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.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
You mean people have different views on what "getting better" means. That does not at all mean they "don't understand" because "getting better" is 100% subjective. For some, the small steps they have done is enough. For others, the game rules being a mess and prices still being high across the board mean it's not so much better.

The OP was actually more specific about how he viewed "getting bette" in his first post, which clarified that he meant improvement, not getting better as in getting well after a sickness. In fact, he specifically wrote:

 Harriticus wrote:
I've been here bemoaning GeeDubs for years now, particularly during the dark days of 2013. Yet since Kirby got the boot as CEO, I've noticed that GW has gotten a bit better recently.

*snip*

Of course they haven't been perfect. I find Age of Sigmar to be awful. The prices are still too high. Thus if GW's gak level was 9,000 in 2013, it would be 8,990 today. Nonetheless, I am cautiously optimistic about the future of Games Workshop

The concept of improvement, which is what the OP clearly wanted to discuss, allows for improvement even while still failing. If you have to pass a test with 70%, and on the first attempt, you score a 50%, while on the second, you scored a 60%, you improved. You "got better" while still failing.

What's happened in this thread is that people are focusing on what a "successful" GW looks like to them, and decides if they've met that. Or, if they are more sophisticated, they determine if GW has improved in the areas that matter to them.

And that's fine. It's okay to say "GW hasn't improved enough in the areas I'm concerned with." I just think it's just inappropriate to look at the clear improvement in several major areas and then declare that they haven't gotten better at all.

This guy gets it, GW is doing better in 40k, most recent box deals, tac squad rhino and DA upgrade sprew for 50 bucks?!?! Hell yes good sir, is a great example.

AoS, charging 50 bucks for a set of chaos warriors who's cast is how old now, but charging that much just because the box says AoS, really gakky.

Like i said, they stopped digging down, but they still have a big ass hole to climb out of.

Dude, you've gone and offered the worse choice for your argument and shows how little overall you have looked on any matter you spoke in these last subjects we've coincided. So please STOP.

Look at this images:

https://theshellcase.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/chaoswarriors.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/9Snus8T3lWaICOOPZiWQTBINq_kp2NV9RntlnbgxeXwsbl1HjZaVvS5-dzphJr6OozO5HA=s118

Now look at what GW is selling. go look at their boxes.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Chaos-Knights-2016

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Chaos-Warriors-Regiment-2016

The price of chaos warriors and the like has gone down on a model per model basis. It was 31 euros for 12 chaos warriors, now they charge you 35 euros for sixteen chaos warriors. That means you're paying for chaos warriors 2.19 euros per warrior as opposed to 2.58 euros per warrior. Chaos knights have gone down from 5.4 (27 euros for 5 knights) euros to 4.5 euros per chaos knightl or 5.4/4.6 (cannot remember if they were 27 or 23 now) euros per chaos raider on horse.. In fact this has been a staple of AoS' old models that weren't put on a bus: they either stayed stable or went on to become better deals as they improved the ratio fo model/currency each box offered.

Buy two boxes of chaos warriors and compare them to two boxes of marines: both cases (and a bit of modelling) would allow you to play the game. The marines' would barely let you make it to the 500pts (you'd need to convert one to a captain and that means you can't combat squad one of them and are constricted to properly tool out the captain). THe chaos warriors? You'd get 3 solid units that would let you fulfill the battleline requirements fo the 1k and 2k points limits, net you a chaos lord and a sorcerer lord (maybe do a bit of green stuff on the latter) all while clocking in at 800 pts. They both cost the same in terms of cash.

Which one does look better? Last time I checked 500 was lower than 800.

That is not to say there's "overpriced" boxes in AoS (or that outside the re-release of IoB and the starter there's "cheap" sets, by which I mean each player would be able to play 1000pts while paying 50 euros or less) " but this is kind of evened out by the SC! (I mean, Ironjaw goregruntas are expensive but look like a steal if you buy them on SC! IJ) and certainly not the crappy examples you're providing. Please look properly before talking.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically 2nd Edition? There was a reason that system was essentially AOS-ed, and the last thing I'd like to see is going back to it, which is what the last three editions of 40K feels like to me.

Ya know we can have aspects of 2nd edition without going full 2nd edition, right? 2nd edition was a mess of a game, but there were some things it did right. 3rd edition was an attempt to simplify the game, which wasn't necessarily bad, but a lot of the good things about 3rd edition have been lost to the mess of 18 years of building on the same core system.

Yeah, there's aspects of 2nd edition I like, like having a movement characteristic, armour modifiers vs the AP system, percentage based restriction system.... it doesn't mean I want ALL of 2nd edition.

The FoC system to me is silly because not all choices in a slot are equal and the restriction of a FoC is highly dependent on both the army choice and the points value. You often feel arbitrarily limited in some armies and points levels while other armies and points levels are quite free.

We can have aspects of 2nd, but they seem to be grabbing the worst aspects of 2nd, of which there were many.

You know why I like the FOC? Because it's based in logic. You know why the US didn't commit 100,000 Green Berets to the invasion of Afghanistan? Because we don't HAVE that many. Eliminating the FOC and allowing armies to cherry pick only their most elite stuff in unrealistic proportions is not good for any game, and I can't see many gamers being happy about that. Kind of like this End Times era scenario I'm borrowing from pre-crash warseer: "There are only 7 Steam Tanks in existence in the Empire, now face 12." And percentages didn't alleviate the issue. Do you remember the requirement in 2nd? 25% or more on Squads. What counted as Squads? Everything on foot. THAT kind of BS is why they came up with the FOC and classified the units in their respective categories. Granted, that all has gone to hell on a fork truck but the principle was there. THAT is what I want back, and since I'm well aware GW doesn't backpedal unless it's to the shittiest parts of their rulesets, I simply play 3rd Ed. 40K or 6th Ed. WFB when I want a game.

Now BFG getting rereleased will probably be the thing that gets me whole hog in buying new GW stuff, depending on what they release. Past that, I'm only getting the stuff I need to wrap up a few armies unless they make it cost efficient to start another army. If not, ebay.

I'm sure it's obvious, but can someone explain why GW seemingly just doubled most of the prices?

Edit: Never mind, I guess it was a website glitch.

Lord Kragan wrote:


The price of chaos warriors and the like has gone down on a model per model basis. It was 31 euros for 12 chaos warriors, now they charge you 35 euros for sixteen chaos warriors.

So GW slapped in an extra sprue that costs them about 2p to make and charges us an extra 4 euros.
How generous of them.

I understand how this is 'better value', but overall for a kid going into a shop to buy models with his pocketmoney, it's yet another item drifting to higher prices.

TapedTempest wrote:
I'm sure it's obvious, but can someone explain why GW seemingly just doubled most of the prices?

Did you select Aus or NZ accidently on the website ?

Nevermind, made a miscalculation

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


The price of chaos warriors and the like has gone down on a model per model basis. It was 31 euros for 12 chaos warriors, now they charge you 35 euros for sixteen chaos warriors.

So GW slapped in an extra sprue that costs them about 2p to make and charges us an extra 4 euros.
How generous of them.

I understand how this is 'better value', but overall for a kid going into a shop to buy models with his pocketmoney, it's yet another item drifting to higher prices.

Actually, it is a price increase.
Before you were paying 0.39 for a model
Now you are paying 0.46 for a model

12/31 = 0.39
16/35 = 0.46

Oh... god.

That's not how it works. What you've described is the net rentability that an euro would get on the box. What you've described is that you get 0,39 models per euro on the previous case against 0.46 models per euro on the latter.

Let me put your equations in words:

m is models. e is euros

a) 12 models for 31 euros turns into 0.39 models for an euro 12m/31e= 0.39m/1e

b) 16 models for 35 euros turns into 0.46 models for an euro 16m/35e= 0,46m/1e

It's not an increase. And I'm not going to apologize if I sond patronizing. This is literally 4th-5th grade maths and I doubt you are a 10 year old.

feth, you're literally saying you're paying cents for 12 models, according to your calculus, a regiment should be 12x0,39= 4.68 euros not 31. Like... oh god.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


The price of chaos warriors and the like has gone down on a model per model basis. It was 31 euros for 12 chaos warriors, now they charge you 35 euros for sixteen chaos warriors.

So GW slapped in an extra sprue that costs them about 2p to make and charges us an extra 4 euros.
How generous of them.

I understand how this is 'better value', but overall for a kid going into a shop to buy models with his pocketmoney, it's yet another item drifting to higher prices.

Actually, it is a price increase.
Before you were paying 0.39 for a model
Now you are paying 0.46 for a model

12/31 = 0.39
16/35 = 0.46

Oh... god.

That's not how it works. What you've described is the net rentability that an euro would get on the box. What you've described is that you get 0,39 models per euro on the previous case against 0.46 models per euro on the latter.

Yeah I know, I got it the wrong way around.
Its actually 2.19 from 2.58. Which is about 39 cents less.
Which is a minor improvement.

 Just Tony wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
So basically 2nd Edition? There was a reason that system was essentially AOS-ed, and the last thing I'd like to see is going back to it, which is what the last three editions of 40K feels like to me.

Ya know we can have aspects of 2nd edition without going full 2nd edition, right? 2nd edition was a mess of a game, but there were some things it did right. 3rd edition was an attempt to simplify the game, which wasn't necessarily bad, but a lot of the good things about 3rd edition have been lost to the mess of 18 years of building on the same core system.

Yeah, there's aspects of 2nd edition I like, like having a movement characteristic, armour modifiers vs the AP system, percentage based restriction system.... it doesn't mean I want ALL of 2nd edition.

The FoC system to me is silly because not all choices in a slot are equal and the restriction of a FoC is highly dependent on both the army choice and the points value. You often feel arbitrarily limited in some armies and points levels while other armies and points levels are quite free.

We can have aspects of 2nd, but they seem to be grabbing the worst aspects of 2nd, of which there were many.

You know why I like the FOC? Because it's based in logic. You know why the US didn't commit 100,000 Green Berets to the invasion of Afghanistan? Because we don't HAVE that many. Eliminating the FOC and allowing armies to cherry pick only their most elite stuff in unrealistic proportions is not good for any game, and I can't see many gamers being happy about that. Kind of like this End Times era scenario I'm borrowing from pre-crash warseer: "There are only 7 Steam Tanks in existence in the Empire, now face 12." And percentages didn't alleviate the issue. Do you remember the requirement in 2nd? 25% or more on Squads. What counted as Squads? Everything on foot. THAT kind of BS is why they came up with the FOC and classified the units in their respective categories. Granted, that all has gone to hell on a fork truck but the principle was there. THAT is what I want back, and since I'm well aware GW doesn't backpedal unless it's to the shittiest parts of their rulesets, I simply play 3rd Ed. 40K or 6th Ed. WFB when I want a game.

Now BFG getting rereleased will probably be the thing that gets me whole hog in buying new GW stuff, depending on what they release. Past that, I'm only getting the stuff I need to wrap up a few armies unless they make it cost efficient to start another army. If not, ebay.

You're getting too hung up on previous editions and I think it's blinding you to how these systems could work. It's like you're seeing why the system didn't work in 2nd edition and instead of figuring out a way of walking around that you're tripping over it and falling flat on your face.

I'm suggesting we implement a % not, NOT SPECIFICALLY 2ND EDITION'S SYSTEM!!!~!~!111~!!!!!

There's only 7 Steam tanks in existence? Cool, give the Steam Tank a special rule that you can't have more than 7 of them It doesn't invalidate a % system for everything else. Also WHFB did have a rule about not being able to take more than 2 duplicates of a Rare (or 4 in a 3000+ point army).

Squads were a bad measure of the army's "core"? Fine, don't use squads. Just because 2nd edition had a silly way of assigning percentages doesn't mean the % system is bad.

You can have a % system that looks almost identical to a FoC system if you want, the key difference being the FoC system is based on "slots" while a % system is based on actual on table value. That to me is why the FoC system is junk, because you can fill "slots" while either minimising or maximising the on table value (eg. taking a couple of cheap throw away squads as your troops requirement). A FoC system also makes units in the same class compete for "slots". Tyranid armies have this problem where you might have a unit in one of the specialist slots that's cheap, but you don't take it because you have to save that slot for a more valuable unit when I think a better option is just to sum up the actual VALUE of the units within that specialist role, not simply the number of them you took.

Doesn't Kings of War use a percentage system? Seems to be working.

Edit : Ah no, it doesn't, except for the allies part. I must have been thinking of WHFB, which was...adequate.

Alright man, calm down. The fact of the matter is GW is still charging a lot for a model that really old, the cost of manufacturing has more then been made up, and the options associated with the models are not even comparable.

I use the Chaos warriors as an example because I thinks its insane to charge that much for them, as pointed out, even with one extra sprue. My point is not the price to model count, its price to model quality. Those old models are dated as hell and are awful compared to their new products, yeah they give you more, but more of a low grade quality is not always a good thing.

Which still plays into my point, GW has made some head way, but still needs to make improvements. AoS is an example of bad priceing, Varanguard, 100 bucks for 3. New space marine deals, 50 bucsk for a transport, tac squad, and upgrade sprue, good deal!

Like i said, pump your breaks guy, Im not even lashing out at you are trying to attack you, and your jumping on people telling them to shut up and stop talking its not going to help you get your point across. We are talking about plastic dolls and toy soldiers here, not priceless collectibles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Doesn't Kings of War use a percentage system? Seems to be working.

Edit : Ah no, it doesn't, except for the allies part. I must have been thinking of WHFB, which was...adequate.

IIRC 9th age does a % system, i think it was like your leaders are capped at 25% of your army total, would LOVE to see a system like that come into 40k but thats a topic for another thread.

Lord Kragan wrote:


feth, you're literally saying you're paying cents for 12 models, according to your calculus, a regiment should be 12x0,39= 4.68 euros not 31. Like... oh god.

You're right, a regiment should be 4.68 euros.

Also, you mad bro? Did my miscalculation offend you? I already corrected it, and if you hadn't spent the time melting down over it, you would have seen the corrections.
You may wish a take a few deep breaths before a mod comes in and starts handing out spankings.

8th ed used a % system, Lords no more than 25%, Heroes no more than 25%, core units at least 25%, special units no more than 50%, rare units no more than 25%. Special and Rare also had "duplicate" limits where you couldn't take more than 3 of the same special choice or more than 2 of the same rare in armies < 3000pts (which some armies circumvented, for example you could have 4 Pump Wagons even though they were rare).

It wasn't a perfect system, but none is. And it could definitely have used some tweaking, but like 40k, WHFB also suffered from being "revised" rather than "tweaked" from one edition to the next.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
8th ed used a % system, Lords no more than 25%, Heroes no more than 25%, core units at least 25%, special units no more than 50%, rare units no more than 25%. Special and Rare also had "duplicate" limits where you couldn't take more than 3 of the same special choice or more than 2 of the same rare in armies < 3000pts (which some armies circumvented, for example you could have 4 Pump Wagons even though they were rare).

It wasn't a perfect system, but none is. And it could definitely have used some tweaking, but like 40k, WHFB also suffered from being "revised" rather than "tweaked" from one edition to the next.

THats something i see a lot of companies doing with a system that just needs some working down on it, they just gun it and try all over again.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


The price of chaos warriors and the like has gone down on a model per model basis. It was 31 euros for 12 chaos warriors, now they charge you 35 euros for sixteen chaos warriors.

So GW slapped in an extra sprue that costs them about 2p to make and charges us an extra 4 euros.
How generous of them.

I understand how this is 'better value', but overall for a kid going into a shop to buy models with his pocketmoney, it's yet another item drifting to higher prices.

Actually, it is a price increase.
Before you were paying 0.39 for a model
Now you are paying 0.46 for a model

12/31 = 0.39
16/35 = 0.46

Oh... god.

That's not how it works. What you've described is the net rentability that an euro would get on the box. What you've described is that you get 0,39 models per euro on the previous case against 0.46 models per euro on the latter.

Yeah I know, I got it the wrong way around.
Its actually 2.19 from 2.58. Which is about 39 cents less.
Which is a minor improvement.

It's a sixth cheaper than before(and yeah, messed the math, when I typed the calculator I placed the price of the marauders next to them :* my mistake) . AND they are more expensive than the old counterparts (20pts more per ten models).

And it's a better deal than what he was praising: two boxes of the marines net you 460pts (assuming you're taking fully geared squads, spend 10pts of gear on each rhino and give a combi-weapon+mb to the sarge). If you make one an HQ you'd lose a heavy weapon and would only reach, assuming you go combi-weapon, AA, power-fist on the captain: 576pts. Not a legal amount and you're already spending quite a bit on gear.

The chaos warriors two boxes will net you 580pts and two spare models for Leaders, which can easily bust the points' count to 820pts.

Still they are misers but it's a tiny improvement. Certainly not gakky and worse which was what he was preaching.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


feth, you're literally saying you're paying cents for 12 models, according to your calculus, a regiment should be 12x0,39= 4.68 euros not 31. Like... oh god.

You're right, a regiment should be 4.68 euros.

Also, you mad bro? Did my miscalculation offend you? I already corrected it, and if you hadn't spent the time melting down over it, you would have seen the corrections.
You may wish a take a few deep breaths before a mod comes in and starts handing out spankings.

Math done wrong (by others, not me, I'm a huge hipocryte to that will just go and correct the wrong math) triggers me greatly specially when it's something so blatant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Alright man, calm down. The fact of the matter is GW is still charging a lot for a model that really old, the cost of manufacturing has more then been made up, and the options associated with the models are not even comparable.

I use the Chaos warriors as an example because I thinks its insane to charge that much for them, as pointed out, even with one extra sprue. My point is not the price to model count, its price to model quality. Those old models are dated as hell and are awful compared to their new products, yeah they give you more, but more of a low grade quality is not always a good thing.

Which still plays into my point, GW has made some head way, but still needs to make improvements. AoS is an example of bad priceing, Varanguard, 100 bucks for 3. New space marine deals, 50 bucsk for a transport, tac squad, and upgrade sprue, good deal!

Like i said, pump your breaks guy, Im not even lashing out at you are trying to attack you, and your jumping on people telling them to shut up and stop talking its not going to help you get your point across. We are talking about plastic dolls and toy soldiers here, not priceless collectibles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Doesn't Kings of War use a percentage system? Seems to be working.

Edit : Ah no, it doesn't, except for the allies part. I must have been thinking of WHFB, which was...adequate.

IIRC 9th age does a % system, i think it was like your leaders are capped at 25% of your army total, would LOVE to see a system like that come into 40k but thats a topic for another thread.

Again, look at the pricing and points: the WoC box is 288 points versus the 210 that a reasoanably kitted marine squad on rhino costs.. And at this point your argument isn't being played because you're conflating a sales deal with a regular box. AND YOU GOT THE PRICE WRONG. Assuming you're speaking of canadian dollars, the DA set is 65 bucks, not 50. The closest it gets in dollars is in american currency which is 55 bucks, not 50, versus the 40 dollars of the chaos box. No matter how you try to spin it with quality but there's no way that 7.2pts per american dollar are a worse deal than 3.81 points per american dollar. The difference in quality is NOWHERE big enough to qualify a 37% of additional content at 23-27% less price as a bad deal.

You providing bad examples, getting the data so grossly wrong, or ignoring part of others' points, doesn't get your point across either as I clearly said that there's bad pricing (like the gore-gruntas. Oh god) but not on the direction you pointed.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
8th ed used a % system, Lords no more than 25%, Heroes no more than 25%, core units at least 25%, special units no more than 50%, rare units no more than 25%. Special and Rare also had "duplicate" limits where you couldn't take more than 3 of the same special choice or more than 2 of the same rare in armies < 3000pts (which some armies circumvented, for example you could have 4 Pump Wagons even though they were rare).

It wasn't a perfect system, but none is. And it could definitely have used some tweaking, but like 40k, WHFB also suffered from being "revised" rather than "tweaked" from one edition to the next.

The problem with a slots system is that it favors high end, expensive choices, while hurting cheaper choices/armies. The problem with a percentage system is that it allows for the spamming of cheaper choices. WFB 8th did a pretty decent job of allowing percentages while capping how many of each special/rare. Also, by 8th edition, most armies were fleshed out enough to allow for broadly similar choices. High elves had multiple special elite infantries, while Dwarves and Empire had multiple artillery choices they could take up to three of, each.

One of the very few aspects of 7th editions detachment mania that makes sense is to have a common FOC for all armies, and then a unique one for each army. It allows for each army to specialize and be balance for the choices they can take.

The problem is asking a bigger question: should all armies within a system look generally similar, or are wildly different structures a good thing? Meaning, should all armies be built around a handful of squads, some transports, a tank or two, some heroes, and a monster/dreadnought? Or can you have all drop pod, all terminator, all MC, and all AV14 armies?

I think it's really tough to have the freedom to build fluffy specialized formations, while also having those formation be balanced.

We cant take point cost into account for AoS vs 40k, they are totally different systems 288 points of WoC come with no upgrade cost since those are free. But still you cant use their point cost as a argument point because its apples to oranges. On top of that, not all points are created equal since there is model imbalance, but thats not even part of the argument and would require another thread.

Sorry 55, i just rounded down to 50 on my account.

Listen i said it before ill say it again, no one is right, and no one is wrong when it comes to the price of models for if they are to much or just right.

Your reasoning for why they are priced good, in a points argument, sure it is a valid one, is it one i agree with? No, i think its silly but thats ok because we value different things about them

For me i determine weather a model is worth its priced based on how much entertainment i can get out of them. This is from build, paint, and play. For me, Chaos warriors are not priced well because they are a bore to assemble, they are a bore to paint since they have once stance, and mono posed arms save for slight angle variations and massive mold gaps and this has not changed for a long time, compared to other GW models that can have many poses.

So for a modeling and painting perspective at my current level of painting, i dont think they are worth it, on the table are they good? yes, but i dont take that into account because you could have a god aweful model that is amazing on the table and has a great point to cost ratio.

So you base the value off points, thats fine, but i base mine off the building and painting aspect of it, and from a building and painting aspect, no they are not worth it in my opinion.

Same issue happens with the varanguard but for the opposite reasons, great models, really cool poses and lots of detail, but their price is way off point at 100 bucks for 3 guys.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
8th ed used a % system, Lords no more than 25%, Heroes no more than 25%, core units at least 25%, special units no more than 50%, rare units no more than 25%. Special and Rare also had "duplicate" limits where you couldn't take more than 3 of the same special choice or more than 2 of the same rare in armies < 3000pts (which some armies circumvented, for example you could have 4 Pump Wagons even though they were rare).

It wasn't a perfect system, but none is. And it could definitely have used some tweaking, but like 40k, WHFB also suffered from being "revised" rather than "tweaked" from one edition to the next.

The problem with a slots system is that it favors high end, expensive choices, while hurting cheaper choices/armies. The problem with a percentage system is that it allows for the spamming of cheaper choices. WFB 8th did a pretty decent job of allowing percentages while capping how many of each special/rare. Also, by 8th edition, most armies were fleshed out enough to allow for broadly similar choices. High elves had multiple special elite infantries, while Dwarves and Empire had multiple artillery choices they could take up to three of, each.

One of the very few aspects of 7th editions detachment mania that makes sense is to have a common FOC for all armies, and then a unique one for each army. It allows for each army to specialize and be balance for the choices they can take.

The problem is asking a bigger question: should all armies within a system look generally similar, or are wildly different structures a good thing? Meaning, should all armies be built around a handful of squads, some transports, a tank or two, some heroes, and a monster/dreadnought? Or can you have all drop pod, all terminator, all MC, and all AV14 armies?

I think it's really tough to have the freedom to build fluffy specialized formations, while also having those formation be balanced.

same thing is happening in 40k now, where pricing is based on their power. Look at the SM formations that get you free transports, transports arnt that great, but it moves product which is all that matters in GWs eyes, part of the hole they dug.

IMO i dont think every formation should be balanced, i do think each formation should excel at what its designed to do. Which, in many cases it does, but to the extent of, it over powers every other formation which leads to the cheese armies. Which leads to GW's big problem is the scrapping of a system rather then tweeking it, and GW never admitting they screwed up. If GW put their rules out for free, and did extensive play testing and did bi-monthly revisions to their free rules, i think things would be a lot smoother game play wise. But GW's hubris prevents that.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
We cant take point cost into account for AoS vs 40k, they are totally different systems 288 points of WoC come with no upgrade cost since those are free. But still you cant use their point cost as a argument point because its apples to oranges. On top of that, not all points are created equal since there is model imbalance, but thats not even part of the argument and would require another thread.

Sorry 55, i just rounded down to 50 on my account.

Listen i said it before ill say it again, no one is right, and no one is wrong when it comes to the price of models for if they are to much or just right.

Your reasoning for why they are priced good, in a points argument, sure it is a valid one, is it one i agree with? No, i think its silly but thats ok because we value different things about them

For me i determine weather a model is worth its priced based on how much entertainment i can get out of them. This is from build, paint, and play. For me, Chaos warriors are not priced well because they are a bore to assemble, they are a bore to paint since they have once stance, and mono posed arms save for slight angle variations and massive mold gaps and this has not changed for a long time, compared to other GW models that can have many poses.

So for a modeling and painting perspective at my current level of painting, i dont think they are worth it, on the table are they good? yes, but i dont take that into account because you could have a god aweful model that is amazing on the table and has a great point to cost ratio.

So you base the value off points, thats fine, but i base mine off the building and painting aspect of it, and from a building and painting aspect, no they are not worth it in my opinion.

Same issue happens with the varanguard but for the opposite reasons, great models, really cool poses and lots of detail, but their price is way off point at 100 bucks for 3 guys.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
8th ed used a % system, Lords no more than 25%, Heroes no more than 25%, core units at least 25%, special units no more than 50%, rare units no more than 25%. Special and Rare also had "duplicate" limits where you couldn't take more than 3 of the same special choice or more than 2 of the same rare in armies < 3000pts (which some armies circumvented, for example you could have 4 Pump Wagons even though they were rare).

It wasn't a perfect system, but none is. And it could definitely have used some tweaking, but like 40k, WHFB also suffered from being "revised" rather than "tweaked" from one edition to the next.

The problem with a slots system is that it favors high end, expensive choices, while hurting cheaper choices/armies. The problem with a percentage system is that it allows for the spamming of cheaper choices. WFB 8th did a pretty decent job of allowing percentages while capping how many of each special/rare. Also, by 8th edition, most armies were fleshed out enough to allow for broadly similar choices. High elves had multiple special elite infantries, while Dwarves and Empire had multiple artillery choices they could take up to three of, each.

One of the very few aspects of 7th editions detachment mania that makes sense is to have a common FOC for all armies, and then a unique one for each army. It allows for each army to specialize and be balance for the choices they can take.

The problem is asking a bigger question: should all armies within a system look generally similar, or are wildly different structures a good thing? Meaning, should all armies be built around a handful of squads, some transports, a tank or two, some heroes, and a monster/dreadnought? Or can you have all drop pod, all terminator, all MC, and all AV14 armies?

I think it's really tough to have the freedom to build fluffy specialized formations, while also having those formation be balanced.

same thing is happening in 40k now, where pricing is based on their power. Look at the SM formations that get you free transports, transports arnt that great, but it moves product which is all that matters in GWs eyes, part of the hole they dug.

IMO i dont think every formation should be balanced, i do think each formation should excel at what its designed to do. Which, in many cases it does, but to the extent of, it over powers every other formation which leads to the cheese armies. Which leads to GW's big problem is the scrapping of a system rather then tweeking it, and GW never admitting they screwed up. If GW put their rules out for free, and did extensive play testing and did bi-monthly revisions to their free rules, i think things would be a lot smoother game play wise. But GW's hubris prevents that.

Except it's not apples to oranges. Wether it's 40k or AoS you play based on a point's limit (unless you wanna play Open play-style in AoS, but IMO that's something more experienced players should do because they'll have a more solid gauge on what would make a fun game). If you want to have a nice game you'll need to be close to it. As far as I know, both AoS and 40k have 1000pts levels where you need a HQ and two "troops". Even assuming I had to pay upgrades, that would only make the WoC's set better priced because I'd not need to buy as many to properly play. The marines at best are getting 210-220pts (including upgrades but keeping it sane) out of that box, all while paying more. Both are basic troops and they are actually part of the golden standard (MEQ and liberator-statlines) by which units are valued.
Here I think lies a crux of the issue:
You're basing your view as a collectionist and hobbyist. From there, yeah, I give it to you, it's not worth it, almost none of GW's models truly are if you just want to do hobbyism of models for a reasonable price (then we start factoring tastes and which level of distance and cost we'd be willing to diverge from the original product, which makes GW's pricing model still alive... sort of) .

But as a player that sticks to rules (and some of the rules are use our goddam models or else I'll blow your balls and kick you out of my shops- which is too a silly logic but I get its point, plus I like how they look) I'll find more use on a solid ruleset and points value. Because I'll spend more time playing them than assembling and painting (and trust me, the latter is for the benefit of the models) and I think that's a rule of thumb for more people. So for me the chaos warriors being more pricy (and stll cost efficient and good in the table top) ppm-wise and still having more models is a larger improvement over having a whose only purpose is to properly price that over-priced box 40k players call rhino transport (I mean, 31 euros for a 35pts mode, thats bad pricing if I've seen one) and will still be average-to-mediocre in the battlefield.

Still I think AoS has good pricing things (and some serious offenders already pointed out- Varanguard has an attrocious pts/e ratio, despite being a solid choice). Namely IoB's re-release. I mean, yeah, it's the same set 8th edition had... only that this time the elves set is legal while in 8th edition wasn't (the gryphon wasn't allowed, too little core, long-story short, a huge ass trap. I know because when I wanted to enter 8th ed and was interested in this set I did some reseach) and both sides are closer to the 1k points than their previous incarnations. Point in case: skaven just need 27 euros (plague-claw/warp-lightining) to reach 1k points, the elven set needs 24 euros (the chariot) to do so. So for less than 60 euros per army you can make it to 1k games with both armies (and have solid lists). IoB needed you to almost fork up to three digits on either side.

I agree with you on AoS, some of the pricing has remained pretty good, for example, their getting started boxes? holy crap those things are a solid buy. Any time i see some one reach for the mannfrad model, i just slowly guide their hand back to the shelf, shake my head, and hand them then skeleton getting started army box.

But also, there are some really bad offenders, IE varanguard, Love the models so much, infact got some that im probably never going to field, but just really wanna paint up...

As an aside im gonna buy the plague guy, the one on the dead horse. then do 4 of them as the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse kinda thing. Or one for each chaos god not sure yet, need to find a tzeenchy one.


But the Priceing for AoS is kinda all over the place. 40k is getting better, still.

They stopped digging, the aforementioned box sets i think a great value.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I agree with you on AoS, some of the pricing has remained pretty good, for example, their getting started boxes? holy crap those things are a solid buy. Any time i see some one reach for the mannfrad model, i just slowly guide their hand back to the shelf, shake my head, and hand them then skeleton getting started army box.

But also, there are some really bad offenders, IE varanguard, Love the models so much, infact got some that im probably never going to field, but just really wanna paint up...

As an aside im gonna buy the plague guy, the one on the dead horse. then do 4 of them as the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse kinda thing. Or one for each chaos god not sure yet, need to find a tzeenchy one.


But the Priceing for AoS is kinda all over the place. 40k is getting better, still.

They stopped digging, the aforementioned box sets i think a great value.

I'd pay for seeing that. Wait for january, maybe the Arcanites have a solid stuff.

It's really all over the place when you consider everything, be it gaming or hobbywise. But I actually think they are heading a better path gaming wise ( I mean, archaon costs the same amount of cash a knight does and he's worth twice, gordrakk costs the same amount of a wraitknight and costs 2.5 times more). Hobbywise, it's still a total mase.

Well, I don't think they've improved that much. The only money I've spent on GW in 2016 was my White Dwarf subs.
However, I've been tempted a few times by those new Admech models.

Anyway, low and behold, out of the blue the other day comes an email from GW with a "New Year, New Army" type title. There's a bargain of models up. So, within an hour of receiving the email, I've clicked the link to buy it.

Well, the image I've hopefully posted shows the email at the top with the click link.
The lower part of the image shows what I was greeted with.

If GW are improving, why are they sending me emails trying to get me to buy models that are "no longer available"?
I'd understand it if I was clicking on a link for a Limited Edition model or book, but to have 3 out of 4 of their "New Year, New Army" as No Longer Available. How the heck do they expect people to bother playing (or collecting) again?



New Year New Army?
New Year, Same Gak.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Well, I don't think they've improved that much. The only money I've spent on GW in 2016 was my White Dwarf subs.
However, I've been tempted a few times by those new Admech models.

Anyway, low and behold, out of the blue the other day comes an email from GW with a "New Year, New Army" type title. There's a bargain of models up. So, within an hour of receiving the email, I've clicked the link to buy it.

Well, the image I've hopefully posted shows the email at the top with the click link.
The lower part of the image shows what I was greeted with.

If GW are improving, why are they sending me emails trying to get me to buy models that are "no longer available"?
I'd understand it if I was clicking on a link for a Limited Edition model or book, but to have 3 out of 4 of their "New Year, New Army" as No Longer Available. How the heck do they expect people to bother playing (or collecting) again?



New Year New Army?
New Year, Same Gak.

I remember those... we had four dudes ask for the sylvaneth box days before it even came into the web and around seven doing the same for the deathwatch box, plus 3 for the mecanichum one. What I'm telling you are conversations that happened on tuesday with a release happening on saturday. I seriously don't know how many in my LGS did pre-pre-order the boxes but I can bet my ass a boatload did so across the globe ( I mean, DW and Mechanicum were extremely good deals by GW standards).

It smacks of artificial scarcity, something that Nintendo have been accused of/got in trouble for in the past.

 filbert wrote:
It smacks of artificial scarcity, something that Nintendo have been accused of/got in trouble for in the past.

Totally. I mean, they clearly didn't sell that well (except maybe the mechanicus/DW) because they haven't re-released them (which they'd have done like with spire of dawn). But we don't know for sure so that's especulation.

GW has gotten better in the last year.. but after about loosing everything in the process.. The last few years seem more like a social experiment verses
trying to make games that people want to buy.. Me personally collected a number of armies and bought about every issue of White dwarf for years..
Then they changed the formatting of the magazine and I couldn't see the value in continuing a subscription or even pick up random issues in the local
game store. Now they have returned to the old style of magazine, but it hasn't improved my feelings for the company as a whole.. just waiting for them
to go bad again it seems.
It goes to say, they did the same type of thing with Age of Sigmar, Completely changing the game after a great surge of interest from the End Times.
The game caused the community to be and continues to be broken, 9th Age, Kings of War and others now stand beside Age of Sigmar at game stores.
They are trying to fix the game with the Generals Handbook and others, but most has left it for other things and would take a considerable amount to
bring those people back.
Then 40k is a bloated mess with I'm guessing around forty codex and expansion books to contend with.The new edition rumored to be coming this year
will make or break the company. There is to many competitors out there for them to make the same mistakes they made with AoS.

So have GW improved in the last year.. Yes.. but it was from a steep dive down and just now righting the ship enough to even out..

filbert wrote:It smacks of artificial scarcity, something that Nintendo have been accused of/got in trouble for in the past.

Nice to see someone think like I do. I called it artificial hype. Making it look like GW products are in demand and selling out "all of a sudden".

It still seems to be going on. While I don't have any proof, but just reading the comments on Dakka that some stores can only carry a max of 2 or so boxes just staggers my mind. What is true, what is not true, I don't know anymore. But seeing how stores still get only 2 of this or a few of that and not what they ordered just seems to affirm my guess.

Davor wrote:

filbert wrote:It smacks of artificial scarcity, something that Nintendo have been accused of/got in trouble for in the past.

Nice to see someone think like I do. I called it artificial hype. Making it look like GW products are in demand and selling out "all of a sudden".

It still seems to be going on. While I don't have any proof, but just reading the comments on Dakka that some stores can only carry a max of 2 or so boxes just staggers my mind. What is true, what is not true, I don't know anymore. But seeing how stores still get only 2 of this or a few of that and not what they ordered just seems to affirm my guess.

Well, the email was from 2 days ago. I clicked on the link when I received the email.
It seems GW was sending out emails to get me to buy sold out stuff. Fair enough if stuff sells out, but for it to be "no longer available" just sucks.

When I was into GW stuff at its best, I had a huge catalogue of everything they ever made, bits and figures. I'd just use the catalogue code to buy what I wanted from them. Never any stock issues, even on really obscure metal parts.

Now they don't even want me to buy a huge army of the latest releases. Anyway, I guess I'll hold onto the cash that was going to be an impulse buy and hang on and see how 40k rules develop (or buy me some other figures to use with Rogue Stars)

A friend of mine just pre-ordered the Trukk Boyz set for his wife - who has been playing kicking ass in my GorkaMorka game.

For him, the reasoning is simple - he is a nerd.

She is not.

For the first time she is interested in one of the nerd hobbies - so for him that box is totally worth it!

Looking at the Trukk on the GW site... ... ... damn, that is a nice model. And a perfect fit for GorkMorka.

I will likely be commissioned to paint the models.

The Auld Grump - by 'kicking ass' what I mean is that she has been 9 wins, and 1 loss in the campaign, beating out everyone else... all because she loved Fury Road.... And that one loss was against a monster in the weekly 'event' game - she decided that ramming the sixty feet of tentacles and teeth, then charging, was the way to handle it. Both of her top Bosses were killed - but if she had done even two more points of damage then she would have won before it had a chance to strike back....

I hope that Trukk is going to get a full War Rig conversion, Grump, complete with Warboyz clinging to the side wearing white warpaint

Nah, if one's gonna play gorkamorka one's gotta make it's own buggy. I got a page from miniwargaming and made mine out of a small ship.

Yeah, I'm that unoriginal, still Kaptin Riptooth is a jolly fella.