buying video games for example, I have a different scale when buying for my console vs. buying for my phone. (I don't like spending over 50 bucks on a console game, for the phone its 10 bucks.) If I spend 20 dollars on a video game for my phone, I expect it to be one of the best I've ever played. the same amount of money spent on a console game is either a much older AAA purchase, or trying out an indy game. I hold them to different standards, even though they cost the same.
Wargaming is not my only hobby, nor is it the cheapest! I make rat-bikes as a hobby, and have a good idea of what bike parts cost. 100 bucks is a tiny purchase, 500 is average, anything over 1,000 is a seriously considered part. For wargaming, I look at what an average sized army is with a few options, figure out its cost, and decide if I want to buy it. What I don't do is think that the cost of some new chrome forward controls is equal to a knight army for 40K. However, If I played other Wargames I'm sure the cost per army would factor in, and I would certainly compare the cost of a GW army to the cost of a Warmachine/hordes army, for example.
AoS has the advantage of not needing all of it at once, but for the last ten years that is how I have always bough and painted miniatures. (just my personal preference for making armies.) It used to be the cost of a new army at standard play for GW games was 300-400 bucks for 40K, and roughly double that for fantasy. With the change from AoS to fantasy it feels much more in line with 40K now, as far as number of models needed to play. (I've been kicking around a dark forest army idea, it prices out at around 375.00)
I feel like the cost of GW models in general are a little higher now, but one thing AoS did was bring the cost to play it far more in line with 40K.
If people buy 200.00 models, they will continue to cost 200.00.
|
God sends meat, the devil sends cooks |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 10:56:06
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Hacking Proxy Mk.1
|
There is one huge hole in your argument. People aren't paying $200 for a model.
It's all well and good to say they are charging whatever the players are willing to pay, but with falling sales year on year for a LONG time now people aren't willing to pay GWs prices.
|
Fafnir wrote:Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 12:22:08
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
jonolikespie wrote:There is one huge hole in your argument. People aren't paying $200 for a model.
It's all well and good to say they are charging whatever the players are willing to pay, but with falling sales year on year for a LONG time now people aren't willing to pay GWs prices.
Oh, I agree with you. I've had my eye on several of the new giant models, for both 40k and fantasy. I have the income to purchase them, but I didn't buy the Vermin Lord for my Skaven when it came out, or a Gorkanaut for my Ork army. (even though I have all the other models to field the Killa Kan/Stompa formation.) I didn't buy them simply because they are too expensive for what you get.
I was just trying to look at the big picture, comparing why I buy things and comparative value. For me, GW has priced themselves out of a lot of models. Why would I buy the Archaeon model when I can get an entire "starter" army for either 40k or fantasy? I think in general they lost sight of having one or two centerpiece models to having entire armies of them.
This is all coming from a guy who only plays at a GW store and only makes his purchases through that store to support the local game scene. There are less and less models that I feel are worth the cost, it will be an interesting day when ALL the models reach that point. (I hope it doesn't!)
I do feel like they are taking steps to lower costs, many of the newer starter boxes are priced well. (only in comparison to other GW models, of course.) As usual though its two steps forward, one step back. the new Fyreslayers are 10 models for 60 bucks, 5 models for 40 bucks, and a character for 30 bucks. Thats too rich for my blood, no matter how good they look.
|
God sends meat, the devil sends cooks |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 12:54:39
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Skillful Swordmaster
The Shadowlands of Nagarythe
|
pox wrote:Thats too rich for my blood, no matter how good they look.
See this here? Right here. This sentiment has been growing for years and apparently GW still doesn't get it.
I mean, how hard can it be to understand this?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/06 12:54:52
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 12:56:09
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Plaguebearer with a Flu
Macclesfield, Cheshire
|
Since October I've bought Archaon, Bloodthirster, Celestant Prime, Verminlord, Carnosaur, Engine of the Gods, Zombie Dragon, Frostheart Phoenix, Stormfiends and several others.
Guess I'm bucking the trend!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 13:35:58
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: pox wrote:Thats too rich for my blood, no matter how good they look.
See this here? Right here. This sentiment has been growing for years and apparently GW still doesn't get it.
I mean, how hard can it be to understand this?
I think they are getting it, that's why some of the new bundle deals are very good value.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 13:39:09
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Skillful Swordmaster
The Shadowlands of Nagarythe
|
Kilkrazy wrote: Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: pox wrote:Thats too rich for my blood, no matter how good they look.
See this here? Right here. This sentiment has been growing for years and apparently GW still doesn't get it.
I mean, how hard can it be to understand this?
I think they are getting it, that's why some of the new bundle deals are very good value.
That is true, but I am still a bit skeptic - the bundles are a (faint, imo) sign of hope, but it's not gonna be much of a change if the rest of the range keeps to the same price tags.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/06 13:39:24
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 14:43:25
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
|
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
See this here? Right here. This sentiment has been growing for years and apparently GW still doesn't get it.
I mean, how hard can it be to understand this?
With various sets (Dryads, new starter sets, etc) there are now plenty of cheap (well, cheaper) options. You are covered.
For those wanting to spend a bit more for something a bit special, they are covered.
GW are hitting both the high end and low(er) end on the spending spectrum. It is the smart thing to do (add in whole psychology of higher price items driving sales of lower price items).
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 14:51:15
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Clousseau
|
So long as there are the mantics in the world cranking out cruddy looking but very cheap models for mass fantasy, GW will always have a problem in the pricing realm.
Per many many polls, the average total expenditure that players are willing to dole out for an army sits at roughly $200.
Of course even in 1998 you couldn't get a whole army for $200, so thats not completely fair (my first undead army in 1997 was $450) but that seems to be the magical figure that comes out in many polls.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 14:54:11
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
I think the big kits are clearly a hit for GW. Look at the top 28 bestsellers list. Even the pricier, elite troop units seem to do better than the old standard 16 or 20 pack of basic troops. Other than the battalion bundle deals, is there a single box on the top 28 list that has more than 10 models in it?
Archaon has been all over the AoS community pages. I'm not surprised that going for pricier, elite models finds more success than hordes of cheaper models. The same dynamic is true in many industries.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 15:45:29
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Skillful Swordmaster
The Shadowlands of Nagarythe
|
MongooseMatt wrote: Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
See this here? Right here. This sentiment has been growing for years and apparently GW still doesn't get it.
I mean, how hard can it be to understand this?
With various sets (Dryads, new starter sets, etc) there are now plenty of cheap (well, cheaper) options. You are covered.
For those wanting to spend a bit more for something a bit special, they are covered.
GW are hitting both the high end and low(er) end on the spending spectrum. It is the smart thing to do (add in whole psychology of higher price items driving sales of lower price items).
Out of curiosity, where exactly in that spectrum does a single infantry model priced at 30$ - like the Auric Runemaster - fit? Is it in the obscenely expensive slot or in the just absurdly expensive one?
The same can be said about the Vulkite Berserkers box going at 60$ - where does it fit? Or the Varanguard - unless you want to slot them into the "Special Snowflake" slot that seems to provide instant justification for any outrageous price GW decides to apply to a model.
I also have a feeling that if the dryads got new models their price wouldn't be the one you're mentioning... But hey, maybe that's just me.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/06 15:46:15
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 16:07:54
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Plaguebearer with a Flu
Macclesfield, Cheshire
|
Varanguard through an independent stockist can be picked up for £48 for 3, so £16 per model. At that price they're much bigger than standard £20 and under characters.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 16:10:31
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Skillful Swordmaster
The Shadowlands of Nagarythe
|
Hero606v2 wrote:Varanguard through an independent stockist can be picked up for £48 for 3, so £16 per model. At that price they're much bigger than standard £20 and under characters.
Yep... confirmed Special Snowflake Slot then.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 16:14:58
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Plaguebearer with a Flu
Macclesfield, Cheshire
|
At £16 for a model of that size and quality then it isn't an outrageous price at all.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 16:17:54
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Skillful Swordmaster
The Shadowlands of Nagarythe
|
Hero606v2 wrote:At £16 for a model of that size and quality then it isn't an outrageous price at all.
Through an Independent Stockist that applies a 20% discount and without SnH charges. And even then, to a lot of people it will still be too expensive.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 16:33:44
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
for me I decide on a model to model basis. I get that the Varenguard are giant models, so its more of a "three juggernauts for 100 bucks" rather then "three cavalry for 100 bucks."
If I played a chaos army I'm sure I'd take a closer look, but it's 33 bucks a model so that prices out the hook to start a new army, if that makes any sense.
To put it another way, I have a heavy infantry Imp Guard army. It's a very thematic army, based off of using a lot of terrain and built to hold ground. I decided to branch out and make three inquisitor retinues for story variation.
Once I had the Inquisitors, I started looking at marines. I bought the new codex, and started pricing out a good "starter" army that would ally with inquisitors and my Guard.
Until Battle of Calth, there really wasn't any box that seemed worth it, it looked like I'd be dropping a lot of coin just to get a bare-bones marine army. Once Calth dropped it was no question. 30 marines, 5 termies, two captains, and a dreadnought for 150 bucks. It was an excellent starting force, and as I wanted to build Red Hunters the older armor fit the bill for a SM Chapter dedicated to helping the inquisition.
Now that I have a good starter force, ill expand it. The new Demi company is in the ballpark.
Without the new priced boxes I wouldn't have even started the SM allies.
|
God sends meat, the devil sends cooks |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 17:21:40
Subject: Re:Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought
|
If you are into your models, anything that looks cool and has a challenge will get sales: everyone is looking for their next mountain to climb.
It just gets harder to sell to the gaming crowd who are progressively tempted to substitute with a can of Dr. Pepper.
GW has managed to get me to buy 2 Imperial Knights, the original and the new kit.
I still cannot quite bring myself to get a third (which is a logical limit).
Funny how "coldgaming" was asking if any single box in the top 28 list has more than 10 models in it... ummm... they have been shrinking model counts in boxes for a long time (like Dire Avengers from 10 to 5 models, Khorne Berserkers from 20 to 12) so there would not be much to choose from or they are old.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/06 17:22:02
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 17:58:08
Subject: Re:Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Talizvar wrote:If you are into your models, anything that looks cool and has a challenge will get sales: everyone is looking for their next mountain to climb.
It just gets harder to sell to the gaming crowd who are progressively tempted to substitute with a can of Dr. Pepper.
I think this is the crux of it. Miniature games are one part hobby, one part game. Some folks are just in it for the game and consider the hobby aspect to be an inconvenience at best. I think AoS sells more to the hobby crowd, with the bare minimum of game needed to provide the tabletop experience without it dominating the entire community. My guess is that a larger portion of AoS figures sold actually get painted than 40k or Warmachine, because what's the point otherwise? So GW can charge a bit more for the models because they aren't just glorified game pieces.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 18:40:02
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Clousseau
|
For some people yes miniature games are part hobby part game.
There is a large ocean of people that are primarily game though, where the miniatures are nothing more than tokens to play the game, and those people don't want to pay much at all for those tokens if they don't have to.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 19:30:15
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Posts with Authority
|
auticus wrote:So long as there are the mantics in the world cranking out cruddy looking but very cheap models for mass fantasy, GW will always have a problem in the pricing realm.
I'd say that Mantic's fantasy minis match GW's, in that they can be a bit overpriced for what they are, too. GW's quality is generally higher than Mantic's, but I don't think it's £3.50-£4 per human-sized plastic infantry figure, higher.
Intent regarding the size of the game - skirmish or mass battle, for example - can be a factor too. But even for a smaller game than what 8th ed became, I'd consider WFB's prices still very high. AoS's prices, well...
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:Hero606v2 wrote:At £16 for a model of that size and quality then it isn't an outrageous price at all.
Through an Independent Stockist that applies a 20% discount and without SnH charges. And even then, to a lot of people it will still be too expensive.
This. Sheer size, and quantity of digitally sculpted texture, aren't the be-all end-all of miniature pricing. Especially not when we're talking mass-produced plastic, too.
£16 is fairly outrageous when you can get detailed - and to be frank, more subtly-sculpted* - plastic historical cavalry for about £1.60. A tenth of the price! Being generous, say a varanguard is about three times the size. That's about £5 of plastic in non- GW pricing. £6-7 to be even more generous and tack on a bit of 'fantasy tax'. Still less than half of the price they go for, at a discount.
* From my own experience, sticking big, chunky, eye-catching spikes, teeth, armour trim, texture and such all over a model isn't the pinnacle, or the most difficult aspect, of the mini sculptor's art. Particularly not with a handy copy of Zbrush or whatever lying around. I'd debate that it makes a big injection-moulded knight worth £20.
It's relatively easy to sculpt a big, fangy, gnashy fictional monster that looks vaguely like a horse. Getting a sculpt to really look like an actual horse - notoriously difficult in art - is the more impressive, arguably work-intensive feat. There are a fair few mini sculptors who set out to do that, but couldn't quite manage it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/06 19:31:11
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 19:53:41
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
auticus wrote:For some people yes miniature games are part hobby part game.
There is a large ocean of people that are primarily game though, where the miniatures are nothing more than tokens to play the game, and those people don't want to pay much at all for those tokens if they don't have to.
Which is my point. Some people look at the miniatures as glorified tokens, and some people look at the miniatures as hobby projects. It is easier to justify higher prices for a hobby than a game.
I'm not going to tell people how to enjoy their own games, but miniatures seems like an over-expensive indulgence as merely game pieces (and I'm including the miniatures used in games like Descent/Imperial Assault and BattleLore).
Vermis wrote:
* From my own experience, sticking big, chunky, eye-catching spikes, teeth, armour trim, texture and such all over a model isn't the pinnacle, or the most difficult aspect, of the mini sculptor's art. Particularly not with a handy copy of Zbrush or whatever lying around. I'd debate that it makes a big injection-moulded knight worth £20.
It's relatively easy to sculpt a big, fangy, gnashy fictional monster that looks vaguely like a horse. Getting a sculpt to really look like an actual horse - notoriously difficult in art - is the more impressive, arguably work-intensive feat. There are a fair few mini sculptors who set out to do that, but couldn't quite manage it.
It's more fun to paint models with lots of good, bumpy detail. The detail breaks up the colors and gives the model more depth, causing the model to look more impressive on the table. A horse is basically a solid color. From a distance, it will blend in with other horses, losing its shape and definition in the blandness.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 20:22:26
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I fall firmly into the hobby category, but without the goal of eventually fielding them and playing a game there's no real draw for me to just model and paint GW models. during my hiatus from playing for a few years I did still model, but I just made Apocalypse vehicles from scratch.
Even then I still built them in accordance with the rules with the thought that eventually I would get to field them.
Way back in the day I did play a few games where the model quality was a tad weaker then GW's, and it does make a difference to the over all experience of playing. For me the best experiences are always around two fully painted armies and finished terrain.
|
God sends meat, the devil sends cooks |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 20:28:04
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
pox wrote:For me the best experiences are always around two fully painted armies and finished terrain.
I've never had the pleasure. :(
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 20:51:58
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Sqorgar wrote: pox wrote:For me the best experiences are always around two fully painted armies and finished terrain.
I've never had the pleasure. :(
Oh man, you gotta strong-arm people. My favorite events are escalation leagues, I always make a point to start a new army or faction with a focus on finished models. I usually try and give speed painting lessons during it, and spend as much time at the shop encouraging people to paint. (the last one we had I managed to finish TWO troop based armies by the end!)
I'd rather lose to a painted army then win against the gray or primer legions.
I know this is a derail, but that's one of my universal pet peeves, seeing the same mook week after week fielding more and more and more of the gray legion, until the blandness seeps out turning the shop into a black and white movie. I've stopped being mad about, and now just encourage painting as much as I can. Our local shopkeep has a universal rule, all painted models have hatred against unpainted ones, and its made quite the difference!
To keep it back on topic, that's one thing that I really like about the current trend of GW painting and modelling. Even if you don't agree with the prices, most army books have detailed painting guides that even novice gamers can follow and make fantastic looking figures. GW has always made good painting guides, but now they are very clear and precise. Cut-glue-base-shade-highlight-texture. all laid out in glorious color with the exact paint names spelled out. It even makes it easy for new players to know exactly what paints and brushes they will need!
I'm gonna go long-beard to end this scree with "PAINT YER' DAMN FIGURES!" (painted models even play better.)
|
God sends meat, the devil sends cooks |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 21:04:49
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Playing with unpainted models is a no-go for me. I wouldn't be rude to a friend or someone who wanted a game and deny one, but personally I won't field unpainted stuff. I'm not even a great painter, but tabletop standard is achievable by anyone and makes the game come to life. At that point I don't care about the game very much, I just enjoy watching the spectacle of the battle.
I remember back in the day as kids though we were lucky to have 1 fully painted unit and no empty movement tray proxies.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/08 12:33:50
Subject: Ok, GW has gone off the deepend.
|
 |
Plaguebearer with a Flu
Macclesfield, Cheshire
|
I'm taking part in my first ever tournament in a couple of weeks so am trying my hardest to get the army painted. Have 20 Bloodreavers, 5 Wrathmongers, a Bloodstoker, Mighty Lord of Khorne, Bloodthirster and Archaon to do... think I'll get all but the two centre-piece figures done in time but I don't want to rush those so it'll be just a base coat there.
|
|
 |
 |
|