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.

 silent25 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Then it's a good job I'm not making it.

If you insist on using the tired car analogy (why is it always cars?) then it's more "well, this car has a nicer interior, and a bit more power, and a better stereo, but why is it 4x the cost of this other model which is very similar in most regards?"

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, I'm not arguing they should cost the same, at no point have I said they should cost the same. I have in fact, explicitly stated the exact opposite.

I was misrepresented by another poster as saying they should cost the same. I in fact said that a premium is justified, but not the level of premium that is demanded.

Yes you have. You are arguing on an arbitrary price point. You are saying the premium is not justified because "The tech is fundamentally the same!"

I'm not arguing on anything arbitrary.

£20 for 40 Perry models, £18 for 10 GW of similar size and complexity.

That's what I'm arguing on, a price difference in the order of 400%.

That I acknowledge the GW stuff may be better in detail to justify some sort of premium but not the premium asked is my opinion, which, you know, I'm allowed to have.

That the Perry kit is a recent release and that the GW kit has not only long since recouped its development cost but actually had its contents reduced without a commensurate drop in price further inform some my opinion that the premium asked isn't justified.

Personally I think the skill needed is much higher making historical models.
If you're making a ww2 tank and have the wrong amount of panels or rivets or gun type or barrel size etc etc, you've got a shed load of angry historical people villifying your product. GW can just slap more skull acne on a model and it's considered fine. Much less effort in design.

At the end of the day, they're all plastic sprues made from metal molds. The only difference, is that GW lovers, have an inbuilt desire to be defensive of their beloved god entity GW. Everyone else is able to see the good and bad models in any brand or range.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Personally I think the skill needed is much higher making historical models.
If you're making a ww2 tank and have the wrong amount of panels or rivets or gun type or barrel size etc etc, you've got a shed load of angry historical people villifying your product. GW can just slap more skull acne on a model and it's considered fine. Much less effort in design.

I think you're giving historical model makers more credit than they deserve. It isn't that hard to find imagery of WW2 weapons, tanks, and reproduce in plastic mold form. In fact, I'd argue it's so easy, tons of companies do it already.

At the end of the day, they're all plastic sprues made from metal molds. The only difference, is that GW lovers, have an inbuilt desire to be defensive of their beloved god entity GW. Everyone else is able to see the good and bad models in any brand or range.

And the reverse anti-GW isn't true? They don't have an inbuilt desire to hate anything produced by GW?

 Azreal13 wrote:

 silent25 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Then it's a good job I'm not making it.

If you insist on using the tired car analogy (why is it always cars?) then it's more "well, this car has a nicer interior, and a bit more power, and a better stereo, but why is it 4x the cost of this other model which is very similar in most regards?"

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, I'm not arguing they should cost the same, at no point have I said they should cost the same. I have in fact, explicitly stated the exact opposite.

I was misrepresented by another poster as saying they should cost the same. I in fact said that a premium is justified, but not the level of premium that is demanded.

Yes you have. You are arguing on an arbitrary price point. You are saying the premium is not justified because "The tech is fundamentally the same!"

I'm not arguing on anything arbitrary.

£20 for 40 Perry models, £18 for 10 GW of similar size and complexity.

That's what I'm arguing on, a price difference in the order of 400%.

That I acknowledge the GW stuff may be better in detail to justify some sort of premium but not the premium asked is my opinion, which, you know, I'm allowed to have.

That the Perry kit is a recent release and that the GW kit has not only long since recouped its development cost but actually had its contents reduced without a commensurate drop in price further inform some my opinion that the premium asked isn't justified.

Just to put your point of "That I acknowledge the GW stuff may be better in detail to justify some sort of premium but not the premium asked" in perspective.

How can the Perry's ask for £20 for 40 Perry models when I can get these solders for £2.5 for 36!

Spoiler:

Yes I admit the Perry figures are more detailed but nothing justifies a 750% premium! They are both plastic injected figs!

Detail can be a big factor that goes back to my original point of additional machine time to get that detail drives up the cost of a fig. That we're seeing similar pricing from other high detail plastic figures like Kingdom Death, Wyrd, and PP means that those costs are not arbitrary. I will also insist that GW's plastic quality is still better than any of those companies.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
At the end of the day, they're all plastic sprues made from metal molds. The only difference, is that GW lovers, have an inbuilt desire to be defensive of their beloved god entity GW. Everyone else is able to see the good and bad models in any brand or range.

And the reverse anti-GW isn't true? They don't have an inbuilt desire to hate anything produced by GW?

In general terms... no? Certainly not when it comes to the figures.

As a general rule - and I acknowledge there are some exceptions - most people you would classify as "anti-GW" will give credit when GW produce a sculpt they like. They might gripe about the price, or the rules attached to it, but the sculpt will normally get credit if credit is due...

...unless it is the Pumbagore, of course

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Personally I think the skill needed is much higher making historical models.
If you're making a ww2 tank and have the wrong amount of panels or rivets or gun type or barrel size etc etc, you've got a shed load of angry historical people villifying your product. GW can just slap more skull acne on a model and it's considered fine. Much less effort in design.

I think you're giving historical model makers more credit than they deserve. It isn't that hard to find imagery of WW2 weapons, tanks, and reproduce in plastic mold form. In fact, I'd argue it's so easy, tons of companies do it already.

At the end of the day, they're all plastic sprues made from metal molds. The only difference, is that GW lovers, have an inbuilt desire to be defensive of their beloved god entity GW. Everyone else is able to see the good and bad models in any brand or range.

And the reverse anti-GW isn't true? They don't have an inbuilt desire to hate anything produced by GW?

I expect a large amount of your 'GW haters' have a vast collection of GW models/figures/toy soldiers.

The only thing I dislike about GW is their bizarre grip on the people that play GW games to not accept other games or figure styles.

GW can make whatever figures and games they want as far as I care. If they produce something I like, I'll buy it. I won't however be held in thrall by them to anyone game system or manufacturer.

And in a Phineas and Ferb voice, the answer to the OP is clearly "No... no we can't".

 silent25 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 silent25 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Then it's a good job I'm not making it.

If you insist on using the tired car analogy (why is it always cars?) then it's more "well, this car has a nicer interior, and a bit more power, and a better stereo, but why is it 4x the cost of this other model which is very similar in most regards?"

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, I'm not arguing they should cost the same, at no point have I said they should cost the same. I have in fact, explicitly stated the exact opposite.

I was misrepresented by another poster as saying they should cost the same. I in fact said that a premium is justified, but not the level of premium that is demanded.

Yes you have. You are arguing on an arbitrary price point. You are saying the premium is not justified because "The tech is fundamentally the same!"

I'm not arguing on anything arbitrary.

£20 for 40 Perry models, £18 for 10 GW of similar size and complexity.

That's what I'm arguing on, a price difference in the order of 400%.

That I acknowledge the GW stuff may be better in detail to justify some sort of premium but not the premium asked is my opinion, which, you know, I'm allowed to have.

That the Perry kit is a recent release and that the GW kit has not only long since recouped its development cost but actually had its contents reduced without a commensurate drop in price further inform some my opinion that the premium asked isn't justified.

Just to put your point of "That I acknowledge the GW stuff may be better in detail to justify some sort of premium but not the premium asked" in perspective.

How can the Perry's ask for £20 for 40 Perry models when I can get these solders for £2.5 for 36!

Spoiler:

Yes I admit the Perry figures are more detailed but nothing justifies a 750% premium! They are both plastic injected figs!

Detail can be a big factor that goes back to my original point of additional machine time to get that detail drives up the cost of a fig. That we're seeing similar pricing from other high detail plastic figures like Kingdom Death, Wyrd, and PP means that those costs are not arbitrary. I will also insist that GW's plastic quality is still better than any of those companies.

Kindly stop misrepresenting my arguments. Nowhere have I said any scale of premium is impossible to justify.

But if you're going to take this line, I'll just cite using rocks and twigs from the garden and declare all other options a massive waste of time and we'll call the discussion done.

If you want to carry on comparing fundamentally similar products aimed at a fundamentally similar market made by a fundamentally similar process, then by all means..

You may even want to share some of this knowledge of HIPS injection moulding to explain why GW is better and warrants the asking price?

 Dysartes wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
At the end of the day, they're all plastic sprues made from metal molds. The only difference, is that GW lovers, have an inbuilt desire to be defensive of their beloved god entity GW. Everyone else is able to see the good and bad models in any brand or range.

And the reverse anti-GW isn't true? They don't have an inbuilt desire to hate anything produced by GW?

In general terms... no? Certainly not when it comes to the figures.

As a general rule - and I acknowledge there are some exceptions - most people you would classify as "anti-GW" will give credit when GW produce a sculpt they like. They might gripe about the price, or the rules attached to it, but the sculpt will normally get credit if credit is due...

Indeed.
For example, I have not seen a single solitary person say anything bad about the model quality of the recent Genestealer cultists.

Even the most blazing "GW-hater" will agree that the GW range contain awesome models as well as hideous stuff.


The "GW-fanboys" are the ones prematurely writing off entire ranges.
As if these:


couldn't compete with these:


these:


with these:


or these:


with these:


And so on...

Who makes those not Chaos Warriors? I need to add them to the mental databank of potential future purchases!

 Azreal13 wrote:
Who makes those not Chaos Warriors? I need to add them to the mental databank of potential future purchases!

MOM miniaturas.
https://www.momminiaturas.com/miniaturas/b%C3%A1rbaros/

They have a lot of interesting fantasy lines. Chaos-esque barbarians and Dwarfs in particular but the range is rapidly growing.

While nobody that I know of complained about the minis for Genestealer Cult, there was a lot of head scratching for the prices GW are asking for.

So again, GW hasn't gotten better in the price department. As much as I spent on GW in 2016 compared to the previous years combined, I haven't bought anything that wasn't a "boxset" be it a starter box or Silver Tower, or Overkill. I haven't bought any of the individual kits that GW was asking for because they are just insane. Over $50 for 5 minis? Over $70 for 3 minis?

Yeah GW hasn't changed at all where it matters second. Rules first, price second. Makes the minis not worth it to buy rules wise.

 Azreal13 wrote:


Kindly stop misrepresenting my arguments. Nowhere have I said any scale of premium is impossible to justify.

But if you're going to take this line, I'll just cite using rocks and twigs from the garden and declare all other options a massive waste of time and we'll call the discussion done.

If you want to carry on comparing fundamentally similar products aimed at a fundamentally similar market made by a fundamentally similar process, then by all means..

You may even want to share some of this knowledge of HIPS injection moulding to explain why GW is better and warrants the asking price?

I'm pointing out the problem with the argument you are making. Yes you are making an opinion, but the fact that you are using an inferior product to justify why another's price shouldn't be so high is a poor example.

I have already stated difference in how machine time affects the cost of the mold and that drives the costs upward. That by your own admission, the Perry figures made recently aren't as detailed as a fifteen year old kit from GW should tell you something about work being done on these molds. The Perrys can't replicate the detail of figures they did 15 years ago at another company means they are unable to justify the cost going into make those molds.

Just to compare the Perry sprue and the GW sprue. First off, as already pointed out, there is more detail in the GW sprue. That means more machine time was done on it, more money. Likely requiring a finer machine bit which likely wears out faster and needs to be replaced, more money. The Perrys use Renedra who still use 3:1 models to transfer and machine to mold. GW uses CAD software. This adds a software and licensing cost on top of sculptor costs. They use a 3D printer to produce prototypes, another cost.

Was water cooling used in the mold for temperature control? That reduces warpage. More machine time. How long is the sprue allowed to cool before it's ejected? That also reduces warpage and that slows down production time, so that means they are not able to produce as much. To recoup production costs they have to charge more. Is post work done on the molds? More labor costs. GW's production is in house so they have a key interest in controlling quality. Renedra is a contractor in this case, their priority is finishing the production run as fast as possible to get onto the next client. As long as the warpage is withing contractual obligations, they are fine. A common trick contracts try to pull on you is to send you approval for a piece by next daying the piece to you and demanding immediate feedback. It can take a few weeks for a piece to warp to it's maximum deformation.

The GW sprue is larger requiring a larger mold and block of material to work with. More costs for material. The larger mold means the machine is larger used. Larger machines are more expensive. Larger machines require more power to operate and more maintenance. All which require more money.

Lastly, GW's production is in house, so all maintenance and repair costs are passed into overhead which is passed into the product. The Perrys only need to use Renedra for a single run each time, so only a portion of overhead costs are passed onto them. Bringing production in house doesn't reduce cost, it increases quality. By sticking with contractors you avoid all the costs associated with owning and maintaining those machines, but very often at a sacrifice to quality control.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Zywus you're also pointing to GW figures that are a decade or plus old. A bit of cherry picking in comparisons against more recent models. Also you are comparing a plastic to a resin. Resin figure quality is almost always superior to plastic.

 silent25 wrote:
Just to put your point of "That I acknowledge the GW stuff may be better in detail to justify some sort of premium but not the premium asked" in perspective.

How can the Perry's ask for £20 for 40 Perry models when I can get these solders for £2.5 for 36!

Spoiler:

Yes I admit the Perry figures are more detailed but nothing justifies a 750% premium! They are both plastic injected figs!

Detail can be a big factor that goes back to my original point of additional machine time to get that detail drives up the cost of a fig. That we're seeing similar pricing from other high detail plastic figures like Kingdom Death, Wyrd, and PP means that those costs are not arbitrary. I will also insist that GW's plastic quality is still better than any of those companies.

The army men are single piece made from a much softer plastic.

Comparing Perry vs a lot of GW kits, they're both hard plastic, they have similar fidelity, they are multi-part kits.

When making the comparison between Perry plastics and GW plastics we aren't really comparing some of GW's more complicated kits that require several large sprues to make only a few models nor are we comparing the low-run plastic character clampack models. Perry doesn't make stuff that is comparable to that so no comparison can be drawn. If you want to make a comparison like that you have to look to a company other than Perry.

We're comparing the likes of basic Orcs, Termagants, Cadians, Empire Spearmen, etc. That basic infantry that makes up the bulk of many 40k/WHFB armies which aren't higher quality or higher detail than Perry's stuff, they aren't manufactured with any significant difference, but cost 4 times the price.

 silent25 wrote:

@Zywus you're also pointing to GW figures that are a decade or plus old. A bit of cherry picking in comparisons against more recent models. Also you are comparing a plastic to a resin. Resin figure quality is almost always superior to plastic.

But you already stated that GW figures made 15 years ago are superior to anything the Perry's could possibly make.

My main observation from your longer post though...
You confuse "detail" with "clutter".

If I buy a historical model that is meant to be in a plain robe, I don't want it covered in embossed runes, skulls or spikes and chains. If I can see the clasp fastening the robe, that's the detail I needed. That doesn't mean the sculpter or mold maker has less skill or technicality to a GW one. It means they've made what they wanted to achieve and produced what the customer wants or is historically accurate.

A figure covered in busy clutter for the sake of it, does not necessarily mean a better quality figure. Please get down from that rather high horse you seem to be on.

@Silent25.
The last time I asked my friend who worked at GW Nottingham manufacturing site.
He told me that the cost of plastic injection moulding sprues was about 2% of the retail price.
In fact the cardboard box they put the sprues in was more expensive to produce than the sprues inside it!(In terms of design material and artwork etc.)

This is why is is MUCH cheaper for GW to send out a complete replacement box of minatures, than to refund the purchase price.

The cost of manufacturing the metal mold plates is quite high, but no where near as high as it was before all the C.N.C milling and CAD moddeling technology GW bought.(It is MUCH more cost efficient than the old technology that Rendra still use.Thats why GW PLC bought it !)

The large moulds GW use are made to fit their own machines.And cost about £10k-£15k.These metal moulds last ages,(some have produces millions of sprues.)

Under the old plastic moulding method , when GW were still selling lots of white metal minatures,because metal moulds cost ten times as much as this to make!(And were smaller size due to the cost of manufacturing.)

GW plc gross costs excluding logistics and retail are about 24% of turn over.(Appx 8% cover ALL manufacturing costs.The other 16 % covers ALL remaining non retail or logistic costs.)

I can not fault the way GW plc invested in top end plastic manufacturing technology!Nor do I question the comparative quality of thier kits in terms of technical methods used.

Its just GW plc specifically stated the move to plastic minatures was '..to lower the cost of entry to new customers.As plastic production rewards high volumes of sales, so expect the core units of your army to be converted to plastic in the near future...'

Which lasted until the 'Gold Swords' experiment , let the sales department know they could charge what they liked for plastic minatures.And a few people would still buy them.

If GW was 'a minatures company first and foremost', it would ditch the retail chain and just produce excellent minatures at competitive prices and use volume of production to make massive profits off cheap to make quality minatures.

IF GW plc is a games company, they would write excellent rules to inspire gamers to play and engage other people in thier great games.(Word of mouth marketing.)
Supported by high quality minatures at competitive prices , due to high volumes of sales from the excellent games.
Some Hobby centers to engage with new players could be supported under this types of set up.
(Eg sort of how GW used to be ages ago..)

Then GW plc would be better. EG Citadel Minatures or actual Games Workshop.

Until GW plc can decide what it is supposed to be , and make focused efforts to move in a clear direction.It will continue to be as ''fat and lazy' as Tom Kirby himself called it in 2007.

Some prime blind fanatic justifications going on in this thread now. GW ARE BETTER BECAUSE THEY ARE, THEY ARE!!

So, just because I'm curious; which material is more expensive to work with - metal, or plastic?

I ask, because I'm trying to figure out if the YĀN HUǑ being 150SEK (Swedish kronor) versus the Acolyte Iconward's 180SEK makes sense based on materials used. After all, GW did claim that they replaced metal with Finecast because it was cheaper (and then hiked the prices) before getting rid of Finecast in favor of plastic.

The sad part is there's nothing wrong with that resin if used correctly, their quality was crap because they tried to use spin molds with a material designed to be poured.

And even with replacements at 13p a gallon there was no excuse for the price hikes.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Some prime blind fanatic justifications going on in this thread now. GW ARE BETTER BECAUSE THEY ARE, THEY ARE!!

Some prime blind hater justifications going on in this thread now. GW ARE WORSE BECAUSE THEY ARE, THEY ARE!!

@Mangod.
From the info I have.
Metal and resin moulds are quite cheap to make and are most cost effective for small runs.
(As the moulds wear out much faster than the hard metal moulds used for injection plastic moulding.)

The white metal used is the most expensive material, with resin being significantly cheaper and lighter .(To reduce shipping costs.)
Both hold similar amounts of detail which is slightly better than the best multipart injection moulded plastic.

This higher quality definition and cheaper short run for these materials make them the ideal for character/special detailed display models, that people buy a few of.
(When Mantic replaced poured metal to poured resin for thier special units they halved the cost per minature to the customer.)

The plastic manufature cost much more to set up , but after the initial costs each sprue only uses a few pennies worth of plastic.(GWs set up can produce 1000s of sprues per day.)


So most companies that use plastic manufacture use them for high volume runs.(EG the core units in an army that people buy lots of.)
However, it seem GW plc pricing runs contrary to the economies of scale all other plastic manufacturers use.

SKR.HH wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Some prime blind fanatic justifications going on in this thread now. GW ARE BETTER BECAUSE THEY ARE, THEY ARE!!

Some prime blind hater justifications going on in this thread now. GW ARE WORSE BECAUSE THEY ARE, THEY ARE!!

Um, where exactly?

SKR.HH wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Some prime blind fanatic justifications going on in this thread now. GW ARE BETTER BECAUSE THEY ARE, THEY ARE!!

Some prime blind hater justifications going on in this thread now. GW ARE WORSE BECAUSE THEY ARE, THEY ARE!!

Link please

hobojebus wrote:
The sad part is there's nothing wrong with that resin if used correctly, their quality was crap because they tried to use spin molds with a material designed to be poured.

And even with replacements at 13p a gallon there was no excuse for the price hikes.

I'm pretty sure finecast was injection moulded, not spun cast (look at the sprue layout of finecast models, it screams "injected" not "spun").

Spin casting probably would have had a better chance It's almost impossible to avoid getting bubbles in resin when it's mixed, so those bubbles need somewhere to go. When you inject in to a mould like it appears finecast has been done, those bubbles just get trapped.

 silent25 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Zywus you're also pointing to GW figures that are a decade or plus old. A bit of cherry picking in comparisons against more recent models. Also you are comparing a plastic to a resin. Resin figure quality is almost always superior to plastic.

Not at all. While those GW figures are older, they are still more expensive than the ones I compared with. While the figures are older, they are what GW are selling now (well, not the archers, since GW lose that comparasion on walkover nowadays ) . If your models start to look outdated, that's your problem, not the customer's. Lower the price, update the sculpts, or lose the comparison. Anyway, the age and price of the models I picked are irrelevant for the point I was making.

Namely that: not even "haters" dismiss the quality of the entire GW range (although people might not be prepared the price GW is demanding for their figures), while on the other hand "fanboys" tend to disregard everything not GW despite there being serious competition with basically any single kit GW makes.


It's funny you mention resin vs HIPS, since this tend to be the last refuge of cornered GW apologists since no one else can match GW's quantity of HIPS kits. When people point out the (arguable) superiority of quality and (less arguably) superior price to £ ratio of competing kits. The last holdout is often something to the tune of "But the GW kit is HIPS and thus superior because plastic glue, conversion ease etc.".

 Mangod wrote:
So, just because I'm curious; which material is more expensive to work with - metal, or plastic?

Metal and resin have lower start up costs but involve more time consuming manual work to actually cast the parts. So the cost of casting 1 model is high, but the cost of casting the next 100 doesn't get massively cheaper.

Plastic has a high start up cost because you need injection moulding machines a machined metal moulds to withstand the pressure of the casting process, but once you've machined your moulds and set up the casting machine and cast 1 model, it costs very little to cast an additional 100 models.

So metal and resin are cheaper for short runs, plastic is cheaper for big runs.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

SKR.HH wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Some prime blind fanatic justifications going on in this thread now. GW ARE BETTER BECAUSE THEY ARE, THEY ARE!!

Some prime blind hater justifications going on in this thread now. GW ARE WORSE BECAUSE THEY ARE, THEY ARE!!

Link please

Reading most of your one liners thoughout all the thread is more than enough to realize your position on this.

Davor wrote:
While nobody that I know of complained about the minis for Genestealer Cult, there was a lot of head scratching for the prices GW are asking for.

So again, GW hasn't gotten better in the price department. As much as I spent on GW in 2016 compared to the previous years combined, I haven't bought anything that wasn't a "boxset" be it a starter box or Silver Tower, or Overkill. I haven't bought any of the individual kits that GW was asking for because they are just insane. Over $50 for 5 minis? Over $70 for 3 minis?

Yeah GW hasn't changed at all where it matters second. Rules first, price second. Makes the minis not worth it to buy rules wise.

Yes this. I wanted to start a GSC army until I saw what it would actually cost which is beyond ridiculous, and I say that as someone with several hundred dollars of disposal income to put towards the project. I refuse to pay that much for it. Great models, awful price point. Which is also weird because the upcoming Disciples of tzeentch seem to be priced fairly decently from what the leaks have shown.

The problem has never been the quality of the problem has been that they charge an arm and a leg probably about 50% more than they should just because they can get away with it and they know that people will buy it

Davor wrote:
While nobody that I know of complained about the minis for Genestealer Cult, there was a lot of head scratching for the prices GW are asking for.

Indeed, GW models may be too expensive for people to find sufficient value in. I was referring to those models as they're the most recent ones I can recall whose design (in a vacuum, and not connected to any pricing or rules issues) were met with near-universal praise. Pointing out that it's a fallacy to claim people are slagging GW design off unfairly. If anything GW gets away with many of their design decisions (wonky proportions, silly over-greebling, plain ugly stuff) far too easy, since they have a coterie of addicts that buy whatever they release just because it's GW stuff.

Wayniac wrote:

Davor wrote:
While nobody that I know of complained about the minis for Genestealer Cult, there was a lot of head scratching for the prices GW are asking for.

So again, GW hasn't gotten better in the price department. As much as I spent on GW in 2016 compared to the previous years combined, I haven't bought anything that wasn't a "boxset" be it a starter box or Silver Tower, or Overkill. I haven't bought any of the individual kits that GW was asking for because they are just insane. Over $50 for 5 minis? Over $70 for 3 minis?

Yeah GW hasn't changed at all where it matters second. Rules first, price second. Makes the minis not worth it to buy rules wise.

Yes this. I wanted to start a GSC army until I saw what it would actually cost which is beyond ridiculous, and I say that as someone with several hundred dollars of disposal income to put towards the project. I refuse to pay that much for it. Great models, awful price point. Which is also weird because the upcoming Disciples of tzeentch seem to be priced fairly decently from what the leaks have shown.

The problem has never been the quality of the problem has been that they charge an arm and a leg probably about 50% more than they should just because they can get away with it and they know that people will buy it

Why is GSC such a problem? With the Overkill box you already get a substantial amount of infantry and HQ (and you can trade away the Marines if you don't like them).

SKR.HH wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Davor wrote:
While nobody that I know of complained about the minis for Genestealer Cult, there was a lot of head scratching for the prices GW are asking for.

So again, GW hasn't gotten better in the price department. As much as I spent on GW in 2016 compared to the previous years combined, I haven't bought anything that wasn't a "boxset" be it a starter box or Silver Tower, or Overkill. I haven't bought any of the individual kits that GW was asking for because they are just insane. Over $50 for 5 minis? Over $70 for 3 minis?

Yeah GW hasn't changed at all where it matters second. Rules first, price second. Makes the minis not worth it to buy rules wise.

Yes this. I wanted to start a GSC army until I saw what it would actually cost which is beyond ridiculous, and I say that as someone with several hundred dollars of disposal income to put towards the project. I refuse to pay that much for it. Great models, awful price point. Which is also weird because the upcoming Disciples of tzeentch seem to be priced fairly decently from what the leaks have shown.

The problem has never been the quality of the problem has been that they charge an arm and a leg probably about 50% more than they should just because they can get away with it and they know that people will buy it

Why is GSC such a problem? With the Overkill box you already get a substantial amount of infantry and HQ (and you can trade away the Marines if you don't like them).

It is still expensive even with the overkill box to say nothing of if I can't get that box. Saying oh well the price is fine if you buy this other board games and use the figures doesn't really help the problem