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.

 Peregrine wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
This could be my crowd but I don't know anyone who owns exactly 1500-2000.

Sounds like this is just your crowd. In my experience most 40k players seem to have a single "core" army and a few extra things they can swap in and out. The people with multiple armies are the ones who have gone way beyond "getting started" and decided to make 40k a major hobby investment. That's fine if you want to make that investment, but it's not at all necessary to enjoy the game.

Couldn't I make the same exact argument about what you're saying in regards to X-wing? That its just your crowd? Or that people that own every ship have decided to make it a major investment?

What makes your anecdotal evidence superior to mine?

 Peregrine wrote:

Basically you are saying that the "standard" x-wing player owns every ship but the "standard" 40k player only owns exactly what is required to play? That just doesn't seem right, do you have something backing them up?

There are two pretty major differences between the two, besides the price:

1) X-Wing's system of upgrade cards being spread across a bunch of different ships forces you to buy a lot more than the minimum for a 100 point game. Even if you only intend to play with a small subset of the total ships you end up having to buy almost everything anyway or you don't get to use vital upgrades. So the three-ship X-Wing player is almost guaranteed to lose every game they play, while the 40k player with exactly 1500 points of models can have a perfectly competitive army and win most of their games.

Until the edition changes
But what's stopping an X-wing player from doing the same? I'm not really into the game, but couldn't an X-wing player build a competitive force by buying whatever they need, including the cards?
I just don't see why you look at X-wing and go "These guys own everything and that's what we should look at for price" and for 40k go "these guys own only 1 list, so that's what we should look at". That's just seems remarkably imbalanced and you've haven't provided any reasoning on this that isn't anecdotal.

 Peregrine wrote:

2) X-Wing's lower "unit" count makes taking a single 100-point list over and over again really boring for most people. With 40k a "standard" army has at least 5-10 units and it's easy to change configurations without much additional cost (swapping magnetized weapon upgrades, etc). So even a player with just enough to play a single 1500-2000 point list still has a decent diversity of options to experience. But the three-ship X-Wing player has only a tiny part of what the whole game has to offer. While the 40k player is doing all the cool stuff their faction has the X-Wing player is re-playing the same starter-box experience over and over again.

Come on man, that's not even remotely true. For most units, there is 1 correct weapon choice, and everything else is hot garbage. Some have two options, but that's not common. Las Plas has been a staple of marines since 3rd, and grav spam has been the FOTM since grav became a thing. Look at the list I made, what weapons would you swap there? 40k is full of false choices, but in a competitive environment, you tend to see the same few choices over and over again because GW has awful balance, and one is clearly better than all the others.
Heck, even in a codex full of choices, it tends to be "Spam these 3-5 units, win". A Eldar list made of Knights, scat bikes, spiders, hawks, with psyker support is incredibly strong, but doesn't have any options that are viable. Maybe on the knights, but thats it.

And percentage wise, the player with only 1500-2000 has a very small portion of what 40k has to offer. They have allies and formations which often require multiple buys of the same kit after all. Someone with only a core 1500 list isn't doing all the cool stuff their faction has to offer. You can't run Iyanden, Biel-tann, or Saim-hann with only one list. You can't use marines, or field an allied imperial force, or use formations with just one list.

Most xenos armies don't get to switch very often. My Warp spiders don't have many options, and Ork Boyz tend to be built the same. The biggest option most units get is TRANSPORT [Y/N]? and that's certainly not free. That's easily 40-60, more if its a flyer.

Oddly enough, this is the case in WM/H since different loadouts with the same Chassis can have entirely different rules and playstyles. In 40k? I haven't had to swap weapons in a very long time on anything but my wraith guard.

Akisura, your making apples(X-Wing) and oranges(40K) comparisons, while telling us you don't eat apples, but like lemonade (Warmachine). They are all comparable in your eyes, except Oranges are overpriced and everyone you know who eats oranges eats tons of them, making Apples more affordable since people only need to eat 3 to say they eat apples.

Akiasura wrote:
What makes your anecdotal evidence superior to mine?

Because:

1) It's not just anecdotal evidence, I've explained the reasons why X-Wing makes buying more than the bare minimum 100 points mandatory.

2) It's experience from a large group of people spread across multiple stores, with zero exceptions. Nobody bought the example three-ship collection.

But what's stopping an X-wing player from doing the same? I'm not really into the game, but couldn't an X-wing player build a competitive force by buying whatever they need, including the cards?

What's stopping them is that buying individual cards usually costs almost as much as buying the whole ship. Most people don't end up with extra copies of stuff that they're sure they're never going to use, so the only cards you ever see at cheap prices are the low-demand ones that the hypothetical new player isn't going to have much interest in. And in any case you're still going to be spending more than the cost of three ships, even if some of your money is spent on individual cards instead of complete expansions.

For a 40k example imagine that the only source for grav guns was a $50 tactical squad box with one gun per box (and third-party grav guns are banned). The vast majority of people who buy a tactical squad box are going to keep their grav guns, so supply of them is going to be considerably less than demand. And if each grav gun costs $40 because there are 100 buyers for each seller you might as well just buy the whole box and get a tactical squad for $10.

I just don't see why you look at X-wing and go "These guys own everything and that's what we should look at for price" and for 40k go "these guys own only 1 list, so that's what we should look at". That's just seems remarkably imbalanced and you've haven't provided any reasoning on this that isn't anecdotal.

Err, lol? I haven't provided any reasoning? You just quoted the reasoning I provided. X-Wing makes it mandatory to buy significantly more than the hypothetical three-ship expansion if you want to win, while 40k doesn't have any equivalent factor forcing you to buy more than 1850 points (as long as the first 1850 points are chosen well). X-Wing requires significantly more than 100 points of stuff to experience anywhere near the full diversity of the game, while a 2000-point 40k collection can contain most, if not all, of the complete experience a faction has to offer.

And percentage wise, the player with only 1500-2000 has a very small portion of what 40k has to offer. They have allies and formations which often require multiple buys of the same kit after all. Someone with only a core 1500 list isn't doing all the cool stuff their faction has to offer. You can't run Iyanden, Biel-tann, or Saim-hann with only one list. You can't use marines, or field an allied imperial force, or use formations with just one list.

1) You just said none of this matters because 95% of the game isn't competitive. Who cares if you can't run all those different things when none of them are worth taking? You can't have it both ways and complain that 40k is both cookie-cutter spam and a ton of different builds for each faction.

2) You're confusing list diversity with unit diversity. Your 2000 point collection can't produce a separate spam build for each power unit in the faction, but it can, if you wish, include a wide variety of unit choices. You can have some shooting infantry, some melee infantry, a tank or two, a flyer, a couple of different HQ options, etc. The three-ship X-Wing collection is like having a 2000 point 40k army that consists of nothing but LRBTs. You have a legal army but you're going to get bored very quickly.

 adamsouza wrote:
Akisura, your making apples(X-Wing) and oranges(40K) comparisons, while telling us you don't eat apples, but like lemonade (Warmachine). They are all comparable in your eyes, except Oranges are overpriced and everyone you know who eats oranges eats tons of them, making Apples more affordable since people only need to eat 3 to say they eat apples.

That's even less valid than your "but you'll spend more on it eventually" point.

There's no question that the games in the discussion are all vying for the same time and money, unless people are lucky enough to have the time and money to pursue all the ones they enjoy, so while they're come prong for the same resources from the same customer, it's an apples to apples discussion.

 adamsouza wrote:
Akisura, your making apples(X-Wing) and oranges(40K) comparisons, while telling us you don't eat apples, but like lemonade (Warmachine). They are all comparable in your eyes, except Oranges are overpriced and everyone you know who eats oranges eats tons of them, making Apples more affordable since people only need to eat 3 to say they eat apples.

...What?
All I'm suggesting is that we compare "standard games" between games if we are going to make comparisons at all. This moving the goal post thing isn't getting anyone anywhere.
Personally I wouldn't put X-wing up against 40k. X-wing, from what i've seen, is more of a skirmish game. I haven't seen many games go over 10 models, but I don't play it. If you want to compare X-wing to say...Infinity I could see that.

To use your...whatever that was...it'd be like if you needed 6 oranges or 3 cups of lemonade a day to be healthy. But oranges are 10 per orange, and lemonade is about 2 per cup. I'm saying unless you really need an orange and nothing else will do, you're better off drinking lemonade. Because they are cheaper per item and you need less of them, but both will keep you healthy.

 Peregrine wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
What makes your anecdotal evidence superior to mine?

Because:

1) It's not just anecdotal evidence, I've explained the reasons why X-Wing makes buying more than the bare minimum 100 points mandatory.

Your reason was cards and serious collectors. I asked why we couldn't cost up the cards and the models to make a comparison. Serious collectors exist in various markets, including 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:

2) It's experience from a large group of people spread across multiple stores, with zero exceptions. Nobody bought the example three-ship collection.

I'm not arguing against the 3 ship, I'm arguing against the only 1500 list 40k player. I travel for work and have been playing for 30 years, I don't think I've seen anyone own exactly one list unless they are just getting into the game.
So, again, why is your anecdotal evidence superior? Why not compare standard game to standard game, and serious collector to serious collector?

If you can price out the cards, what else do you have outside of anecdotal evidence? Use the price of the models, I don't mind. If someone does, you'll have a point.

 Peregrine wrote:

But what's stopping an X-wing player from doing the same? I'm not really into the game, but couldn't an X-wing player build a competitive force by buying whatever they need, including the cards?

What's stopping them is that buying individual cards usually costs almost as much as buying the whole ship. Most people don't end up with extra copies of stuff that they're sure they're never going to use, so the only cards you ever see at cheap prices are the low-demand ones that the hypothetical new player isn't going to have much interest in. And in any case you're still going to be spending more than the cost of three ships, even if some of your money is spent on individual cards instead of complete expansions.

So the answer is...nothing at all?
Make a list including the cards and price it up. If it's more expensive than a standard game of 40k, fine. If it's not, it's not. There doesn't seem to be a reason why you can't include whatever model they have to buy to get a card in the price for a list.

 Peregrine wrote:

For a 40k example imagine that the only source for grav guns was a $50 tactical squad box with one gun per box (and third-party grav guns are banned). The vast majority of people who buy a tactical squad box are going to keep their grav guns, so supply of them is going to be considerably less than demand. And if each grav gun costs $40 because there are 100 buyers for each seller you might as well just buy the whole box and get a tactical squad for $10.

So it's essentially like being a chaos marine player?
I have no idea what that is like
Besides, most 40k players I know keep a huge bitz box, because they own a ton of models across several factions. I'm not saying this is normal, but I don't think I've ever met a serious player who doesn't have a large collection of bitz somewhere. Often hidden from the wife.

 Peregrine wrote:

I just don't see why you look at X-wing and go "These guys own everything and that's what we should look at for price" and for 40k go "these guys own only 1 list, so that's what we should look at". That's just seems remarkably imbalanced and you've haven't provided any reasoning on this that isn't anecdotal.

Err, lol? I haven't provided any reasoning? You just quoted the reasoning I provided. X-Wing makes it mandatory to buy significantly more than the hypothetical three-ship expansion if you want to win, while 40k doesn't have any equivalent factor forcing you to buy more than 1850 points (as long as the first 1850 points are chosen well).

I already asked why you can't price up the cards and models for X-wing, and you haven't given a single reason.
Instead, you insist that in X-wing they own every model, while in 40k they own only a single list. This isn't remotely equivalent. You can even check the quote, the word "everything" is literally in there.
And 40k has edition changes and codexes dropping. Are you saying from 5th to 7th, a Marine force hasn't changed? Not in unit variety, but in list variety?

 Peregrine wrote:

X-Wing requires significantly more than 100 points of stuff to experience anywhere near the full diversity of the game, while a 2000-point 40k collection can contain most, if not all, of the complete experience a faction has to offer.

And percentage wise, the player with only 1500-2000 has a very small portion of what 40k has to offer. They have allies and formations which often require multiple buys of the same kit after all. Someone with only a core 1500 list isn't doing all the cool stuff their faction has to offer. You can't run Iyanden, Biel-tann, or Saim-hann with only one list. You can't use marines, or field an allied imperial force, or use formations with just one list.

1) You just said none of this matters because 95% of the game isn't competitive. Who cares if you can't run all those different things when none of them are worth taking? You can't have it both ways and complain that 40k is both cookie-cutter spam and a ton of different builds for each faction.

I never said codex is 95% non competitive. I said the majority of choices for a unit aren't good, because you mentioned magnetizing weapons as a way to swap armies.
Factions do have several builds, though it's only a few choices within the codex and often, for a single unit, only one choice is right. THAT is what I said. The internal balance is bad, and you can spam the same units if you want, but this means you need to own multiples of the same kit.

Let's look at eldar.
You can take scat bikes.
You can take Wraith Knights
You can take Fire dragons
You can take Hawks
You can take Serpents (not as crazy as they were, but very good).
You can take Wraith Guard. You can take guard with WWP (in which case you need DE) or a WS or on foot. They play differently, and if you want them in a WS you need a more...heavy style list.
You can use Aspect Shrine Host formation as well.
You can take Spiders.
You can take Psykers, usually on bikes.
No one list for 1500-2000 will use all of this. The only unit with real options are the wraith guard or dragons, and that is in transports. Which require money.
And look, out of that, you can run Biel-Tann (aspect host), Saim-Hann (Bikes and WS with some troops) and Iyanden (WK and WG). You can even play a harlie force of both eldar and DE if you wan the portal. In 6th, this was common with the baron. All of those will be competitive lists that can play, but they won't have unit diversity.

And this is eldar, they don't need allies or formations. For marines the list becomes much bigger.

 Peregrine wrote:

2) You're confusing list diversity with unit diversity. Your 2000 point collection can't produce a separate spam build for each power unit in the faction, but it can, if you wish, include a wide variety of unit choices. You can have some shooting infantry, some melee infantry, a tank or two, a flyer, a couple of different HQ options, etc. The three-ship X-Wing collection is like having a 2000 point 40k army that consists of nothing but LRBTs. You have a legal army but you're going to get bored very quickly.

Let's move away from the 3 ship X-wing force. I never supported it, and it has nothing to do with my original point so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

I don't think I'm confusing anything to be honest. You're the one who said some magnetized weapons makes an entirely different force. It doesn't. Most units have very little diversity outside of transport options, you haven't shone otherwise.
List diversity is real. Gladius plays very different from the list I created earlier, but both are very competitive. An all biker force is also different, but does very well with a core melee deathstar. You can also abuse allies as well, or play a more shooty marine force if you want. They have list diversity, but not unit diversity.
It just so happens you see similar units spammed to make these diverse lists. A Gladius requires how many transports? And how many of these transports will have the same load-out (Las/Plas)? Where else will you use these?
Meanwhile, if I want a White Scars force, better leave the cents at home. My army will still be competitive, but its a different playstyle. A single 1.5k list can't hope to include the diverse builds available from the better factions.

Also, to be fair, a balanced force like you're suggesting is usually pretty awful unless it centers around a deathstar. You usually tilt heavily towards tanks or infantry to make some weapons not work well (usually infantry). Gladius is an exception because it has so many transports. Same with flyers. Same with melee units (unless deathstar). 40k is mostly a game of skews and spamming good choices. But the game has so many choices, that even only half to 25% (for the weaker codexes) being good still means you have quite a few options in list building. Just not for unit building.

That being said, a lot of choices IN THE STARTER BOX are crap, which is what I claimed. Dreads aren't good, a captain in termie armor isn't good, tactical marines without a transport aren't good. Compared to WM/H, where the starter box models are mostly okay, this is awful. You certainly can't magnetize weapons in the starter box and have a competitive game.

 Peregrine wrote:
1) X-Wing's system of upgrade cards being spread across a bunch of different ships forces you to buy a lot more than the minimum for a 100 point game. Even if you only intend to play with a small subset of the total ships you end up having to buy almost everything anyway or you don't get to use vital upgrades. So the three-ship X-Wing player is almost guaranteed to lose every game they play, while the 40k player with exactly 1500 points of models can have a perfectly competitive army and win most of their games.

Are we playing the same 40k? 40k is a terrible game for building only exactly X number of points and expecting to be competitive at that points level.

2) X-Wing's lower "unit" count makes taking a single 100-point list over and over again really boring for most people. With 40k a "standard" army has at least 5-10 units and it's easy to change configurations without much additional cost (swapping magnetized weapon upgrades, etc). So even a player with just enough to play a single 1500-2000 point list still has a decent diversity of options to experience. But the three-ship X-Wing player has only a tiny part of what the whole game has to offer. While the 40k player is doing all the cool stuff their faction has the X-Wing player is re-playing the same starter-box experience over and over again.

I disagree, 40k gets very boring as well if you just bring the same army every game. One difference is expanding an X-Wing force takes 5 seconds, you buy a new model and you have expanded. 40k you want to expand it means you buy another box and then spend the next month or two painting it.

And of course, anecdotally, I can't think of a single person who stopped buying X-Wing stuff at three ships.

The difference is people keep buying more because they're enjoying the game and want to keep expanding. The same thing happens in 40k, people are enjoying the game so keep expanding. Most of the time when people stop building a 40k army it's because they're sick of it, not because their exactly 1500pt army allows them to such varied games they don't feel like expanding.

I know quite a few 40k players who built armies in the 750-1500pt range then just stopped..... but they also stopped PLAYING so I don't really count that as being a good thing

Akiasura wrote:
Make a list including the cards and price it up. If it's more expensive than a standard game of 40k, fine. If it's not, it's not.

I see now, you're arguing against a straw man version of my argument. I never said that X-Wing is more expensive than 40k, I simply pointed out that the hypothetical three-ship collection is an incredibly misleading example of X-Wing's costs. If you want to argue that X-Wing is cheaper than 40k that's fine, because it is. But at least use the real cost of X-Wing, which is going to be at least $2-500 for an average player.

Let's move away from the 3 ship X-wing force. I never supported it, and it has nothing to do with my original point so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

I'm bringing it up because it's the original post about X-Wing that I replied to and started this discussion with. If you want to start your own separate discussion with different example purchases that's fine, but you should be clear that you're changing the subject and not continuing on from the original claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Are we playing the same 40k? 40k is a terrible game for building only exactly X number of points and expecting to be competitive at that points level.

Why? What is preventing someone from doing their research and buying an optimized 1500 point list? They might not stay top-tier forever, but if I buy exactly X points for an X-point tournament this weekend I can be pretty confident that I'm not going to lose because I took a bad list.

I disagree, 40k gets very boring as well if you just bring the same army every game.

Sure, but imagine how boring X-Wing must be with the same 3-ship collection over and over again where you don't have any of the ships or upgrades required to do anything fun. It's not the equivalent to playing your same 1500 point list every game, it's the equivalent to playing nothing but that first stripped-down demo game from the local GW store over and over again. Same-list 40k might be boring, but 3-ship X-Wing is going to be so much worse.

The only difference is expanding an X-Wing force takes 5 seconds, you buy a new model and you have expanded. 40k you want to expand it means you buy another box and then spend the next month or two painting it.

But this is an entirely unrelated question. Obviously it takes a lot of time to build and paint 40k units (if you care about painting, which makes you part of the minority) but the question here is the financial cost of a typical collection.

The difference is people keep buying more because they're enjoying the game and want to keep expanding.

No, I'm not talking about people who get into the game, enjoy it for a while, and keep expanding. I'm talking about people who buy more than three ships with their very first purchase. People who play a game or two and then immediately spend $1-200 on new ships. Etc. That's their initial investment in the game, not ongoing satisfaction.

 Peregrine wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Make a list including the cards and price it up. If it's more expensive than a standard game of 40k, fine. If it's not, it's not.

I see now, you're arguing against a straw man version of my argument. I never said that X-Wing is more expensive than 40k, I simply pointed out that the hypothetical three-ship collection is an incredibly misleading example of X-Wing's costs. If you want to argue that X-Wing is cheaper than 40k that's fine, because it is. But at least use the real cost of X-Wing, which is going to be at least $2-500 for an average player.

Good lord, you are really reaching here.
My whole point, the entire time, was that you don't have to include every model in X-wing versus only a 1500-2k list from 40k. It's silly to do so. You were claiming this is the correct way to compare the two systems, which I was showing was wildly incorrect for a variety of reasons. You were even attempting to equate the two using things like list variety, magentizing weapons, etc etc to show why it's okay for 40k but not okay for X-wing. You even throw in your own anecdotal evidence and tried to justify it, while dismissing others' experiences.

It certainly was not a straw man. Just admit that there is no reason you can't include the cards in the price by using the models for x-wing. You don't need to include every model in X-wing as was the original claim. It's absurd.
It's equally silly to suggest that we should only include the minimum for a standard game of 40k if you're going to compare to a serious collector for X-wing. Only new players buy up until the minimum, serious collectors of 40k own a ton of points, often across at least one other faction. Since 3rd, it was very common to hear "everyone's first faction is marines".

 Peregrine wrote:

Let's move away from the 3 ship X-wing force. I never supported it, and it has nothing to do with my original point so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

I'm bringing it up because it's the original post about X-Wing that I replied to and started this discussion with. If you want to start your own separate discussion with different example purchases that's fine, but you should be clear that you're changing the subject and not continuing on from the original claim.

Then price it up and compare it to 40k. I don't see why you can't include the cards in the cost, or why you feel the need to include the entire X-wing collection against only a minimum standard game of 40k.
If someone says 3 ship model with upgrades is cheaper, prove them wrong. Don't change it to "No, you must include all of X-wing!". Heck, I can see the 3 ship with a ton of upgrades being a good buy. If I buy another ship, have a ton of upgrades I can swap around between them all and make new combos and builds. But I'm not an expert on the game.

We can ignore the rest of the points I made if you want.

Akiasura wrote:
But I'm not an expert on the game.

And here is the problem: you keep talking about this version of X-Wing where you "just buy the upgrades", but that game does not exist. It is effectively impossible to buy separate upgrade cards in X-Wing (very few sellers, and it costs almost as much as buying the whole ship), and the way FFG distributes them across the whole product line forces you to buy pretty much every ship. For example, here's my regionals list from this year:

Corran Horn (e-wing expansion, ship model)
Push the limit (a-wing expansion)
R2-D2 (original core set)
Fire control system (b-wing expansion)
Engine upgrade (YT-1300 expansion)

Miranda Doni (k-wing expansion, ship model)
Twin laser turret (k-wing expansion)
Advanced SLAM (k-wing expansion)
Extra munitions (k-wing expansion)
Sabine Wren (Ghost expansion)
Conner net (k-wing expansion)
Conner net (k-wing expansion)
Extra conner net template (k-wing expansion)
Extra conner net template (k-wing expansion)

So that's a two-ship list that requires seven $15 ships, two $30-40 ships, and a $35 core set (which you have to buy in addition to the TFA core set since the old core set doesn't give you the updated damage deck). Or let's consider the Palp Aces list that is winning a lot lately, and would be a pretty good choice for a player who wants to get right into competitive play:

Soontir Fel (TIE interceptor expansion, ship model)
Push the limit (imperial aces)
Royal guard TIE (imperial aces)
Stealth device (Firespray)
Autothrusters (Starviper)

Inquisitor (TIE prototype, ship model)
Push the limit (imperial aces)
Title (TIE prototype)
Autothrusters (Starviper)

Omicron Pilot (Shuttle, ship model)
Palpatine (Raider)

So that's two $15 expansions, a $20 expansion, three $30 expansions, and an $80 expansion. And that's with FFG being rather generous and giving you two copies of PTL and autothrusters in their respective boxes, which isn't usually the case. Very often you could add another $50 to the cost of a similar list.

GW is expensive but most of that is because it's a big game. I play Guard, Nids and Orks as well as Vampire Counts. I've bought plenty of GW models. And that's fine. I understand the costs.

But I never understand why people look at Warmachine as an alternative. Warmachine is cheaper solely because it is a smaller game. On a per unity basis, I have to pay $50 dollars for 10 Menoth or Legion infantry (compared to $25-30 for the same from GW) and my Warmachine infantry are static poses, most of which are repeated throughout the kit and offer me no options.

Is Warmachine cheaper, yes? But that's because you need fewer models. On a per model basis, Privateer Press is much worse.

 Peregrine wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
But I'm not an expert on the game.

And here is the problem: you keep talking about this version of X-Wing where you "just buy the upgrades", but that game does not exist.

Now who is strawmanning?
I never once said you could buy the upgrades all on their own. I suggested just pricing it out, whatever you need to buy to get the upgrades even if they are ships, and compare it to a standard 40k army.
This is no different from, when pricing 40k, including the rulebook and codex imo. You need to buy something to play the game, so price it out. If you have to buy the models to get cards, so be it. You can argue that its a flaw in the game and jacks up the price, I would agree, but it doesn't stop you from pricing out a standard game.

@ Time 2 Roll,
I did a pretty detailed breakdown of cost.
A 10 man infantry from PP is roughly 50, so 5/model.
A 10 man basic infantry from GW is roughly 40, so 4/model. For marines.
For guard its harder, because they are 3/model, but the heavy weapons teams and plasma guns are sold in a different pack and aren't included. This jacks up the cost.
The plasma gunners are 15 for two (7.5 per model) and the heavy weapons teams are 40 for 3 bases (13/model). If you want a transport instead, it's between 40-50 for one model. It's why I went with marines, they don't have wonky options.

This is literally the only area where GW is cheaper. In Tanks/Heavies, in Titans/Gargants, in Character Models, in Elite infantry, PP either ties or does better on a per model basis.

Check out the post, I used marines versus cygnar. PP is roughly the same or much cheaper than GW outside of very basic infantry, which are pretty awful in 40k anyway or require transports/additional purchases to be viable.
For example, you can argue from a gameplay perspective, a unit of 10 Guardsmen with 2 Plasma gunners is equivalent to a unit of errants. Both are about ~50 (GW has a slight advantage here at 45 and with extra models) and both are commonly used in practice.

Time 2 Roll wrote:
But I never understand why people look at Warmachine as an alternative. Warmachine is cheaper solely because it is a smaller game.

People look at it as an alternative because it's cheaper, on account of being a smaller game.


It's also considerably cheaper from a rules front, because all you need to buy is the rulebook. No army book required, as the models come with cards that have their rules on them.


And, of course, there are those who took it up because the rules are better written than 40K's, and they don't much care about the cost of the game.

Akiasura wrote:
I never once said you could buy the upgrades all on their own. I suggested just pricing it out, whatever you need to buy to get the upgrades even if they are ships, and compare it to a standard 40k army.

Ok then. It sounded like you were suggesting "price out the cards" as if you could just buy the necessary cards without the ships, and save money over the "buy one of everything" plan. And my point here is that once you start pricing out a list or two you quickly find yourself adding a copy of almost every expansion to your shopping list. Your first list adds 5-10 more ships you need to buy, and then once you have those ship models you might as well buy the extra stuff you need to make them useful instead of paying $15 each for small pieces of paper, and so on until you have one of everything. And this is especially reinforced by FFG's constant supply problems, ships can go out of stock for months at a time so you're strongly encouraged to buy everything you think you'll ever want so you aren't stuck wishing for it later. Perhaps all of this is foreign to a 40k player, but if you ever get into X-Wing beyond a couple of starter-box games you'll understand how easily "buy one of everything" becomes a minimum purchase and the serious collectors are buying 2-3 or more of everything.

And, again, I never claimed that X-Wing is more expensive than 40k. I just object to people spreading the myth that you can spend $50 on it and go play. Realistically you're looking at more like $200 for a starter purchase, quickly escalating to $500 or so as you get into the game. And that $500 number looks a lot different than $50 when you're comparing it to 40k armies.

Time 2 Roll wrote:
Is Warmachine cheaper, yes? But that's because you need fewer models. On a per model basis, Privateer Press is much worse.

The thing about injection moulded models, it doesn't cost a lot more to make 2 sprues and package them together as it does to make 1 sprue and package it singularly.

In that sense, price should scale somewhat depending on how many you will typically use to play a game. If you use twice as many models to play a game, then the models should be somewhat cheaper on a per model basis (not saying half, but definitely cheaper). If you use half as many models, the amount of effort that goes in to getting the models in to the sweaty hands of gamers doesn't change a whole heap, so it makes sense the models individually should be slightly more expensive.

I am the sort of person who has no issues spending $200 on a model. Not a problem. But to play a game that requires 100 models each which cost $10? Err, no thanks.

I think what people are missing is that you only need to buy ships for cards in x-wing if you're a tournament player.

If you're casual we just proxy the cards there are plenty of squad builders that have the rules included.

I use the pilot talent juke all the time but I've never bought the expansion it comes in.

hobojebus wrote:
I think what people are missing is that you only need to buy ships for cards in x-wing if you're a tournament player.

If you're casual we just proxy the cards there are plenty of squad builders that have the rules included.

I use the pilot talent juke all the time but I've never bought the expansion it comes in.

This is true, but if you're going to talk about proxying in one game then you need to be consistent and apply it to all games. For example, you can play 40k just fine with paper cutouts, pirated rulebooks, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I think what people are missing is that you only need to buy ships for cards in x-wing if you're a tournament player.

If you're casual we just proxy the cards there are plenty of squad builders that have the rules included.

I use the pilot talent juke all the time but I've never bought the expansion it comes in.

This is true, but if you're going to talk about proxying in one game then you need to be consistent and apply it to all games. For example, you can play 40k just fine with paper cutouts, pirated rulebooks, etc.

We Arnt talking about proxying ships though just the upgrade cards, which means you buy ships because you want them not for the cards.

So yes you can pirate the rule books but that's theft, proxying cards is not as its freely available information.

hobojebus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I think what people are missing is that you only need to buy ships for cards in x-wing if you're a tournament player.

If you're casual we just proxy the cards there are plenty of squad builders that have the rules included.

I use the pilot talent juke all the time but I've never bought the expansion it comes in.

This is true, but if you're going to talk about proxying in one game then you need to be consistent and apply it to all games. For example, you can play 40k just fine with paper cutouts, pirated rulebooks, etc.

We Arnt talking about proxying ships though just the upgrade cards, which means you buy ships because you want them not for the cards.

So yes you can pirate the rule books but that's theft, proxying cards is not as its freely available information.

BattleScribe contains every special rule, and points values. It's certainly "freely available information". If you must make comparisons, make fair comparisons.

hobojebus wrote:
We Arnt talking about proxying ships though just the upgrade cards, which means you buy ships because you want them not for the cards.

So what? You can't consider proxying as a cost-reduction option for one game while rejecting proxying as a cost-reduction option for the game you want to "prove" is more expensive. If you're allowed to proxy upgrade cards for X-Wing instead of paying for them then you're allowed to proxy models for 40k instead of paying for them. That's the only fair way to compare the costs of the two games.

So yes you can pirate the rule books but that's theft, proxying cards is not as its freely available information.

Ok, fine, only proxy models then. That brings the cost of 40k down to the cost of the main rulebook and a codex. That's what, $100 or so to play 40k? Sure doesn't seem so expensive anymore!

 Peregrine wrote:
If you're allowed to proxy upgrade cards for X-Wing instead of paying for them then you're allowed to proxy models for 40k instead of paying for them. That's the only fair way to compare the costs of the two games

Yeah I don't think anyone would genuinely feel proxying cards in a miniature game is the same as proxying the actual miniatures in a miniature game. It's a grey area that doesn't really compare well between the games. It's probably more akin to sharing a rulebook in 40k rather than actually proxying the models themselves.

I could see proxying the cards to see if you like the game or want to go out and get the cards, but I don't think its right to do for a discussion.

For purposes of the discussion, store bought and including everything that you need to play seems the most fair. Otherwise we get very circular arguments where people buy from 3rd party chinese manufactures for one game, but not the other. Or suggest downloading the rulebook for one, but not the other to prove their point. Or 3D printing.

The last time we opened that door here, someone suggested a 40% discount for 40k due to a weird deal he had with his local shop, but didn't want to give PP a discount.

I think the assumption that "I'm entering my local tournament and I'd like to have a decent game" is a good condition to have this discussion. Keeps it even for everyone and no one gains an unfair advantage.

 insaniak wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

True, two clearly different markets, but they are producing a superior product and selling it at a cheaper price. That makes GW look like bad value if someone does make the comparison.

Tamiya's product is only superior if you're comparing GW's product as the same thing.


Tamiya tanks are certainly better than GW's as scale models. As gaming miniatures, they're not as good - too fiddly (anf so time consuming) to build, and made from a harder and more brittle plastic with lots of little parts which makes them unsuitable for frequent handling and lugging about the countryside.

You can't really directly compare the two, because they're two very different products, in different genres, intended for different purposes. It's like trying to compare a sword and a cricket bat... They might look superficially similar, but which of them is better depends entirely on what you're trying to do with them.

Well, actually those Panzer II's I mentioned are far superior to GW's kits both as scale models and as wargaming pieces.

they are cheap and easy to build, they have plenty of detail and extra parts and they are also very tough and robust so they can withstand the handling they receive on the table top. They are also really easy to convert. If I want a different variant I just have to swap out the main gun and convert on something else in its place. If I want to change the hull mount I have to make the most minimal of changes. The only challenges come from adding on sponsons and to be fair who adds on sponsons to Leman Russ these days?
They are also the same size as a Leman Russ, so there is no issue there and as a g=final nail in the coffin they have rotating wheels and rubber band tracks that are far easier to assemble and paint.

So, £10 for a fun, easy to build, good looking and superbly detailed tank kit or £40 for a clunky, over riveted and poorly designed kit?

 Peregrine wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
We Arnt talking about proxying ships though just the upgrade cards, which means you buy ships because you want them not for the cards.

So what? You can't consider proxying as a cost-reduction option for one game while rejecting proxying as a cost-reduction option for the game you want to "prove" is more expensive. If you're allowed to proxy upgrade cards for X-Wing instead of paying for them then you're allowed to proxy models for 40k instead of paying for them. That's the only fair way to compare the costs of the two games.

So yes you can pirate the rule books but that's theft, proxying cards is not as its freely available information.

Ok, fine, only proxy models then. That brings the cost of 40k down to the cost of the main rulebook and a codex. That's what, $100 or so to play 40k? Sure doesn't seem so expensive anymore!

Except in 20 years I've never met anyone who'd let you proxy a coke can for a rhino or wooden blocks for marines that's always been a major nono.

Saying a powerfist is actually a thunder hammer, or that flamers actually a meltagun is more akin to proxying cards in x-wing.

 Verviedi wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I think what people are missing is that you only need to buy ships for cards in x-wing if you're a tournament player.

If you're casual we just proxy the cards there are plenty of squad builders that have the rules included.

I use the pilot talent juke all the time but I've never bought the expansion it comes in.

This is true, but if you're going to talk about proxying in one game then you need to be consistent and apply it to all games. For example, you can play 40k just fine with paper cutouts, pirated rulebooks, etc.

We Arnt talking about proxying ships though just the upgrade cards, which means you buy ships because you want them not for the cards.

So yes you can pirate the rule books but that's theft, proxying cards is not as its freely available information.

BattleScribe contains every special rule, and points values. It's certainly "freely available information". If you must make comparisons, make fair comparisons.

No, it doesn't. It contains MOST, but not all. There's a reason you need the codex too

hobojebus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
We Arnt talking about proxying ships though just the upgrade cards, which means you buy ships because you want them not for the cards.

So what? You can't consider proxying as a cost-reduction option for one game while rejecting proxying as a cost-reduction option for the game you want to "prove" is more expensive. If you're allowed to proxy upgrade cards for X-Wing instead of paying for them then you're allowed to proxy models for 40k instead of paying for them. That's the only fair way to compare the costs of the two games.

So yes you can pirate the rule books but that's theft, proxying cards is not as its freely available information.

Ok, fine, only proxy models then. That brings the cost of 40k down to the cost of the main rulebook and a codex. That's what, $100 or so to play 40k? Sure doesn't seem so expensive anymore!

Except in 20 years I've never met anyone who'd let you proxy a coke can for a rhino or wooden blocks for marines that's always been a major nono.

Saying a powerfist is actually a thunder hammer, or that flamers actually a meltagun is more akin to proxying cards in x-wing.

I've let someone proxy a 24oz bottle of coke zero for a riptide and in another situation proxy a flyrant for an unopened can of PBR.

We interrupt this silly game of toss the strawman to give Peregine a thumbs up for playing Sabine and Bombs

Time 2 Roll wrote:
GW is expensive but most of that is because it's a big game. I play Guard, Nids and Orks as well as Vampire Counts. I've bought plenty of GW models. And that's fine. I understand the costs.

But I never understand why people look at Warmachine as an alternative. Warmachine is cheaper solely because it is a smaller game. On a per unity basis, I have to pay $50 dollars for 10 Menoth or Legion infantry (compared to $25-30 for the same from GW) and my Warmachine infantry are static poses, most of which are repeated throughout the kit and offer me no options.

Is Warmachine cheaper, yes? But that's because you need fewer models. On a per model basis, Privateer Press is much worse.

Having bought quite a few WarMachine miniatures I agree with this. I played a few matches with my Cygnar pieces and I wish that GW would adopt some unit cards like WarMachine does because it makes quick reference of your units easy but it wouldn't be easy to do with the way 40K units can be customized while WarMachine units are pretty much static in their options. It's also true that the miniatures cannot be customized to the degree that 40K minis can. The sculpting of the WarMachine stuff is fantastic and they look great when painted but yes pretty much every basic squad of any given army is going to look like every other basic squad because they have no options, no customized poses, no weapons options and so on. With respect to the per miniature cost between WarMahine and 40K you are right, they are about the same. WarMachine draws players in by virtue of the fact that it takes less miniatures to get started in a fight but they know that gamers are not going to stop at 8, 10 or 15 miniatures. They are going to collect minis and they are going to expand their armies and in the long run you will spend as much on WarMachine as you do on 40K. The minis, the books, the terrain and so on. In the end it all comes out about the same in cost. There is no such thing as a cheap hobby if you are really interested in it.

I don't find their prices have the same global problems, so much as inconsistencies.

For $40 you can get a unit of ten space marines- $4 per mini. That price seems just fine to me. If you're buying units, they go up in price if you're getting the resin ones.

However, if you have basically the same minis, but call them "Sternguard" the box is suddenly more expensive for half as many minis.

Then the characters seem like they're all pricing at $30 these days- although older power armored marine character can be as cheap as $16 ea.


The books have long been the place where I think they're loony- a core book that costs $90, plus a $50 codex means that you have to invest $140 before buying any minis to play the game- compared against their competitors who mostly post full rulebooks for free, or charge about $30 for a core rulebook.

Recently, it seems like GW might be changing their policy with book pricing (the new AoS book with point values is only $25- and recent codecies are down in price- although a lot of current forces require two codecies to play).

Right, Gw pricing for basic troops isn't bad at all. It's why you see the people who think Gw is reasonably priced use them as an example.
The problem is it's the only thing that's reasonable. You start looking at elites, transports, and character models and Gw is back to being way overpriced. As my unit breakdown showed several pages back, war machine is much cheaper than Gw especially if we are talking competitive armies which rarely include basic infantry in any number.