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.

Bottle- you're definitely right about the starters they've recently come out, they're a great deal for both 40k and Fantasy! If I ever find myself getting into AOS, it would be through one of those starters...perhaps if they came out with a dwarf set!

 doktor_g wrote:
My prediction:

AoS = 3 year lifespan.

Do you also predict WM/H a 3 year lifespan, because quite a few of PPs metal monopose models are even more expensive than those 8$ dwarves?
I play Trollbloods (Hordes) so I'm mostly familiar with those models, and I just bought 2x Northkin Fire Eaters which is a 32$ 3-man unit, all monopose made out of PPs terrible plastic. I also bought a 17$ monopose metal Stone Scribe Elder, and if you want more examples look at the Long riders which is a 5 man unit for a 110$. Also remember than no PP kits have extra bits.

So yea, those GW dwarves are insanely expensive, but other models are too, and many of those are certainly of lesser quality, but still those games continue to exist so AoS probably will too.

 Bottle wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 toasteroven wrote:
Are you really still surprised? This has been the trend with all of the new AoS stuff.

How else did anyone thing GW can make money off AoS. The rules are free, the game uses smaller armies than WFHB. Simple maths shows us that the books and models have to be a more expensive, and they are.

I figured they'd want to price the game as to attract a lot of new customers. The pricing on all of the AOS stuff (bar the good deal on the starter) seems incredibly high even compared to 40k. I don't know how they'll be able to bring people in on the new models; it seems like only the old models being sold at discount would attract people.

That, and I don't understand the marketing plan. The game is marketed in part to a younger audience, but how would children (even with hefty allowances) be able to purchase these models? I can't even imagine parents being convinced to pick these dwarves up.

Yes, it's something that confuses me too - in fact the rising prices on new kits only makes the older WHFB ranges seem increasingly better value lol - only £15 for 10 Empire State troops? Bargain!

As someone who collects mostly the old WHFB ranges it makes me happy they'll stay the same price, but the price discrepancy between the new kits and the old just gets bigger and bigger.

Still the 'Start Collecting' boxes are a great idea and solve most of these issues in my eyes. They need them for all the armies.

I totally agree- 16 glade guard for £20! £1.25 per model, not £4.50. I feel they've missed the point of aos with these new expensive releases- the rules (or lack of them) seem to suggest that the game is aimed at people whom the amount of rules for 40k daunted. These people are not die hard hobbyists and as such will not drop £103.50 on 21 dwarves.

Spiky Norman wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
My prediction:

AoS = 3 year lifespan.

Do you also predict WM/H a 3 year lifespan, because quite a few of PPs metal monopose models are even more expensive than those 8$ dwarves?
I play Trollbloods (Hordes) so I'm mostly familiar with those models, and I just bought 2x Northkin Fire Eaters which is a 32$ 3-man unit, all monopose made out of PPs terrible plastic. I also bought a 17$ monopose metal Stone Scribe Elder, and if you want more examples look at the Long riders which is a 5 man unit for a 110$. Also remember than no PP kits have extra bits.

So yea, those GW dwarves are insanely expensive, but other models are too, and many of those are certainly of lesser quality, but still those games continue to exist so AoS probably will too.

I guess the difference is that many people like WM/H as a game and setting and therefore is prepared to pay more for the models even if they don't find the models themselves to be strictly worth the price by themselves.

With AoS, almost no one like the rules of the actual game, few has shelled out money for the background books and even fewer has liked what they've read in them, so if not even the models are considered good or at least decent in comparasion to price they cost, then there isn't much appeal.

If anything, 3 years might be pretty generous.

Indeed, I think models draw people in, while the game itself has more to do with the long-term success.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:

Table wrote:
I find it wonderful that i can log on to dakka and still see people whining and complaining about people voicing their opinion.

fixed that for you.

Fixed that for you.

I think casual players will afford £6 infantry figures exactly because they are casual players. They aren't planning to build several large armies, and they aren't aware of competing games, in particular historicals, which are typically 1/10th the price of similar GW figures.

I look at the Dwarves and think for the price of one box of six infantry, I could buy an entire 15mm army for DBA, or for the price of four boxes, I could buy two decent sized 28mm armies plus terrain in the Perry Bros ACW Battle in a Box.

But your typical GW newbie doesn't know about the options, and he's thinking (or his parents are thinking) about buying one box every couple of months and gradually collecting 30 or so figures, which is enough for a game of AoS.

From that angle it doesn't look so bad.

 Zywus wrote:


With AoS, almost no one like the rules of the actual game.

Just wrong... highly recommend trying the game and/or following the podcast/youtube community.

No more "fixed that for you" misquotes in this thread, please. Thanks

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I look at the Dwarves and think for the price of one box of six infantry, I could buy an entire 15mm army for DBA, or for the price of four boxes, I could buy two decent sized 28mm armies plus terrain in the Perry Bros ACW Battle in a Box.

I have never understood this argument. That's like saying that I can buy one Beatles album or two Led Zeppelin albums. It's a better value proposition, song per dollar, but at the end of the day, I don't want Led Zeppelin albums. I want the Beatles, and Beatles albums cost what they cost.

If you liked both Led Zeppelin and the Beatles, then the prices are comparable (and you'd likely end up with more Led Zeppelin albums). Or if I didn't give a gak at all, I could always get the best bang for my buck and buy "Now That's What I Call Music" volumes one through fourteen. I think one of the Kidz Bop albums has a cover of some Beatles songs, so I can get good value while also kinda having the Beatles too. Heck, maybe I even prefer the Kidz Bop version. Maybe Kidz Bop is the only Beatles I can actually afford. But none of that changes the fact that Beatles cost what the Beatles cost because cheaper Led Zeppelin and Kidz Bop isn't going to change the demand for the Beatles.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think casual players will afford £6 infantry figures exactly because they are casual players. They aren't planning to build several large armies, and they aren't aware of competing games, in particular historicals, which are typically 1/10th the price of similar GW figures.

I look at the Dwarves and think for the price of one box of six infantry, I could buy an entire 15mm army for DBA, or for the price of four boxes, I could buy two decent sized 28mm armies plus terrain in the Perry Bros ACW Battle in a Box.

But your typical GW newbie doesn't know about the options, and he's thinking (or his parents are thinking) about buying one box every couple of months and gradually collecting 30 or so figures, which is enough for a game of AoS.

Or maybe the hobby veteran have a decent amount of disposable income and prefers quality over quantity, and therefore prefers to buy GW, Forgeworld and such.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I look at the Dwarves and think for the price of one box of six infantry, I could buy an entire 15mm army for DBA, or for the price of four boxes, I could buy two decent sized 28mm armies plus terrain in the Perry Bros ACW Battle in a Box.

I have never understood this argument. That's like saying that I can buy one Beatles album or two Led Zeppelin albums. It's a better value proposition, song per dollar, but at the end of the day, I don't want Led Zeppelin albums. I want the Beatles, and Beatles albums cost what they cost.

It's quite simple really. If someone likes the Beetles and Led Zeppelin equally, then the price is the deciding factor and are obviously going for the Zeppelin albums.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spiky Norman wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think casual players will afford £6 infantry figures exactly because they are casual players. They aren't planning to build several large armies, and they aren't aware of competing games, in particular historicals, which are typically 1/10th the price of similar GW figures.

I look at the Dwarves and think for the price of one box of six infantry, I could buy an entire 15mm army for DBA, or for the price of four boxes, I could buy two decent sized 28mm armies plus terrain in the Perry Bros ACW Battle in a Box.

But your typical GW newbie doesn't know about the options, and he's thinking (or his parents are thinking) about buying one box every couple of months and gradually collecting 30 or so figures, which is enough for a game of AoS.

Or maybe the hobby veteran have a decent amount of disposable income and prefers quality over quantity, and therefore prefers to buy GW, Forgeworld and such.

I'd consider myself a hobby veteran. When I go for quality over quantity (which I almost always do) GW is pretty low on my list. Cost =/= quality.

Spiky Norman wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think casual players will afford £6 infantry figures exactly because they are casual players. They aren't planning to build several large armies, and they aren't aware of competing games, in particular historicals, which are typically 1/10th the price of similar GW figures.

I look at the Dwarves and think for the price of one box of six infantry, I could buy an entire 15mm army for DBA, or for the price of four boxes, I could buy two decent sized 28mm armies plus terrain in the Perry Bros ACW Battle in a Box.

But your typical GW newbie doesn't know about the options, and he's thinking (or his parents are thinking) about buying one box every couple of months and gradually collecting 30 or so figures, which is enough for a game of AoS.

Or maybe the hobby veteran have a decent amount of disposable income and prefers quality over quantity, and therefore prefers to buy GW, Forgeworld and such.

Or maybe the hobby veteran has grown past silly notions like blind brand loyalty and prefers to make his own choice when it comes to what he spends his money on, regardless of his income.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I look at the Dwarves and think for the price of one box of six infantry, I could buy an entire 15mm army for DBA, or for the price of four boxes, I could buy two decent sized 28mm armies plus terrain in the Perry Bros ACW Battle in a Box.

I have never understood this argument. That's like saying that I can buy one Beatles album or two Led Zeppelin albums. It's a better value proposition, song per dollar, but at the end of the day, I don't want Led Zeppelin albums. I want the Beatles, and Beatles albums cost what they cost....
....

The argument is that for the same price I can get a lot more stuff that I like and play more games.

If you are so dedicated to GW that you only want to buy their stuff and not any other stuff, then obviously you won't think the GW price is high. But looking at it objectively, you spend £30 and you get 60 15mm Imperial Romans, or 40 ACW infantry, or 6 Dwarves.

The CD example doesn't make a good argument because most CDs cost about the same, whatever the band, and even the most expensive new releases are only twice the classics, whereas the modern GW figures are as much as 20 times more expensive than comparable historical figures.

Ooooh, taking that example again, if the Beetles album only had 6 songs compared to Led Zeppelin's 12, it's obvious which is better value. Yes you might like the Beetles better, and may well buy them because that, but one if giving you twice as much music so surely you can at least understand why a lot of people would call that better value.

I do like the comparison of AoS to a Kidz Bop album of cover songs.

easily accessible for kids, with a hint of adult music!

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I look at the Dwarves and think for the price of one box of six infantry, I could buy an entire 15mm army for DBA, or for the price of four boxes, I could buy two decent sized 28mm armies plus terrain in the Perry Bros ACW Battle in a Box.

I have never understood this argument. That's like saying that I can buy one Beatles album or two Led Zeppelin albums. It's a better value proposition, song per dollar, but at the end of the day, I don't want Led Zeppelin albums. I want the Beatles, and Beatles albums cost what they cost....
....

The argument is that for the same price I can get a lot more stuff that I like and play more games.

More fully you were saying.

I think casual players will afford £6 infantry figures exactly because they are casual players. They aren't planning to build several large armies, and they aren't aware of competing games, in particular historicals, which are typically 1/10th the price of similar GW figures.

But your typical GW newbie doesn't know about the options

You leave the clear impression your argument was that if they did know about those options that they would like all those other options. Not you.

How do you know that the typical GW newbie has no idea about other wargames, historicals etc?
How do you know they would like all those other options.


The typical GW newbie is a young kid.

I suspect that a good number may not know a huge amount about other mini games, but equally I would expect a fair number do. I also suspect that even if they did know about other stuff the majority would not be interested. Monster, heroes, wizards etc is far more in line with what Kids are into as a generalization than painting/playing napoleonics or gauls etc and trying to find someone of their age to play DBA with. It is also fairly easy to get a GW game with other kids,not so historical. Kids and parents will spend money on such stuff that will get used, but probably a lot less so on stuff that will be harder to get games with.

Playing historicals (at least over here) would probably involve late evening wargame clubs with old bearded blokes mainly. Maybe not what many parents want for 12 year old kid, especially if club won't let in 12 year old kid without parent present (although at least the anti smoking laws make them a bit more welcoming than many years ago). I know of a small number of clubs that do GW stuff plus other fantasy/sci-fi games, but only 1 that does historicals. Or at least that I've noticed on any occasion that I've visited (rare to be honest). Historical really does appear to be the realm of serious grognards here, not GW newbies. Historicals requires for the most part some level of interest in history. GW just requires that you like the idea of playing a game with cool models - such things as knowing history is irrelevant.

GW is also much better at the wider 'hobby' thing (modelling, conversion, DIY paint schemes etc) than most historical games; which are often little, if any, modelling, and fixed/limited paint schemes etc, which doesn't sell so well for many parents. At some point those who enjoy their intro to mini gaming via GW may move on, but things like historicals I would say is still going to be a much older thing than your typical GW newbie no matter how much they know about it.

Whilst probably a side issue, I do know of parents who are against their children getting into 'wargaming', but are fine with GW as it is clearly just fantasy/kids games etc. Aliens vs space marines is so much more pleasant than Germans vs Russians!?

So no I don't get the argument. Sure you like cheaper stuff, but I doubt knowledge of historicals among GW newbies would have any great affect on the price of their models; as I doubt it would affect their choice that much without some seismic shift in the wargaming world to make historicals appeal to kids more.

As a dad to the aforementioned GW newbie who purchases his hobby often from a store that sells a wide variety of other games I can testify that he has little to no interest in the other options available. He stood watching a game of X-wing briefly because it was Star Wars and that was it.
Given a choice of a Bloodthirster or 200 Napoleonic foot soldiers then GW win every time.

I'm not a GW newbie so what they like doesn't interest me.

Hero606v2 wrote:
As a dad to the aforementioned GW newbie who purchases his hobby often from a store that sells a wide variety of other games I can testify that he has little to no interest in the other options available. He stood watching a game of X-wing briefly because it was Star Wars and that was it.
Given a choice of a Bloodthirster or 200 Napoleonic foot soldiers then GW win every time.

It should be noted, however, that not all GW newbies are kids that are currently invested in a specific game as part of a familial activity.

jonolikespie wrote:
It's quite simple really. If someone likes the Beetles and Led Zeppelin equally, then the price is the deciding factor and are obviously going for the Zeppelin albums.

I'd consider myself a hobby veteran. When I go for quality over quantity (which I almost always do) GW is pretty low on my list. Cost =/= quality.

The point of my post is that if you like one game more than another, then all the other factors (quality, quantity, cost value per model, set up time, complexity, cost value per army, etc) will not matter. I only like Age of Sigmar. DBA is not AoS. Therefore, the relative costs between them is irrelevant.

Kilkrazy wrote:The argument is that for the same price I can get a lot more stuff that I like and play more games.

The "Now That's What I Call Music Vol.XXII" argument. If you don't care what your tabletop experience is, then favoring quantity makes sense. If you do care what your tabletop experience is, you will ultimately weigh that most heavily. I mean, if you don't give a flying crap about the World War II setting, who cares have many more games you get with it?

If you are so dedicated to GW that you only want to buy their stuff and not any other stuff, then obviously you won't think the GW price is high. But looking at it objectively, you spend £30 and you get 60 15mm Imperial Romans, or 40 ACW infantry, or 6 Dwarves.

GW's price IS high. Sometimes TOO high. I've never disagreed with that. I'm saying that comparing AoS's Dwarf prices to ACW infantry is like comparing apples and oranges - people don't generally want a fruit, any fruit, whatever is cheapest. They want a particular fruit, and the cost of oranges doesn't affect their decision on whether or not to buy Apples.

pox wrote:I do like the comparison of AoS to a Kidz Bop album of cover songs.

Actually, I was thinking of KoW with that comparison. Kidz Bop may have been too mean. Think the Smooth Criminal cover by Alien Ant Farm.

Spiky Norman wrote:
Or maybe the hobby veteran have a decent amount of disposable income and prefers quality over quantity, and therefore prefers to buy GW, Forgeworld and such.

That really depends on your point of view. I know a lot of hobby veterans who'd debate that GW offers enough quality or quantity.

Or when you see all the complaints about badly designed, badly posed duardin etc. etc. up in the AoS news thread, do you really think it's just hayturz haytin' for the sake of haytin'?

Hero606v2 wrote:As a dad to the aforementioned GW newbie who purchases his hobby often from a store that sells a wide variety of other games I can testify that he has little to no interest in the other options available. He stood watching a game of X-wing briefly because it was Star Wars and that was it.
Given a choice of a Bloodthirster or 200 Napoleonic foot soldiers then GW win every time.

It doesn't surprise me, with GW's faux-maturity imagery and rules lists tailored to kids. Wait 'til he's about, oh, 18-20.

 pox wrote:
I do like the comparison of AoS to a Kidz Bop album of cover songs.

easily accessible for kids, with a hint of adult music!

Sure, if you like paying for a $30 disc with 6 songs on it.

As for the comparison of miniatures, it's at least better to compare a box of GW miniatures to a DBA army than to try and say that GW's cheaper than other, more expensive hobbies (and thus saying that GW's prices are alright).

Spiky Norman wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
My prediction:

AoS = 3 year lifespan.

Do you also predict WM/H a 3 year lifespan, because quite a few of PPs metal monopose models are even more expensive than those 8$ dwarves?
I play Trollbloods (Hordes) so I'm mostly familiar with those models, and I just bought 2x Northkin Fire Eaters which is a 32$ 3-man unit, all monopose made out of PPs terrible plastic. I also bought a 17$ monopose metal Stone Scribe Elder, and if you want more examples look at the Long riders which is a 5 man unit for a 110$. Also remember than no PP kits have extra bits.

So yea, those GW dwarves are insanely expensive, but other models are too, and many of those are certainly of lesser quality, but still those games continue to exist so AoS probably will too.

No. I do not make that prediction. I suspect that AoS is unsustainable as is. No corporate officer will not lobby for change in the face of declining or negative revenues. PrivPress is a different animal that I know little about, but when a guy like me has sticker shock.... thats saying something. I think GW has the highrlest quality models, but the price seems unjustified and unsustsinable from a business perspective. Perhaps theyll prove me wrong. Time will tell.

The new fyreslayers are actually pretty close in cost to many of the new 40k/ 8th ed. WHFB models.

box of 10 wyches= 60 usd, x2 =20models + 1 l character blister is min 30 these days, so 150 usd min.

Tau, 2 new strike teams (20 models) 100 dollars, Crisis commander 60 usd. 160 dollars for 21 models.

GW pricing is high for all the products, this is not an AoS problem it is a GW problem.

 Sqorgar wrote:

pox wrote:I do like the comparison of AoS to a Kidz Bop album of cover songs.

Actually, I was thinking of KoW with that comparison. Kidz Bop may have been too mean. Think the Smooth Criminal cover by Alien Ant Farm.

No matter what, at the end of the day for a myriad of reasons GW games are my only real option. Regardless of good or bad, it's play what is available from them or choose a different hobby for me. I'm glad I have other hobbies, AoS has really dried up around here so my miniature wargaming is 40K for now.

Its things like these prices and the cost of their entry fees for their "events" is why PP is stomping GW into the dirt.

From my experience of running clubs for kids in well to do schools, when shown GW and "alternatives" like Mantic, they want to know which one is the "proper" one. In our culture they want to make sure they have the best "brand", and they can pick up by a pretty crude metric that the costlier one is probably the one they will get the most credit for buying.

So to an extent, GW's approach works. I've started introducing kids to mantic or historicals first, so that they form their impressions based on more affordable games that won't waste a lot of their parents money if they lose interest. Then, if they look at GW stuff they might be more likely to judge the prices differently.

I've plenty of disposable income myself, but with the choice on the market these days the GW stuff just seems overpriced and I don't enjoy the aesthetics as much as I used to, or the fairly insipid background material. But I think for kids, it probably works pretty well, and for people who enjoy the aesthetics a lot, which is a valid thing.

The other day I was curious to see what the new dwarf models would look like, and I opened up GW's web page. I saw the models, saw the price tag, laughed, and closed the window.

I'm just not their target market anymore. A target market which apparently only includes wealthy (and yet still having a lot of free time) collectors who want to put together large numbers of plastic toy soldiers with limited poses. I didn't realize there were enough such people to base a business on, but good luck to GW for filling that niche I guess.

There's still plenty of other companies out there who will sell to us normal people. And us normal people just need to move on.

 Vermis wrote:

It doesn't surprise me, with GW's faux-maturity imagery and rules lists tailored to kids. Wait 'til he's about, oh, 18-20.

Faux-maturity? What on Earth are you on about Vermis? I don't see them making any effort to dress their toy soldiers up as 'mature' (except with the pricing.) I dropped out of the hobby at 18, got back into it at 30. Started off buying non gw. For the last two years, I don't think I've bought a single non gw model (excluding scenery). The level of detail and flexibility of the kits is (to me) worth the price. Don't try to make personal preference a matter of maturity, it's patronizing.

Still wouldn't buy those dwarves though.