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.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The biggest thing that people need to understand is that you don't have to play with the new stuff if you don't want to. Just agree to play small stuff or old school, and it's fine.

Been saying that for a while. I play 2nd ed so I got nice start of eldar army by buying(new) battleforce+start collecting box. Didn't cost that much and gives me already 1000 pts or so.

Say striking scorpion+wraithlord+one other box and I'm pushing on 1500 pts which is pretty standard size for game already.

For price LESS than 7th ed army I can get easily 3200+ pts army. That's huge game in 2nd ed terms.

A lot of things are expensive in the world. Doesn't matter if it's 40K, MtG, Warmahordes, Golf, Scuba diving, Car racing or car restoration, what ever. It doesn't matter how much it costs, the person finds it is worth it.

It all comes to worth. If you don't find it worth it, but want it, then you make excuses for not buying. Simple as that. I am not defending GW at all. As I said, I believe a lot of their products are not worth the price they are asking for. So I vote with my wallet. It seems a lot of people are voting with their wallet now.

Good thing to. I have discovered so many other games that are worth it and I buy them now as well as some GW products that I still find worth in it.

But to keep saying MtG is expensive so what. It is worth it to those people. It's not about price, but about worth. Maybe those people find more worth in spending $200 on MtG but will balk at a $200 GW purchase. Why? Maybe because the rules are more clear,consice and tighter than what GW offers. So right there, it is worth it for the person.

I will drop $200 on MtG for my son because it's worth it to see the joy and fun he is having with it. I bought him a $200 Necron stuff for him and he did nothing with it because of the crappy rules he finds boring as he says.

So again it doesn't matter if MtG is expensive, for a lot of people it is worth it, just like for how a lot of people find 40K worth it while others don't. Price doesn't matter. After all if price mattered we all would be going to the dollar store and buying our plastic toy soldiers there. We don't so it's not the price but the worth. We find that dollar store toy soldiers are not worth it. Be it money, time or effort to convert them.

You can't argue with GW white knights.

But the funny thing about reality is that it doesn't give a crap. It is what it is.

And the stark reality is the GW is (has been) pricing themselves out of business. The financial reports don't lie. Number of sales has been steadily dropping. A year or so the only reason they made any profit was from their royalties off of THQ games.

They have borrowed money to pay dividends.

Yes consoles are $300. But to play a new game is only $60. Can you start a second 40k army for $60?

The prices are unsustainable.

Davor wrote:
A lot of things are expensive in the world. Doesn't matter if it's 40K, MtG, Warmahordes, Golf, Scuba diving, Car racing or car restoration, what ever. It doesn't matter how much it costs, the person finds it is worth it.

There is some truth to that, but you're comparing between activities a bit.

Let's take Scuba Diving for example. My girlfriend and I will bring out dive equipment with us on vacation, and obviously this is crazy expensive. Not only the initial costs of the equipment, but the hotel, flight, guide, and then restaurants...it all adds up. however, we see things we couldn't see normally.
I can, however, wake her up early and drive down to a local dive spot if we want to.
It's all diving, but one is clearly less expensive. We both make 6 figures, so can afford it, but her sister just does local since she barely clears 35k a year. We all get to dive, but one of us is spending more money than the other.

The same is true with golf, car racing and restoration. There are various levels of cost depending on how involved you are.

GW is basically charging luxury costs without providing luxury quality. For how much more expensive it is, and older, it should be superior to WM/H in most ways. It's not. Fluff is probably the biggest area they dominate in, as well as appearance, though the two are subjective. The rules are much worse in 40k, the games play out with less strategy/tactics, and the PUG environment is awful currently. It used to not be this way, but lately its gone downhill while prices are going higher and higher.

Davor wrote:

It all comes to worth. If you don't find it worth it, but want it, then you make excuses for not buying. Simple as that. I am not defending GW at all. As I said, I believe a lot of their products are not worth the price they are asking for. So I vote with my wallet. It seems a lot of people are voting with their wallet now.

Good thing to. I have discovered so many other games that are worth it and I buy them now as well as some GW products that I still find worth in it.

Right, I think the problem comes from the following;
some people view GW as the hobby . It's not, mini wargaming is the hobby, and you have other choices now. If that's worth it to you, great, but it's not GW and nothing else compares like some are claiming. That would like me saying you can't compare two sets of clubs, or two dive spots, or what have you.

Davor wrote:

But to keep saying MtG is expensive so what. It is worth it to those people. It's not about price, but about worth. Maybe those people find more worth in spending $200 on MtG but will balk at a $200 GW purchase. Why? Maybe because the rules are more clear,consice and tighter than what GW offers. So right there, it is worth it for the person.

I guess it depends how expensive MtG is compared to the other card games. Is it really bad compared to pokemon or one of the others? I don't know, I only played MtG and that was a long time ago. If MtG is, there might be other draws. The game might be easier to pick up (in terms of rules and finding games), it could be more balanced, it could have better support...there are many reasons why people might pay more.
But for GW there aren't as many reasons, where once there was. I think that's where people are becoming upset. I don't play much anymore (I only came back to 40k when Mk3 came out, I needed a break from the rules and salt).

It all boils down to:
I have $50 to spend on "fun".
What kind of fun can I get from GW for $50?

A 10-man tactical squad or a 5-man Assault squad.
(Oddly I notice for most armies many kits target $50)

What kind of fun can I get from somewhere else?

I could buy an Imperial Class Star Destroyer for Armada.

I could buy "Ghost" for X-wing.

Or a "Dr. Who Deluxe 12' Scarf" for that matter.

We are in a time spoiled for choice and I can easily find things more "shiny" than GW product as they keep upping the price.

To be fair, WM/H models are more expensive than GW models, and more cartoony.

Compared to WM/H, GW has better
* fluff (40k),
* variety/range (40k & AoS),
* models (40k & AoS), both detail and assembly.
GW also has huge models on a scale that WM/H cannot approach.

WM/H is better at:
* external competitive balance

Basically GW is better than WM/H at everything *except* being a game to play.

Both suck at internal faction balance, and this is nothing new. If you care about competition, then yeah, you will get more value out of WM/H. If you care about anything else, then GW is "better".

But the idea that WM/H is cheaper? Not when you look at what people actually buy...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
It all boils down to:
I have $50 to spend on "fun".
What kind of fun can I get from GW for $50?

We are in a time spoiled for choice and I can easily find things more "shiny" than GW product as they keep upping the price.

What's funny is that you need to use $50 to make your point. Why, back in my day, $20 would have been enough to buy a brand new Eldar Dreadnought with the a range of metal weapons, including a D-cannon.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
To be fair, WM/H models are more expensive than GW models, and more cartoony.

Compared to WM/H, GW has better
* fluff (40k)

Opinion.

* variety/range (40k & AoS),

As a gamer you generally have a handful of valid choices and a bunch of chaff. Choice without actual choice is no choice at all

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
To be fair, WM/H models are more expensive than GW models, and more cartoony.

Here we will have to beg to differ. GW's sculpts look like something from a childrens cartoon, such as Scooby Doo.

Compared to WM/H, GW has better

Age?

* models (40k & AoS), both detail and assembly.

Not really. Look at the most recent releases with vast amounts of over the top muscle detail, skulls nailed everywhere and excess Things. They look horrible.

GW also has huge models on a scale that WM/H cannot approach.

Colossals. Those things are as big if not bigger than an Imperial Knight and they look better to boot.

WM/H is better at:
* external competitive balance

And internal balance too. Even the suboptimal choices can be useful.

Basically GW is better than WM/H at everything *except* being a game to play.

Nah, GW is better at being old and stale. Just about everything about WM is at least on par with GW's stuff and if not then it is usually better.

Both suck at internal faction balance, and this is nothing new.

Not really, as I said above even the less then perfect choices in Warmachine are still good. I run a Bloat Thrall and it is extremely useful even though it is less than optimal.

If you care about competition, then yeah, you will get more value out of WM/H.

Agreed. If you care about casual games you get a lot more too as the power disparity is no where near the level of 40K's.

If you care about anything else, then GW is "better".

Not really, the only thing GW is good for these days is being famous and over charging its customers.

But the idea that WM/H is cheaper? Not when you look at what people actually buy...

Because PP know that they dont have to charge through the roof to make a profit and they know that if they charge less they will actually make more.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
It all boils down to:
I have $50 to spend on "fun".
What kind of fun can I get from GW for $50?

We are in a time spoiled for choice and I can easily find things more "shiny" than GW product as they keep upping the price.

What's funny is that you need to use $50 to make your point. Why, back in my day, $20 would have been enough to buy a brand new Eldar Dreadnought with the a range of metal weapons, including a D-cannon.

What is funny is that this just proves how horrendous GW's pricing has become.

Show me the WM/H models next to an IKT or Stompa, please.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
It all boils down to:
I have $50 to spend on "fun".
What kind of fun can I get from GW for $50?
We are in a time spoiled for choice and I can easily find things more "shiny" than GW product as they keep upping the price.

What's funny is that you need to use $50 to make your point. Why, back in my day, $20 would have been enough to buy a brand new Eldar Dreadnought with the a range of metal weapons, including a D-cannon.

Oh please.
Do we need to pull out the "back in the day"?
I have the "pleasure" of turning 47 this year, I am sure I can wax poetic about how I used to get a 20-man box of Imperial Guard for dirt.
(Wonder how many times over they made their money on that mold?)
Or how the original Apocalypse packs were actual DEALS rather than their funny "one click purchase" since we are really tired of clicking rather than saving money.

I am unsure where that point was going since the topic is that right now some "friends" seem to not be able to justify buying into 40k.

You are correct however that $50 was targeted: it seemed to be an entry price to be able to buy anything useful with GW.

BUT I see the push together 5 Cadians for $12 are there.
So for $24 you can have 10 guys without all the extra bits the $35 Cadian Shock Troop box gives.
For ~$15 you can buy an X-wing at FFG!

I still maintain that since some of us old types can eventually get sick of our collections and sell them off.
Plus since they were "cheap" back in the day, we would sell pretty low.
Speaking of "sick", I could mention "estate" sales... typically the wife has no idea what the man-dollies are or what they are worth.
Since we are on the topic of "old" and the game has been around longer than most.

honestly, i think that both GW and PP have a lot of products that are not worth parting with my money to own...

GW Finecast and PP restic are automatic passes for me...
there are zero of either in my collection...
neither are worth the frustration of the prep needed...

PP metals and proper resin, and now HIPS, are totally worth collecting, as are the GW metal and HIPS models, and FW resin, for me...

PP paints, washes, and inks, and GW Technical paints get my money...

i enjoy the books from both companies for the art and fiction...

there are good and bad examples of product quality on both sides of that argument...
it doesn't have to be one or the other...
it is possible to enjoy both

both are expensive, but i would say that neither are over-priced if they provide enjoyment, and thus value for the money spent...

cheers
jah

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Show me the WM/H models next to an IKT or Stompa, please.

I'm sure you can mentally insert the model of your choice into that image.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's on a 120mm base.

OK, without you telling me the base diameter, there's no way for me to guess how big it is.

Using the base as the measuring basis, the body is about 6" tall, so it's roughly comparable to a modern GW End Times kit. Smaller than a Stompa, for sure.

Az what is the product name of that dragon? My finger has been off the pp pulse for a while now. It's rather nice.

JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, without you telling me the base diameter, there's no way for me to guess how big it is.

Using the base as the measuring basis, the body is about 6" tall, so it's roughly comparable to a modern GW End Times kit. Smaller than a Stompa, for sure.

So the regular human sized model in that picture makes it impossible to judge the size? The Imperial Knight is around 7" tall, so using the other model you asked for comparison to, the body is, by your own estimate, almost as long as the whole IK is high.

Edit, just in case I get accused of cherry picking..

JamesY wrote:Az what is the product name of that dragon? My finger has been off the pp pulse for a while now. It's rather nice.

It's the Legion Of Everblight Archangel.

 SickSix wrote:
And the stark reality is the GW is (has been) pricing themselves out of business. The financial reports don't lie. Number of sales has been steadily dropping. A year or so the only reason they made any profit was from their royalties off of THQ games.

The financial reports don't lie, but they don't tell you everything. Is GW losing sales volume because they're pricing themselves out of the market, or are they losing sales volume because the rules are unplayable garbage and people do, despite GW's idiotic claims otherwise, want to have a game with functioning rules? I think there's a strong argument that the second factor is the more important one. GW's prices aren't that expensive relative to other things middle-class adults often buy, so would we really hear so much complaining about prices if GW increased prices by 10% but fixed all of the rules problems and made 8th edition the best miniatures game ever?

Cheers Az

 Azreal13 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, without you telling me the base diameter, there's no way for me to guess how big it is.

Using the base as the measuring basis, the body is about 6" tall, so it's roughly comparable to a modern GW End Times kit. Smaller than a Stompa, for sure.

So the regular human sized model in that picture makes it impossible to judge the size?

Given that "regular human" varies from manufacturer to manufacture, no, it's not really possible.

Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have never ever seen a Warmahordes miniature that I would prefer over my Space Wolves. Sure, there are some I like, but the range as a whole is not appealing to me. The same goes for all other games I have seen, be it Flames of War, Bolt Action, Infinity, Dropzone Commander, that Wild West thing or whatever.

I just love my pelt-bedecked Marines with man-sized chainswords and axe-heads the size of a torso

So to me, GW is the Hobby as I don't really see an appealing alternative. I don't have time to play often, so building and painting are my main joys at the moment.

In my younger days, when I had more spare time, I was also playing a lot of other miniature games. Most of them don't exist anymore. And even if they would, they would lose to 40k as I prefer the models and the fluff.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, without you telling me the base diameter, there's no way for me to guess how big it is.

Using the base as the measuring basis, the body is about 6" tall, so it's roughly comparable to a modern GW End Times kit. Smaller than a Stompa, for sure.

So the regular human sized model in that picture makes it impossible to judge the size?

Given that "regular human" varies from manufacturer to manufacture, no, it's not really possible.

Yeah, by the odd mm here or there.

If you're that ignorant of PP's product range, why all the sweeping statements earlier?

You know the scale of the game, you can see there's a human sized figure, if you really need leading by the nose through that simple an extrapolation then you're wasting my time and need to go and find something else to do.

@Ragnar: i agree
nothing gets me as fired up to paint as a Space Wolves miniature!!!
they are definitely my favorite characters...

while i am happy to buy, and sometimes even paint, minis for current games like Warmachine/Hordes, Infinity, Dark-Age, Wargods, and defunct games like Celtos, Ilyad, and Confrontation, as well as collector's minis from companies like Studio McVey, Scale 75, Nuts Planet, Enigma, and Knight Models, nothing makes me want to paint more than a Space Marine...
even better if they are wearing pelts, and wielding axes

some people may not like the pricing or design of the new clampack plastic characters, but Krom, Ulric, and the Iron Priest feel like money well spent to me...

cheers
jah

I have 1E Cryx and Khador, and those metals were larger than the GW metals. The largest models at the time were the Khador Jacks sized roughly the same as a SM Dreadnought.

The current stuff is no longer metal, and plastic tends to embiggen stuff, because they can.

Which is why I asked for a direct side-by-side comparison with a GW Imperial Knight or Stompa. Because I know how big those models are.

But thanks for reinforcing how WM/H players are...

I don't play..

At least not yet.

It is still ludicrous that somehow you're happy to judge the size of the model by eyeballing the base size, but can't use the in-picture human sized model for reference because it might be off by a mm or so either way.

Either way, let's revisit your earlier statement..

GW also has huge models on a scale that WM/H cannot approach.

Whatever snark you want to throw around, and however you want to 'tweak' the criteria, this is objectively untrue. Far from "cannot approach" WMH has models that can quite happily walk up to a big GW kit, look it in the eye, then kick it in the balls.

From all indications, you'll fit right in.

And, not, it's not ludicrous. I can actually measure the base, knowing that it's exactly 120mm across.

It's stupid to use random "humans" when they vary in size by more than a mm. Scaling up only compounds the error.

That's why I asked for an absolute, direct comparison with the Knight or Stompa.

But you're still wrong about your model size assertion, right?

A little less snark and just generally slagging off on a whole player base, a little more civil discussion. Thanks

I cannot get myself into warmahorde cause the models are not up to par with 40k, fantasy, flames of war. Its not just the finishing product, but the easily of assembling/converting, GW win by far.

No doubt there are some ugly models from GW(minotaurs, tainted chaos mauraders, old catachans etc.). But there are so much more excellent models(new dark eldar range, genestealer cult range, imperial knight, valkyrie, end of time fantasy range etc.).

I have painted quite a few of my friend's warmachine models as commission, none of them have pushed me into the game.

Of course GW has it's fair share of models that aren't easy to assemble.

 Big Mac wrote:
I cannot get myself into warmahorde cause the models are not up to par with 40k, fantasy, flames of war. Its not just the finishing product, but the easily of assembling/converting, GW win by far.

No doubt there are some ugly models from GW(minotaurs, tainted chaos mauraders, old catachans etc.). But there are so much more excellent models(new dark eldar range, genestealer cult range, imperial knight, valkyrie, end of time fantasy range etc.).

I have painted quite a few of my friend's warmachine models as commission, none of them have pushed me into the game.

A friend of mine has a theory which I think may certainly apply for some people.

Some games have miniatures that excite you to play a game, other games have rules that get you excited about the models.

Certainly it's been like that for me with WMH. In no way do I hold the models up against the likes of Mierce, or even GW on a good day, but as my interest to play the game has increased, my appreciation of the WMH aesthetic has too.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
To be fair, WM/H models are more expensive than GW models, and more cartoony.

There is nothing more cartoon villain then skulls on skulls on skulls.
I actually think WM/H is about the same in terms of quality, especially with their recent releases. Check out their larger models, they've come a long way while GW has remained stale for a few editions. Centurions in particular are hideous, and the detail is really lacking.
WM/H per model is roughly the same cost wise, but offers a ton of deals. There is nothing close to the all in one from GW. You can take that, spend another 100-120 on solos and units, and you have a competitive army with all the rules.
Comparably, just the rules for 40k cost more than the all in one and all the rules for WM/H. It's not even close, for a 2k army you'll run 400-500 easy. I can buy 2 separate armies for that in WM/H.

You'll have a hard time selling the cost is the same. GW uses too many generic copies of models to bulk up the size of the game that cost money but don't do much (Lasgun IG, Bolter Tacticals, etc).

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Compared to WM/H, GW has better
* fluff (40k),

Well, better is a bit more subjective no? I do like most of the 40k fluff more, personally, and its easier to get into due to the video games.
But WM/H is far more detailed and immersive if that's your thing. Check out their RPG line, its not really something you can argue against.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

* variety/range (40k & AoS),

Okay, so we are comparing two different games that can't be played together against WM/H? Oh...okay...?

Regardless, I guess it depends on what you mean by variety. In terms of codex entries, its pretty close actually if we just look at 40k. There are a lot of entries in WM/H that make it closer than you think.
In terms of model variety, GW wins pretty handily.
In terms of variety in what you'll see played, WM/H wins. By quite a bit. Most codexes have at least a third that's unplayable, and that's the strong codexes. Many have half or more than that.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

* models (40k & AoS), both detail and assembly.
GW also has huge models on a scale that WM/H cannot approach.

Simply not true, as proven.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

WM/H is better at:
* external competitive balance

And internal balance. Every faction has dud choices, but it's nowhere near as bad as it is in 40k, where heavy bolters have been awful since 3rd edition, and Eldar OP in nearly every codex release since the same time.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Basically GW is better than WM/H at everything *except* being a game to play.

So, one game is better at being a game, and the rest is based on personal taste?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Both suck at internal faction balance, and this is nothing new. If you care about competition, then yeah, you will get more value out of WM/H. If you care about anything else, then GW is "better".

Actually, Internal balance is very good in WM/H. It has a few duds but only a few. Even Storm Lances, one of the worst units in the game forever, saw play with H3. If you have a unit, its rare that it can't be run with a certain caster in faction. That's not always true, but its often the case. Especially in Mk3.
Not so for 40k. In 40k, units are bad for decades (RIP Genestealers, I remember you).

This translates into casual play too. Ever try to get someone to pick up 40k by getting them the DV set? The chaos player ends up quitting, and getting into the game will just make the chaos player more annoyed. Chaos Marines are awful, competitive or casual. An eldar or necron player will just destroy you, and a basic marine player is just naturally above a Chaos player and it shows really really quickly. Just the Chapter Tactics alone makes a Chaos Marine player go, "Well, what do I get?". And the answer is...not much.
This is not the case in WM/H. No faction is out of the game like in 40k, and units get buffed or nerfed twice a year.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

But the idea that WM/H is cheaper? Not when you look at what people actually buy...

Really?
Cause I listed what people "actually buy" for a 500 point force and a 70 point force, and the price difference was massive. MKIII actually lowered the cost, since many jacks can have loadouts swapped and the game got about 2-3 solos smaller, which lowers the cost quite a bit. Keep in mind a 500 point force is about 25% of a completed army, and some armies get crazy expensive (Gladius?). For WM/H, it's not nearly as bad. You do need 2 lists for tournies, but lists often share characters or core units (PGBH for example, is typical in every skorne list. Same with Choir).


When was the last time you played WM/H? You seem to have a lot of outdated information if you haven't seen their biggest models.
They also have erratas every 6 months that introduce balance changes. Let me tell you, that is amazing coming from 40k and fantasy. Those games need some changes, I remember when fantasy was basically "Magic Suicide bullet, The Game!" for an entire edition, or "Daemons or GTFO".

The new edition dropped and changed a lot for the better too.




EDIT
Az, MKIII has fixed a lot of issues for many factions. Basically, a lot of the crazy combos got tuned down, and the weaker stuff got buffed (MoW from Khador are good now, shocker I know). The game allows pre-measuring which makes it easier, and leadership tests are gone. Shooting got a bit better, but Jacks now start with 1 focus so more heavies are on the field. Character restrictions are gone, and most solos have been changed a lot. There is more terrain on the table, with guidelines on how much and where to place it included in the steamroller document (really wish GW would do this).

I would say that, for the most part, the game is a lot better. I think Skorne needs work, they got one nerf too many, but they have viable playstyles. It's just not what people signed up for (Brick is one, shooting another). Cygnar, Khador, Mercs, and Minions are now viable factions instead of skews or allied forces entirely. I'm loving MK3. I keep making small mistakes since the rule changes are subtle, but the rule releases have markers where veteran players are likely to make mistakes, which helps.