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.

Over on the x-wing forums we have a whole sub forum dedicated to painting and conversion as well as scratch build projects.

X-wing is absolutely in the same bracket as 40k, it's just got superior rules, cheaper to play and a company that cares about balance and actively breaks the meta to keep things fresh.

I think it's fair to say that GW's model line is the widest and of highest quality. Emphasis here on line. No other company can compare if we take entire line vs entire line.

Kit by kit though: I'd say there's rather few kits where there don't exist at least one comparable one of better quality from another manufacturer. For any large GW monster, there's a better looking one from Mierce, Scale75 etc. For every large tank or machine there's Gundam bots, roughly one million accurately scaled tanks with brass components, crazy detail etc. So while GW might have the best line, they sure don't have the best models. And this is without factoring in the price. Do that and the comparisons generally start looking worse.

GW had (and to an extent still has) a huge edge in multipart plastic infantry. But on the fantasy/historical side that's debatable now with all the kits from Warlord, Perrys, Fireforge, Victrix etc and more fantasy focused companies like Avatars of War and Shieldwolf. Especially if we factor in price.

Sci-fi infantry Is GW's last bastion. Some of the new stuff is gorgeous, and they've started to get back to more realistic (and thus better) scaling of their humans. (Compare the genestealer and chaos cultists with the bulging ape-mutants that is the old Cadian or Catachan guard.) In the fantasy realm though, the models they put out is sadly increasingly out of any reasonable scale, overly greebled and thus more and more irrelevant for anyone outside the small diehard AoS community.

morgoth wrote:

GW produces the best and widest futuristic wargame miniature range in the world - and they're the top seller.

If you want a single source, and want massive impractical models, or models specifically set in the 40K universe, then yes, GW has the widest range.

If you're happy mixing ranges and shopping around, and don't mind deviating slightly from 40K canon, you'll find GW's range isn't that impressive and the quality, whilst high, is not world leading.

Herzlos wrote:

morgoth wrote:

GW produces the best and widest futuristic wargame miniature range in the world - and they're the top seller.

If you want a single source, and want massive impractical models, or models specifically set in the 40K universe, then yes, GW has the widest range.

If you're happy mixing ranges and shopping around, and don't mind deviating slightly from 40K canon, you'll find GW's range isn't that impressive and the quality, whilst high, is not world leading.

I think even considering there own universe they are rather lackluster, They are missing entire portfolios of potential races.
And even some of there factions seem to be missing key figures that should have got a model years ago, As well as models with no update within some time.
If you do not play space marines you may not even get an update for an entire lifetime of a edition of the game, does any other game even come close to that.

GW does have good technology, But they certainly do not have all there model lines up to date.

 Zywus wrote:
I think it's fair to say that GW's model line is the widest and of highest quality. Emphasis here on line. No other company can compare if we take entire line vs entire line.

Exactly my point.

And while I like Gundams, I really wouldn't want an army of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Uh, they're not the top seller. X-Wing is.

If you believe X-Wing and GW are in the same space ... sure why not.
X-Wing seems far closer to a board game than a war game tbh, how many miniatures do you field for a regular game ?
Don't they come pre-painted ?

Because if you go to board game territory, I'm sure many things outsell X-Wing too ...

Moving the goal posts now? They are miniatures, not sure why you are changing the facts. Oh I see where you are coming from. Just like when I was 7, my Star Wars action figures are not dolls. Also you might want to stop while you can before you make it more embarrassing. I mean after all if you are fielding less miniatures like you claim as if that is a bad thing, how come they are selling more and making more money with less to play? Or are you going to change the goal posts again to prove your point?

Yes they are pre painted. It doesn't stop them from being a miniature. One you put together, the other you don't. They are still both miniatures.

Hey whatever floats your boat man.

Quite clearly the X-wing toys are much closer to matchbox than war games but if you feel like they're in the same market, I can tell you I believe Lego is in the same market too and vastly outdoes x-wing.

You're the one setting goal posts exactly where you want them, just before GW and just after X-Wing... good for you, you won the argument, here's a medal, and a coupon too !


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

morgoth wrote:

GW produces the best and widest futuristic wargame miniature range in the world - and they're the top seller.

If you want a single source, and want massive impractical models, or models specifically set in the 40K universe, then yes, GW has the widest range.

If you're happy mixing ranges and shopping around, and don't mind deviating slightly from 40K canon, you'll find GW's range isn't that impressive and the quality, whilst high, is not world leading.

Exactly my point.

There are, outside of GW, single models or small lines of models which are of a better quality, the immense majority of which are resin.

Like there are, within GW's line, plastic models that completely blow away entire ranges of models, both from GW and from other companies.

But nowhere is there anything that comes close to offering a range that enables me to collect a 100,000 point army equivalent that is visually and structurally coherent.

*delete*

Off topic now.

So basically GW plc have listened to the easiest to please, and put in minimal effort to just claim the low hanging fruit.

'Here are some minatures our loyal fans wanted us to make.'

The sort of loyal fan who will spend £1000s on collecting minatures, even getting 10,000 to 100,000 pts worth of a partucular army, just because they like the look of the minatures GW makes.Which is fine .

However, GW plc have continued to ignore the war gamers who would like a well defined concise rule set to use 1500pt armies in random pick up game , with enough focus on tactical game play and balance to make it worth the effort of taking the minatures out of thier cases.

And so when war gamers find other game that deliver what they want at a fraction of the price GW plc want to charge.They are quite happy to let everyone know about it.

As GW plc depends on word of mouth marketing,having such a horrible mess of a rule set for their 'most popular flagship game',is still causing them far more damage in terms of sales growth,than the ridiculous pricing.

Great rules add value to the minatures.
Bad rules just devalue the minatures.

By what standard is X-Wing not a wargame? Just because you don't like the models? It has had tournaments with over 250 people in them. Dismiss it all you want, a lot of people take the game very seriously.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
By what standard is X-Wing not a wargame? Just because you don't like the models? It has had tournaments with over 250 people in them. Dismiss it all you want, a lot of people take the game very seriously.

On the basis of 'It's not GW! Waaaaahhhh!'

Is it a simple wargame? Yes.

Does that mean that it is not a wargame? No.

I will admit that Star Wars is not my cup of tea, there are games that I would much rather be playing (and some of them are 'board games' - Deadzone, and Mars Attacks, for example).

But I would rather play Star Wars than the current incarnations of either WH40K or WH.

The Auld Grump

Deadzone and Mars Attacks are in a weird pseudo-board-game category because they use a grid but in a way that placement within the spaces matters more than it does it most grid-based games. But yeah, X-Wing is not a board game by any meaningful standard. Having defined spaces (squares, hexes, circles, whatever) is kind of a key requirement. X-Wing doesn't have that. It's rules are relatively simple by the standards of something like 40K, true, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of strategy or that people don't like it (whether for playing or modelling).

LEGO and Matchbox, while popular, are not sold primarily for use in a game (though people totally do that). X-Wing is and therefore is a very reasonable comparison.

morgoth wrote:
X-Wing seems far closer to a board game than a war game tbh, how many miniatures do you field for a regular game ?

About 3-8 per side for a typical 100 point game, more for larger games. But what's your point? Skirmish-scale miniatures games like Infinity/WHM/etc are still clearly miniatures games, having a low model count doesn't make a game a board game. In fact, GW has even made their own low model count miniatures games like Necromunda and BFG.

Don't they come pre-painted ?

Yes. Pre-painted miniatures are hardly a new thing in the industry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Is it a simple wargame? Yes.

TBH, it's not even that simple. Yeah, FFG have done a much better job than GW when it comes to writing straightforward and unambiguous rules, but IMO there's a lot more strategy in an average game of X-Wing than in most 40k games I've played. And in rules length/complexity it's actually more complicated than GW's Aeronautica Imperialis, a game I don't think anyone could seriously argue is not a miniatures game.

The game's also got over 200 upgrade cards now, split among the various expansions, so you can't even say it has a lack of variety. Between those and the various unique pilot abilities, that handful of models can have a pretty wide range of gameplay abilities.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Deadzone and Mars Attacks are in a weird pseudo-board-game category because they use a grid but in a way that placement within the spaces matters more than it does it most grid-based games. But yeah, X-Wing is not a board game by any meaningful standard. Having defined spaces (squares, hexes, circles, whatever) is kind of a key requirement. X-Wing doesn't have that. It's rules are relatively simple by the standards of something like 40K, true, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of strategy or that people don't like it (whether for playing or modelling).

LEGO and Matchbox, while popular, are not sold primarily for use in a game (though people totally do that). X-Wing is and therefore is a very reasonable comparison.

I think it's rather reasonable to define GW's core business as warhammer 40.000.

I think that warhammer 40.000 is part of a certain category of games, which share the following properties:

Strong modelling aspect: your miniatures come on sprue and you have tons of work before you can play with them, in fact you have nearly as much work as with pure modelling products such as plane kits.

Matching this aspect is almost every miniature based game, but NOT X-Wing.

Large Scale Conflict: the game is designed for war simulations with 100+ models (and multiple scales: grot, Imperial Guard, Space Marine, Terminator, Centurion, Dreadnought, Riptide, WraithKnight, Warhound, Reaver, Warlord)

Again, most war games represent more than 100 base units (smallest model), X-Wing does not.

Fantasy / Science Fiction: the game is not based on real-world representations.

X-Wing matches this definition, but napoleonic or FoW don't.

I think that qualifies as one big category in which you can consider that GW is indeed the biggest dog.
And clearly, removing any of these aspects makes the target market radically different, so why blur enough just to include X-Wing in the comparison... doesn't make sense.

Well... you are interpolating the definition of a wargame out of the characteristics of WH40K. While I agree that this caters my personal taste as well I can acknowledge that other see different charcteristics...

SKR.HH wrote:
Well... you are interpolating the definition of a wargame out of the characteristics of WH40K. While I agree that this caters my personal taste as well I can acknowledge that other see different charcteristics...

Not even close.

I just said: GW is the biggest dog in GW's market.

That's it.

I don't think X-Wing is in GW's market, and I think pretending is it is a huge stretch.

morgoth wrote:

SKR.HH wrote:
Well... you are interpolating the definition of a wargame out of the characteristics of WH40K. While I agree that this caters my personal taste as well I can acknowledge that other see different charcteristics...

Not even close.

I just said: GW is the biggest dog in GW's market.

That's it.

I don't think X-Wing is in GW's market, and I think pretending is it is a huge stretch.

Sure... if you want to segment the market that granularly. But in fact GW competes with those other markets/niches/whatever you want to call it as well.

SKR.HH wrote:

morgoth wrote:

SKR.HH wrote:
Well... you are interpolating the definition of a wargame out of the characteristics of WH40K. While I agree that this caters my personal taste as well I can acknowledge that other see different charcteristics...

Not even close.

I just said: GW is the biggest dog in GW's market.

That's it.

I don't think X-Wing is in GW's market, and I think pretending is it is a huge stretch.

Sure... if you want to segment the market that granularly. But in fact GW competes with those other markets/niches/whatever you want to call it as well.

And that's exactly my point.
Those who put X-Wing as the market leader define a very specific granularity which makes little sense as it neither matches GW (40K) precisely nor X-Wing precisely.

Level 1: there's only 40k
Level 2: + Infinity + ...
Level 3: + Battle + ...
Level 4: + FoW
Level 5: + Napoleonic
Level 6: + Zombicide
Level 7: + X-Wing
Level 8: + Matchbox, Lego ...

One could even argue that Lego is closer to 40K since there is some building involved, whereas there is none in X-Wing.

The modelling aspect of X-Wing is equal to that of Matchbox, i.e. none.

morgoth wrote:
Those who put X-Wing as the market leader define a very specific granularity which makes little sense as it neither matches GW (40K) precisely nor X-Wing precisely.

It makes a lot of sense if you consider what makes a miniatures game, and here are some standard traits:

* Played with miniatures on scenery representing the "real" unit and environment, not abstract tokens on an abstract grid/board.

* Rules written to be simulation of the "real" battle, not an abstract game of strategy (like chess).

* Distinct units/armies for each side, often customizable by each player, not "sides" which are just different colors for the pieces on the board.

X-Wing clearly meets that standard, as do Infinity/FoW/WHM/etc. Board games do not. And that matches anecdotal evidence of people already in the miniatures community moving to X-Wing as a new game (often at the expense of a GW game), and people who start X-Wing branching out into other miniatures games. It should also be noted that the people defining X-Wing as part of the same market as 40k are independent retail groups with no incentive to promote a biased comparison (after all, they make money from either product). The people whose job is to sell miniatures games are saying "these are competing products", so we should consider that a persuasive argument independent of anything else.

(And Matchbox/Lego/etc so clearly don't have anything to do with the characteristics of a miniatures game that it amazes me that you'd bother attempting such an absurd comparison.)

The modelling aspect of X-Wing is equal to that of Matchbox, i.e. none.

So what? We're talking about gameplay, not how many pieces you have to glue together before you can start playing. There have been plenty of miniatures games with pre-painted models, and judging by the number of gray plastic armies I've seen (often with assembly quality that the average five year old would be ashamed of) the modeling aspect is hardly an essential or enjoyable part of the game for most GW customers.

TheAuldGrump wrote:But I would rather play Star Wars than the current incarnations of either WH40K or WH.

The Auld Grump

At first I thought asking this question would be off topic but then thought no it's not since it would show if GW has gotten better or not with something to compare to. So my question is, how come since you don't care for Star Wars X-wing you would rather play that over Warmahordes? Or I should say what is wrong with Warmahordes that you don't like in it's current edition?

If icv2 is happy to call x-wing a miniature war game and put it in the same category as 40k I don't see why others have such a problem with it.

morgoth wrote:


One could even argue that Lego is closer to 40K since there is some building involved, whereas there is none in X-Wing.

The modelling aspect of X-Wing is equal to that of Matchbox, i.e. none.

So is 40K not a wargame if I buy a pre-painted army? Or if I use wooden blocks?

The distinction lies in the tabletop nature - no board & free movement => tabletop wargame. Board and grid movement => boardgame. X-Wing => tabletop wargame.

If you seriously think most gamers wouldn't consider X-Wing and 40K in the same category, you have a severe case of fanboy blindness. Trying to disqualify the comparison by making assembly and scale requirements is horribly flawed.

Not everyone who plays 40K assembles or paints their own stuff. There's plenty of unpainted grey legions out there, too. And plenty of X-WIng players do painting and customization. The modelling hobby is frequently related to the wargaming hobby, but modelling by no means defines it.

As for scale and terrain, are you going to claim that Malifaux and Infinity aren't wargames because they don't have as large of standard-size amies? Or that Warmachine doesn't count because many people like 2D terrain?

Face it, the wargaming hobby is more diverse than just the way GW does it and it is foolish to define it by how one company does things. So yeah, this is on topic because the answer is that even if GW has gotten somewhat better, they've still got massive issues with rules quality compared to companies like Fantasy Flight and Privateer Press.

On a side note: the Matchbox thing kind of makes me laugh because it seems to be a "X-Wing doesn't count because it's a toy" argument. You realize 40K is also toys, right?

 TheWaspinator wrote:
On a side note: the Matchbox thing kind of makes me laugh because it seems to be a "X-Wing doesn't count because it's a toy" argument. You realize 40K is also toys, right?

To an outside observer, there is no difference between an out-of-the-box X-Wing spaceship and a Matchbox, that's all I'm pointing out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheWaspinator wrote:
If you seriously think most gamers wouldn't consider X-Wing and 40K in the same category, you have a severe case of fanboy blindness. Trying to disqualify the comparison by making assembly and scale requirements is horribly flawed.

The vast majority of people who buy GW products is strongly affected by the assembly requirements, whether they love it, hate it, outsource it or anything else, it does represent a very large part of the hobby, for some more than half of it.

You are welcome to ignore this, as any other argument.

And most outside observers won't find much difference between an Imperial Knight and a Gundam except that the Gundam is a lot cheaper.

40K and X-Wing are sold as miniature games first. The figures exist for the game, not the other way around. If you want to start pushing the hobby modelling side as the primary part of the 40K experience, you're not going to like the outcome of a comparison between GW's kit quality and prices compared to the like of Revell, Bandai, and Tamiya.

morgoth wrote:

You are welcome to ignore this, as any other argument.

Actually here is you that are ignoring specific points and setting artificial restraint for the sake of the argument.

You lost right here:

hobojebus wrote:
Over on the x-wing forums we have a whole sub forum dedicated to painting and conversion as well as scratch build projects.

X-wing is absolutely in the same bracket as 40k, it's just got superior rules, cheaper to play and a company that cares about balance and actively breaks the meta to keep things fresh.

But you keep going.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

morgoth wrote:

You are welcome to ignore this, as any other argument.

Actually here is you that are ignoring specific points and setting artificial restraint for the sake of the argument.

It's all a matter of point of view.

If you think X-Wing is a valid counter to "GW is the top dog in its market sphere", and purposefully pick a wider market sphere which happens to include X-Wing but not Matchbox and Lego, you demonstrate that you are willing to pick any arbitrary radius to support your opinion.

So basically, you're saying that my point is arbitrary because I picked a market radius that stops at wargame w/ modelling,
and you believe your point is not arbitrary because you picked a market radius that stops after X-Wing but before Zombicide

I mean... sure. why not.

At least, my market radius definition has meaning, whereas your camp has yet to properly define the market sphere that contains X-Wing, 40K, but no board games, etc. without resorting to hex vs no hex (hint: there are wargames with hexes.. a lot of them too).



The fact of the matter is, the immense majority of 40K model buyers are not going to divert disposable income from GW to FFG, because X-Wing just doesn't compete with 40K.
They're way too different, 40K is way more expensive, requires serious investment in modelling, table and terrain as well as tons of rules etc.

The vast majority of X-Wing players would never play if it required so much modelling and more investment than boxed painted ships and a space-themed paper mat, and that's one of the reasons X-Wing has so much success, and it's a good thing too.


It's just not addressing the same market, unlike Dust Tactics which could be seen as an alternative to 40K, or even Warmahordes, which is pretty far already but still in the same realm more or less.

If you seriously think GW hasn't been missing a lot of sales from people going to FFG instead, you really are blind. There are a LOT of X-Wing players who are fed-up ex-40Kers. This is not an obscure comparison at all.

morgoth wrote:

The vast majority of people who buy GW products is strongly affected by the assembly requirements, whether they love it, hate it, outsource it or anything else, it does represent a very large part of the hobby, for some more than half of it.

Only because they come unassembled. If GW started producing pre-assembled/pre-painted mini's, nothing would change in the game of 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:
To an outside observer, there is no difference between an out-of-the-box X-Wing spaceship and a Matchbox, that's all I'm pointing out.

Except that one of them is part of a game and comes with rules, tokens and cards for that game, then I'd agree with you.

Of course, there's nothing stopping you making a game to play with Matchbox cars, I think GW made one in the long long ago.

At the risk of an appeal to authority:

Star Wars: X-Wing is a miniature war game designed by Jay Little and produced by Fantasy Flight Games that was released at Gen Con in 2012.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_X-Wing_Miniatures_Game

Warhammer 40,000 (informally known as Warhammer 40K, WH40K or simply 40K) is a tabletop miniature wargame produced by Games Workshop, set in a dystopian science fantasy universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000

So yeah, the common consensus seems to be that they're both miniature wargames.

morgoth wrote:

To an outside observer, there is no difference between an out-of-the-box X-Wing spaceship and a Matchbox, that's all I'm pointing out.

And to an outside observer there is no difference between an out of the box GW Land Raider and a Mark 1 tank by any of the historical model kit makers. Well, except for the sometimes huge price difference and lack of features like moving tracks and so forth.

So please tell us how this in any way helps 40K as a wargame compete with other wargames?