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.
2016/12/31 13:08:04
Subject: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
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
Of course it does. You get exactly the same HQ as if you are buying the according box. And you get 28 hybrids + 4 aberrants which you don't need to buy separately. That is already a substantial part of most GSC armies. And that for 140 € (before discount) which is better than most other armies receive. Quite a lot of people would be very happy to get such a possibility to start their armies.
My Element Games referal code: SVE5335
2016/12/31 13:18:51
Subject: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
Yes but it doesn't change the fact that actually building on to the Army is in my opinion prohibitively expensive. The problem has never been starting, it's been once you graduate to actually building up a decent Army for regular gaming
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2016/12/31 13:35:43
Subject: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
Well, I disagree. It's something to start and gradually build on. Especially the possibility to combine with Tyranids and Imperial Army makes it rather easy to build GSC.
And if you have several hundred dollars of disposable income it's by no means "prohibitive".
I bought so far a Goliath and an additional box of Hybrids and slowly but surely getting to a full size GSC army (--> Slowly because I'm most likely one of the slowest painter on earth).
Wayniac wrote: Yes but it doesn't change the fact that actually building on to the Army is in my opinion prohibitively expensive. The problem has never been starting, it's been once you graduate to actually building up a decent Army for regular gaming
I would recommend getting out of the mind set that you need to build a tournament sized army to play with. Collect GSC for Kill Team, Inq28, Combat Patrol or maybe just play at 1000 points. £25 for 10 Hybrid Neophytes is great value in my eyes. The Acolytes are a bit pricey but DW:OK gives you enough for a good price. GSC are a horde army, and horde armies are going to be amongst the most expensive to make a 2000 point army with - that's just the nature of wargames - but you don't have to be boxed in to playing at 2000 points.
Except when people don't want to play less. Trust me, I'm usually the (lone) voice arguing for small point games. I prefer 1k points for AoS and ~1250 for 40k (enough to have one centerpiece but not overpowering). It does absolutely nothing when everyone else is "Yeah no I want 2k points so I can use <insert kewl formation here>". At that point, either I give up or I give in to what the "majority" wants. Kill Team, Inq28 (nobody does this at all I've seen) or Combat Patrol (nobody does this either) doesn't mean anything if I'd be sitting at the GW store all day with nobody willing to play, people already seem to hate playing Kill Team (I usually see people outright refuse to play it, they'd rather wait another and see if anyone shows up for "real" 40k than play a game of Kill Team in the interim). You are super optimistic I think because of your area. Mine is, while not as bad as others (auticus' springs to mind), mainly higher points and that's it. If you play less, either you team up with someone to play against the guy who wants 2k points, or you just don't get a game at all. I'm working on trying to change that mindset, but it's insanely hard when I'm the only one arguing for it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/31 15:28:36
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2016/12/31 16:01:30
Subject: Re:So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
Lanrak wrote: @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.
So GW might be screwing themselves over by making one-off models like Forgefather Vulkan He'stan in plastic, when plastic used to be reserved for stuff that needed to be sold in bulk, i.e. Tac Squads?
2016/12/31 16:21:11
Subject: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
It's possible to use a cheaper method of making plastic injection moulds. Chiefly by using a cheaper, softer, metal, which takes a lot less effort to machine.
The softer metal will wear out more quickly, but for character models where the production runs are likely to be shorter, that's not too much of an issue.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
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.
"Inferior" is highly subjective. By what magnitude is substantially more so. One could even argue that the purpose intended for both and Imperial Guard squad and the Perry Civil War minis is to fill out the rank and file bulk of an army, something where extra (excess?) detail is largely redundant and in fact designing a product that sells at a much lower price makes it the superior option.
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.
Can't or simply haven't to keep costs down? Either way, you've still failed to attach numbers to this extra machine time. You're also assuming that machine time for a GW employee somehow costs more or the same as machine time from a third party manufacturer. This is really unlikely as GW will pay the cost (and only the cost) of running the machine whereas a third party will be making a profit per hour of machine time their client has used.
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.
What, and the 3:1 process is free? GW have their design staff on salary, I'm sure they pay less per sculpt than practically anyone else in the industry. Again, without numbers, the point about bits, machine time etc, is meaningless. Are they spending an extra 3%? An extra 10%? Again, owning their own production facilities means they're only paying what it costs them to make it, whereas Perrys et al are paying someone else to do it, this will offset the cost difference notably.
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.
Again, we encounter the direct vs indirect manufacturing savings, but as this is largely speculation and you've no basis to say Renedra don't do any of this, it can't really be considered.
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.
Oh, bigger, better machines are more expensive to run? Again, a totally baseless argument without numbers, and a tenuous one when even a significant difference in costs will be relatively small when averaged out over a run of thousands of models.
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.
Who do you think ultimately pays the repair and maintenance costs of a contractor's machines? Hint: The money doesn't come out of thin air.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/31 16:41:19
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Lol at the idea of Perry plastics not being as good as 15 year old GW ones. Perry is way superior and actually provide value for money. Ev considered that the reason Perry plastics aren't heaped with superfluous detail is because they aren't supposed to be?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/31 16:45:07
2016/12/31 17:19:27
Subject: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Lol at the idea of Perry plastics not being as good as 15 year old GW ones. Perry is way superior and actually provide value for money. Ev considered that the reason Perry plastics aren't heaped with superfluous detail is because they aren't supposed to be?
Lol seconded.
Recent Perry plastics blow old GW plastics out of the water. Heck, they give at least half of what GW put out this year a run for it's money. And that's before we even start to consider cost.
Which plastics look better?
These:
or these?
Spoiler:
The perry minis are 40 guys for £20, while 5x2 of those monopose naked dwarfs in stiff unnatural poses are £35.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/31 17:22:38
The perry models would fit right into the setting of WHFB and most fantasy settings worth their salt. I'm not sure I'd agree those mutant lumps look like fantasy. Maybe some kind of diorama about intoxicated and blind clay sculpters trying to interprate the fantasy trope of a Dwarf. But not really "Fantasy".
Weren't we talking about quality of sculpts anyway? At least that's what I've been doing. Not about if other manufacturers models looked more like GW models then GW models themselves.Obviously GW models will do that by definition.
Does anyone honesly say that the perry models here is not competitive with those mishapen lumps of dwarf-flesh when it comes to important aestetic factors such as believable proportions and poses, customizability etc.
It's always the same in these arguments.
-Someone claims GW makes the best models.
- Someone else shows arguably superior (but obviously competetive) models.
- The non-GW models are dismissed because they don't look exactly like GW models
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/31 17:48:07
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Lol at the idea of Perry plastics not being as good as 15 year old GW ones. Perry is way superior and actually provide value for money. Ev considered that the reason Perry plastics aren't heaped with superfluous detail is because they aren't supposed to be?
Lol seconded.
Recent Perry plastics blow old GW plastics out of the water. Heck, they give at least half of what GW put out this year a run for it's money. And that's before we even start to consider cost.
Which plastics look better?
These:
Spoiler:
or these?:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
The perry minis are 40 guys for £20, while 5x2 of those monopose naked dwarfs in stiff unnatural poses are £35.
I do feel that the comparison is somewhat unfair, since the Perry ones are meant to be human medieval infantry, while the Fyreslayers are... well, whatever you want to class AoS as. A better comparison would be the Bretonnian Men-at-Arms.
I still maintain that the symmetrical beards on the Dwarfs make them look terrible, although that's subjective.
Does Perry have any dwarven models?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/31 17:47:03
Zywus wrote: The perry models would fit right into the setting of WHFB and most fantasy settings worth their salt.
Weren't we talking about quality of sculpts anyway? Not about if other manufacturers models looked more like GW models then GW models themselves.
Does anyone honesly say that the perry models here is not competitive with those mishapen lumps of dwarf-flesh when it comes to important aestetic factors such as believable proportions and poses, customizability etc.
It's always the same in these arguments.
-Someone claims GW makes the best models.
- Someone else shows arguably superior (but obviously competetive models)
- The non-GW models are dismissed because they don't look exactly like GW models
Now, i'm going to say that the superior part is VERY arguable (and you'll find a lot of people willing to give your their "fine" points). Still I'm going to point out that the fyreslayer kit is more detailed than the perry one if anything else. The archers look like 5 pieces per model, the fireslayers are 8 pieces per model and they have (if not really appealing let's honest, fyreslayer players have my condolences) more detail to them,
2016/12/31 17:57:37
Subject: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Lol at the idea of Perry plastics not being as good as 15 year old GW ones. Perry is way superior and actually provide value for money. Ev considered that the reason Perry plastics aren't heaped with superfluous detail is because they aren't supposed to be?
Lol seconded.
Recent Perry plastics blow old GW plastics out of the water. Heck, they give at least half of what GW put out this year a run for it's money. And that's before we even start to consider cost.
Which plastics look better?
These:
Spoiler:
or these?:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
The perry minis are 40 guys for £20, while 5x2 of those monopose naked dwarfs in stiff unnatural poses are £35.
I do feel that the comparison is somewhat unfair, since the Perry ones are meant to be human medieval infantry, while the Fyreslayers are... well, whatever you want to class AoS as. A better comparison would be the Bretonnian Men-at-Arms.
I still maintain that the symmetrical beards on the Dwarfs make them look terrible, although that's subjective.
Does Perry have any dwarven models?
Well, my point wasn't to compare similar sculpts. It was to point out the ludicrousness of claiming the entire Perry plastic line is inferior to the entire GW plastic line.
The closest similar models they both make would indeed be the GW men at arms, which are old and massively less realistically scaled (and more expensive while they were sold)
Perry don't make dwarfs, though other manufacturers do (too many to list here). And some do it a million times better than whatever GW has "blessed" the world with cranking out those horrible AoS dwarfs.
"More detail" is not synonymous with "superior" when people actually mean "more greeble."
If you mean that the eyes, or other fine details in the face, for instance, are better defined on the Fyreslayers then fair enough, I've not seen them unpainted so I'll have no choice but to concede that point.
But let's not conflate "plastered in a bunch of stuff" as "better." Those are artistic choices, and not a measure of relative quality.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
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.
.
I think your friend is confusing the cost to run a mold vs the cost of designing and machining a mold. You can run that mold thousands of times without replacement. Running the mold just requires the tech to hook the mold up, put in the pellets, and hit run. Sprues are ejected into a receiving tray. It's not complicated or expensive at all and why it's attractive to go with injection molding.
@ Azrel13. Really? Retreating to needing actual price numbers now when statements of additional time and materials are show? Nice moving of the goal posts.
We're done with this conversation.
2016/12/31 18:04:31
Subject: Re:So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
Zywus wrote: The perry models would fit right into the setting of WHFB and most fantasy settings worth their salt.
Weren't we talking about quality of sculpts anyway? Not about if other manufacturers models looked more like GW models then GW models themselves.
Does anyone honesly say that the perry models here is not competitive with those mishapen lumps of dwarf-flesh when it comes to important aestetic factors such as believable proportions and poses, customizability etc.
It's always the same in these arguments.
-Someone claims GW makes the best models.
- Someone else shows arguably superior (but obviously competetive models)
- The non-GW models are dismissed because they don't look exactly like GW models
Now, i'm going to say that the superior part is VERY arguable (and you'll find a lot of people willing to give your their "fine" points). Still I'm going to point out that the fyreslayer kit is more detailed than the perry one if anything else. The archers look like 5 pieces per model, the fireslayers are 8 pieces per model and they have (if not really appealing let's honest, fyreslayer players have my condolences) more detail to them,
I give the fyreslayer the edge in sharpness and amount sculpted details (although one could argue that they're too busy and over-greebled, so only the sharpness would be a positive for someone who feels that). I can't see why number of pieces have any value. What's important is how the models look when assembled.
The Perry's has a obvious edge in the poses looking natural and being costomizable.
My point though wasn't whether one kit is better than the other. It's that Perry's (and many other kits) are, if not better (which is obviously subjective), competitive from a technical standpoint even with some GW kits releases as late as this very year.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/31 18:14:12
Perry don't make dwarfs, though other manufacturers do (too many to list here). And some do it a million times better than whatever GW has "blessed" the world with cranking out those horrible AoS dwarfs.
I've seen theses guys offered for what amounts to £1 each (20 for a little over £20 per box.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Azrel13. Really? Retreating to needing actual price numbers now when statements of additional time and materials are show? Nice moving of the goal posts.
We're done with this conversation.
Frankly I was done when you trotted out the picture of actual toy soldiers, but yes, GW pay less for machine time because they own the kit and employ the staff directly, so you can't actually put forward a compelling argument that GW spend more on this stuff, even if they're using what's technically a more expensive process. The costs are not equal, therefore the comparison of time taken is not equal either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/31 18:10:48
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Herzlos wrote:
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).
Again, you have proven my point. While yes I have spent thousands of dollars on GW or around there I am buying the "cheaper" or more "economically" more efficient products than the actual products that GW is producing now. I am sure GW would love for me to buy more stuff than just the "starter boxes" or "game boxes" but I haven't. It's funny I have bought more because GW has changed by making ways of getting cheaper minis, but I still don't buy because GW hasn't changed or changed for the worse when it comes to releasing individual kits.
Again it's like a drug dealer giving out free samples. GW hooks us in with the "starter sets" or "game boxes like Overkill or Deathmasque" and then start selling you the more expensive stuff.
SKR.HH wrote:[Of course it does. You get exactly the same HQ as if you are buying the according box. And you get 28 hybrids + 4 aberrants which you don't need to buy separately. That is already a substantial part of most GSC armies. And that for 140 € (before discount) which is better than most other armies receive. Quite a lot of people would be very happy to get such a possibility to start their armies.
And what happens when you can't buy Overkill anymore? Then what? What if you don't want those minis but you want the other ones that are not in the box? We are back to square one. Again the answer is not having "starter sets" or "game boxes" to fix things. They are a band aid solution for now. Thing is, you eventually have to fix the problem and economy boxes are not the answer.
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
2016/12/31 18:34:47
Subject: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
@SKR:HH Because there are no peasants or armored foot troops in fantasy worlds? I seriously hope you get paid well to shill for GW...
My thought is if you put the SC pieces on the same frame as the vanilla commander of the same type, and make a master frame which is more like 8 smaller frames that can be separated, kind of like what the old Space Marine frames looked like in 3rd Edition, then they could completely mitigate the LTD run problem and eliminate the necessity for resin OR metal, and cut cost except for separating out the different subframes before packaging.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/31 18:36:16
Just Tony wrote: @SKR:HH Because there are no peasants or armored foot troops in fantasy worlds? I seriously hope you get paid well to shill for GW....
No, because human minis constitute only a tiny fraction of a fantasy setting.
Herzlos wrote:
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).
Again, you have proven my point. While yes I have spent thousands of dollars on GW or around there I am buying the "cheaper" or more "economically" more efficient products than the actual products that GW is producing now. I am sure GW would love for me to buy more stuff than just the "starter boxes" or "game boxes" but I haven't. It's funny I have bought more because GW has changed by making ways of getting cheaper minis, but I still don't buy because GW hasn't changed or changed for the worse when it comes to releasing individual kits.
Again it's like a drug dealer giving out free samples. GW hooks us in with the "starter sets" or "game boxes like Overkill or Deathmasque" and then start selling you the more expensive stuff.
SKR.HH wrote:[Of course it does. You get exactly the same HQ as if you are buying the according box. And you get 28 hybrids + 4 aberrants which you don't need to buy separately. That is already a substantial part of most GSC armies. And that for 140 € (before discount) which is better than most other armies receive. Quite a lot of people would be very happy to get such a possibility to start their armies.
And what happens when you can't buy Overkill anymore? Then what? What if you don't want those minis but you want the other ones that are not in the box? We are back to square one. Again the answer is not having "starter sets" or "game boxes" to fix things. They are a band aid solution for now. Thing is, you eventually have to fix the problem and economy boxes are not the answer.
This is a hypothetical problem because at the moment they are available. Maybe they will receive a new Starter Box before Overkill vanishes, who knows?
Perry don't make dwarfs, though other manufacturers do (too many to list here). And some do it a million times better than whatever GW has "blessed" the world with cranking out those horrible AoS dwarfs.
I've seen theses guys offered for what amounts to £1 each (20 for a little over £20 per box.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Azrel13. Really? Retreating to needing actual price numbers now when statements of additional time and materials are show? Nice moving of the goal posts.
We're done with this conversation.
Frankly I was done when you trotted out the picture of actual toy soldiers, but yes, GW pay less for machine time because they own the kit and employ the staff directly, so you can't actually put forward a compelling argument that GW spend more on this stuff, even if they're using what's technically a more expensive process. The costs are not equal, therefore the comparison of time taken is not equal either.
Did you actually ever bought those? Well, I did. And they are a pain in the ass to clean and assemble. I won't touch them even if I get money for them!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/31 18:58:14
My Element Games referal code: SVE5335
2016/12/31 19:00:47
Subject: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
Just Tony wrote: @SKR:HH Because there are no peasants or armored foot troops in fantasy worlds? I seriously hope you get paid well to shill for GW....
No, because human minis constitute only a tiny fraction of a fantasy setting.
No, It depends entirely on what setting. There are plenty fantasy IPs out there that are very human-centric.
Don't think that the tolkienesque, humans, elves, dwarves and orcs represents some kind of golden standard or acceptance criteria for 'but, fantasy!'.
Furthermore, it depends entirely on your army. Peasants and armoured soldiers are perfect in any army requiring peasants and or armoured soldiers, Those perry minis are perfect for any pseudo-medieval, or medieval human army, irrespective of genre or IP.
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
2016/12/31 19:03:18
Subject: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
Just Tony wrote: @SKR:HH Because there are no peasants or armored foot troops in fantasy worlds? I seriously hope you get paid well to shill for GW....
No, because human minis constitute only a tiny fraction of a fantasy setting.
And dwarfs don't? That argument doesn't in any way disqualify the Perry miniatures from being suited to a fantasy setting - I mean, we accepted Bretonnia as being fantasy for several years, didn't we?
SKR.HH wrote: This is a hypothetical problem because at the moment they are available. Maybe they will receive a new Starter Box before Overkill vanishes, who knows?
How many starter boxes do you expect people to buy? And even then, what about those models that are not sold with a starter at all?
2016/12/31 19:15:28
Subject: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
Just Tony wrote: @SKR:HH Because there are no peasants or armored foot troops in fantasy worlds? I seriously hope you get paid well to shill for GW....
No, because human minis constitute only a tiny fraction of a fantasy setting.
No, It depends entirely on what setting. There are plenty fantasy IPs out there that are very human-centric.
Don't think that the tolkienesque, humans, elves, dwarves and orcs represents some kind of golden standard or acceptance criteria for 'but, fantasy!'.
Furthermore, it depends entirely on your army. Peasants and armoured soldiers are perfect in any army requiring peasants and or armoured soldiers, Those perry minis are perfect for any pseudo-medieval, or medieval human army, irrespective of genre or IP.
Also, in the Lord of the Rings humans outnumber all other races except Orcs and in the books the elves and dwarfs were not involved in the major battles against Sauron and his forces (Helms Deep, Osgiliath, Pelennor Fields, the Black Gate).
Humans have a pretty long history in Fantasy works of being the race that bears the brunt of repelling evil.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/31 19:16:09
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/12/31 19:57:58
Subject: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
Just Tony wrote: @SKR:HH Because there are no peasants or armored foot troops in fantasy worlds? I seriously hope you get paid well to shill for GW....
No, because human minis constitute only a tiny fraction of a fantasy setting.
Maybe some fantasy settings, not others. The fantasy world I've been most immersed in recently has been The Witcher and that's mostly humans who would be well represented by a kit bash of Perry's figures.
