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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's like none'a y'all even saw what they did to poor Mockingbird on her 8 issue and very quickly cancelled comic.

Talk about character assassination.

Anyway...

Necromunda is coming up. It is my fav GW game of all time. It's the type of game that would make me have rose-tinted nostalgia goggles embedded in my eye sockets... but then I have to consider that this box, which will have 2 boxes of miniatures and cardboard tiles, is going to be AUD$250-280 when it comes out, and I just can't get behind that.

It's scary enough when they release fantastic new pieces of terrain that, individually, cost about as much as the bundle boxes from last real major 40K terrain release. Now there's a whole game where these types of buildings, that I love, will be a requirement.

The entry price is too damned high!

I really hope they release the rulebook separately so we've got wider options. Some will still have their old setups, so just need the new rules.

All about a variety of entry costs.

I don't mean to be all gloomy and doomy, but after Blood Bowl and Shadespire require you to have the boxed set (league play and various other things in the season books; I'd consider buying skeletons for Shadespire but I really need someone else to provide the boards, plus there may be generic cards of use to my band in the starter box) I'm going to assume that you need the starter box of Necromunda for the basic rules and campaign play on a normal tablet top is the only thing added in a separate book rather than a choice between starter set with tunnel fights and single, complete rulebook.

I hope that's not the case, but I expect November to be unnecessarily expensive.

 Geifer wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I



I hope that's not the case, but I expect November to be unnecessarily expensive.

I know. Man, i just cant keep up!

New Codex for my armies every other month (Eldar for my Ynnari this week), Shadespire, and everything else. Its an awesome time to be a gamer, but, I hope I can just buy the kit w/o the figs. I only play Skaven and Dark Elves, and have little to no desire to paint Sigmarines or lame ass chaos humans.

@TangoTwoBravo.
''Gamers'' play games without minatures.(Good games do not need 'fancy 'minatures . )
The minatures simply improve the visual appeal of the game play.

In the same way ''Collectors' are happy collect minatures without rules or games to use them in.
And if there are games /rules to allow collectors to show off their minatures with like minded people, then that adds to their enjoyment of collecting.

As Jervis Johnson put it,''.. the (GW) games are just the 'icing on the cake', for (GW minature )collectors...''

GW customers play 40k despite the 'lackluster rules.'

Gamers do not bother playing 40k because of the 'lackluster rules.'

Just because some people put paint on a minature to meet a minimum standard.(EG minimum of 3 colours for some events.)
Does not mean they really care what the minature looks like at the end.

In the same way GW sell you rule books and army lists.It does not mean they care what the game play ends up like.

I hope that makes my point a bit clearer?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's like none'a y'all even saw what they did to poor Mockingbird on her 8 issue and very quickly cancelled comic.

Talk about character assassination.

Anyway...

Necromunda is coming up. It is my fav GW game of all time. It's the type of game that would make me have rose-tinted nostalgia goggles embedded in my eye sockets... but then I have to consider that this box, which will have 2 boxes of miniatures and cardboard tiles, is going to be AUD$250-280 when it comes out, and I just can't get behind that.

It's scary enough when they release fantastic new pieces of terrain that, individually, cost about as much as the bundle boxes from last real major 40K terrain release. Now there's a whole game where these types of buildings, that I love, will be a requirement.

The entry price is too damned high!

Has the cost of the Necromunda box been confirmed? I tought they only said that it was gonna be less than 100€, so probably something similar to the Bloodbowl box in cost?

Lanrak wrote:
@TangoTwoBravo.
''Gamers'' play games without minatures.(Good games do not need 'fancy 'minatures . )
The minatures simply improve the visual appeal of the game play.

In the same way ''Collectors' are happy collect minatures without rules or games to use them in.
And if there are games /rules to allow collectors to show off their minatures with like minded people, then that adds to their enjoyment of collecting.

As Jervis Johnson put it,''.. the (GW) games are just the 'icing on the cake', for (GW minature )collectors...''

GW customers play 40k despite the 'lackluster rules.'

Gamers do not bother playing 40k because of the 'lackluster rules.'

Just because some people put paint on a minature to meet a minimum standard.(EG minimum of 3 colours for some events.)
Does not mean they really care what the minature looks like at the end.

In the same way GW sell you rule books and army lists.It does not mean they care what the game play ends up like.

I hope that makes my point a bit clearer?

Crystal. I consider myself a bit of a gamer, and I also play 40K. Maybe I'm the exception that proves the rule?

What are the people that put three colours on their models?

I think that people who play 40K are gamers - they are playing the game. Not all gamers play miniatures or by extension play 40K, but I figure that somebody who builds a list, moves the models around the table and rolls dice to determine outcomes is a gamer. I like to think that the gaming tent is a big tent.

3 colour is the normally accepted minimum paint level for lots of events, particularly in GW. So something with 3 colours on tends to imply someone who's done the minimum to get in because they either don't have time (me) or don't care enough about the minis.

There are lots of gamers who also play 40K, but that doesn't mean that 40K's rules are any good. I played 40K despite the rules, rather than because of them, and prefer various other games based on the rules.

Even collectors tend to have gaming in mind - GW claim that a lot of their customers don't actually play, which is reasonable enough - it's a time consuming game. But the rules usually provide a framework - lots of collectors or lapsed gamers still collect armies as bound by the rules with the intention of being able to play them at some point.
Whether that's collecting things to an army list, or painting them in squads, or only having appropriate allies in your collection and so on, it's still based in the rules.

If the rules didn't exist, the sales from collectors would be far lower. If the rules were better, everyone would benefit.

Don't get my wrong, I like playing 40K. But then I also like Sharknado. It's possible to accept that something is garbage and still enjoy it.

@TangoTwoBravo.
I will acknowledge that you are a 'bit of a gamer'.Is it the smaller 'bit' of your hobby that is not minature collecting /painting to a list.

How many hours do you spend collecting assembling painting, and list building?
How many hours do you spend playing the game?

If these values are roughly equal, or you spend more time playing than anything else, you are a ''gamer'', who collects and paints minatures to play games.
If you spend more time collecting painting and list building you are a ''collector'' who plays games.

People who identify as gamer first and collector second, do not see much value in 40k, because the rules are crap.

Basically gamers are prepared to play a game without minatures, (using bits of paper/card board)IF the rules are good enough.They play because they love the tactical depth and challenge of the game play.

Would you play 40k without minatures?No, neither would anyone else.

There was a time when some people would field armies of grey plastic. So some organized events enforced a 3 colours minimum painting standard.

Some of the results were the same minimal begrudging effort, that GW puts into game development.

I am not having a go at the current GW customers.But minature collectors really are not that interested in game play .

If GW sold you a minature with awesome artwork on the packaging.But when you opened it up , you just got a bare bones wire frame(TM) and some green stuff (TM) and had to sculpt the minature yourself.

Thats how gamers feel about the GW rules.Overpriced poorly shaped bare bones you have to flesh out and re shape yourself.


Its just neglecting a big part of the hobby, the game play.
This is effecting the traction GW games have, limiting the size of the player pool ,and positive word of mouth.

Lanrak wrote:

Would you play 40k without minatures?No, neither would anyone else.

Does paper counter counts as miniature?

Lanrak wrote:

If these values are roughly equal, or you spend more time playing than anything else, you are a ''gamer'', who collects and paints minatures to play games.
If you spend more time collecting painting and list building you are a ''collector'' who plays games.

Who made you the arbiter of who is and isn't a gamer??

If a person considers themselves to be a gamer, then they are. End of. For many, if not most 40k gamers, the collecting, painting, and list building aspects are extensions of gaming, as is creating a character for PnP RPGs.

I try and be positive that GW is turning a corner and there have been some good signs. But then I see snippets like these:

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-IE/Skyrunner-Seer-Council-2017-SS

130 quid for 5 bikes? Cmon

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-IE/Bonesinger-2017-mto

Why not release the datasheet as a free PDF rather than in the box?

Having said that, this is a juicy deal

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-IE/Start-Collecting-Craftworlds-2017

Swings n roundabouts I 'pose.

 Ratius wrote:
I try and be positive that GW is turning a corner and there have been some good signs. But then I see snippets like these:

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-IE/Skyrunner-Seer-Council-2017-SS

130 quid for 5 bikes? Cmon

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-IE/Bonesinger-2017-mto

Why not release the datasheet as a free PDF rather than in the box?

Having said that, this is a juicy deal

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-IE/Start-Collecting-Craftworlds-2017

Swings n roundabouts I 'pose.

Re the Bonesinger... they did. It’s on the Warhammer community site

Bah, foiled again!

 Ratius wrote:
I try and be positive that GW is turning a corner and there have been some good signs. But then I see snippets like these:

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-IE/Skyrunner-Seer-Council-2017-SS

130 quid for 5 bikes? Cmon

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-IE/Bonesinger-2017-mto

Why not release the datasheet as a free PDF rather than in the box?

Having said that, this is a juicy deal

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-IE/Start-Collecting-Craftworlds-2017

Swings n roundabouts I 'pose.

I'm seeing Euros not GBP.

Though feel everything they did right with AoS, they abandoned for 40k 8th. Having the unit rules available via pdf has was great and allowed for quicker adjustment of rules when there would be a FAQ or update due to a new rulebook. Now we're running back into the problem with people not knowing changes what the latest rules are because everything is in the army books.

still £100 for 5 bikes is kind of steep, and its not like they won't sell as these are to first offical psykerbikers

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Lanrak wrote:

If these values are roughly equal, or you spend more time playing than anything else, you are a ''gamer'', who collects and paints minatures to play games.
If you spend more time collecting painting and list building you are a ''collector'' who plays games.

Who made you the arbiter of who is and isn't a gamer??

If a person considers themselves to be a gamer, then they are. End of. For many, if not most 40k gamers, the collecting, painting, and list building aspects are extensions of gaming, as is creating a character for PnP RPGs.

I can consider myself to be a doctor or an artist but it doesn't mean that I am. Everyone judges and evaluates everyone around them.

He absolutely has a point - there is a big portion of the 40K customer base for whom playing the game is a relatively small portion of the hobby. Other games with tighter rules attract people for whom playing is a larger part of the hobby (and fail to attract that first audience because in many cases the models, background, scope for army customisation, etc. is lacking in comparison). There is a lot that 40K does right, it's a shame that the GW dev team can't find it in themselves to produce a tight, robust ruleset.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
still £100 for 5 bikes is kind of steep, and its not like they won't sell as these are to first offical psykerbikers

It's also a "one-click" bundle. So no discount. It's just five of the single farseer character on bike that came out a couple years ago.

yep still baffled by that whole one click fuppwittery

@Ensis Ferrae.
I was just trying to show the group of people GW do not appeal to.

I use the term ''gamer'' to refer to those people who put game play as their top priority in their table top game hobby.

In the same way painters and collectors prioritize painting and collecting in their table top game hobby.

(People generally spend more time doing the thing they like best in the table top game hobby. )

My point is it would not take much to appeal to a wider audience, if GW could be bothered to engage in actual game development.

Lanrak wrote:
@Ensis Ferrae.

My point is it would not take much to appeal to a wider audience, if GW could be bothered to engage in actual game development.

It would be a fine thing indeed but it would still be heck of a struggle to lure back players they've driven away, and 8th proves there is a rut the devs are unwilling or unable to climb out of, granted that might be wider 40k issues

Lanrak wrote:
@TangoTwoBravo.
I will acknowledge that you are a 'bit of a gamer'.Is it the smaller 'bit' of your hobby that is not minature collecting /painting to a list.

How many hours do you spend collecting assembling painting, and list building?
How many hours do you spend playing the game?

If these values are roughly equal, or you spend more time playing than anything else, you are a ''gamer'', who collects and paints minatures to play games.
If you spend more time collecting painting and list building you are a ''collector'' who plays games.

People who identify as gamer first and collector second, do not see much value in 40k, because the rules are crap.

Basically gamers are prepared to play a game without minatures, (using bits of paper/card board)IF the rules are good enough.They play because they love the tactical depth and challenge of the game play.

Would you play 40k without minatures?No, neither would anyone else.

There was a time when some people would field armies of grey plastic. So some organized events enforced a 3 colours minimum painting standard.

Some of the results were the same minimal begrudging effort, that GW puts into game development.

I am not having a go at the current GW customers.But minature collectors really are not that interested in game play .

If GW sold you a minature with awesome artwork on the packaging.But when you opened it up , you just got a bare bones wire frame(TM) and some green stuff (TM) and had to sculpt the minature yourself.

Thats how gamers feel about the GW rules.Overpriced poorly shaped bare bones you have to flesh out and re shape yourself.


Its just neglecting a big part of the hobby, the game play.
This is effecting the traction GW games have, limiting the size of the player pool ,and positive word of mouth.

I consider myself a wargamer. I have played boardgames such as Squad Leader and miniatures wargames starting with Chainmail since I was a teen. The boardgame world for me has shrunk due to computer games, but the miniatures wargaming side has continued. Not every wargamer likes boardgames such as Squad Leader, and not every wargamer has the inclination for miniatures. That's OK - they are all wargamers and then gamers. Wargaming with miniatures involves having to make judgements on things like ranges, LOS and fitting models on the terrain. Some folks may not be comfortable with this level of looseness, preferring the iron-clad rules lawyering of map/counter-based wargames like Advanced Squad Leader where judgement and discernment are not required. Its all good.

I think that the proportion of time spent assembling/painting vs time spent playing is a misleading metric. I paint my Norman cavalry, T72s and Dark Angels on weeknights at times when I would not be gaming. I game on Saturdays and the odd Wednesday. While I do have a bit of a collector thing going (like when I expand a force well beyond a playable size), they are not things to sit in a cabinet. They are meant to fight on the tabletop.

The continued success of GW games has been that they are a lingua franka for wargamers, at least on the miniatures side. We all have our niche game that we admire, but we know that we can get a game of 40K. So yes, I agree in part that GW game design involves some form of compromise to keep the enterprise going. I don't think that they would ever win over folks who lack the inclination for miniatures wargaming. Perfect rules are not going to attract people who do not like miniatures wargaming.

They do, of course, need to have rules that wargamers find suitable. 40K players do care about the rules and game design, and I think that the designers do make the effort to make clean rules. They don't always succeed!

Cheers,

Iain

Lanrak wrote:
My point is it would not take much to appeal to a wider audience, if GW could be bothered to engage in actual game development.

After being burned by 7th Ed I was more willing to give 8th a go, but the Death Guard Codex persuaded me otherwise.

The Chaos Lord, Sorcerer and Possessed not getting Nurgle-based rules simply because GW don't make specific Death Guard Lord/Sorc/Possessed models just left me cold. It showed to me that they have zero interest in creating a set of rules to make cohesive armies that exist within the great setting for their game, but rather rules that service nothing but the exact miniatures they sell.

I mean, there is literally no reason outside of "They don't make a super-specific Nurgle-based model for it!" to not give Death Guard Possessed T5 and Disgustingly Resilient. The player would still be buying their Possessed miniatures, so why make an incongruous -normal- unit in a DG Codex?

The fact that the artwork is beginning to only show the miniatures (pay close attention to all the recent Thousand Sons artwork - matches a lot of miniatures exactly!) just shows me that they are strangling themselves creatively for the purposes of the miniatures first/everything else last approach.

 Ratius wrote:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-IE/Skyrunner-Seer-Council-2017-SS

130 quid for 5 bikes? Cmon

Kinda highlights the absurdity of their character prices (if things like the Nurgle Herald didn't already).

5 Jetbikes is AUD$116. This 5 Jetbike 'bundle' is AUD$280, and, I'd argue, comes with fewer options. Why is it 240% the cost of the regular Jetbikes?

Cause it's 5 of the character bikes perhaps?

@TangoTwoBravo.
I was simply trying to point out that those people who care most about game play are not best served by GW plc lack of interest in actual game development.

There is indeed a wide spectrum of people in the war games hobby.In specific the table top minature games hobby,

There are those that begrudgingly assemble /paint to minimum standards just to play games.
All the way to those that turn up to games just to show off their cool paint jobs on their minatures.

The former is not that interested in sculpt quality or painting to ''Eavy Metal'' standards.
The latter just wants to push their cool minatures around the table and roll some dice to see what happens.
Most are some where in between.As long as they get enjoyment from the hobby that is all that matters.

''The continued success of GW games has been that they are a lingua franka for wargamers, ONLY on the miniatures side.''
There fixed that for you.

GW are known for quality minatures, (apart from the 'Finecrap' debarcle.)Coupled with crap rules and overpriced hobby supplies.

You posted..
''They do, of course, need to have rules that wargamers find suitable. 40K players do care about the rules and game design, and I think that the designers do make the effort to make clean rules. They don't always succeed! ''

Many wargamers would not go anywhere near 40k, because of its awful rules, poor game design /balance,and lack of direction from a game play point of view.

40k players, play 40k despite the rules, not because of them.

The game developers at GW towers work to their design brief.(Set by GW Corporate Managers.)
Their design brief is to write inspiring rules to support short term minature sales.
(Change enough to allow re selling of the same stuff to the customers, but keep it familiar enough not to alienate anyone.)

If they were asked to write a war game rule set for a ''company level'' battle game in the 40k setting.Using the most appropriate game mechanics and resolution methods.I am quite sure it would look completely different to the 8th ed 40k rules GW published.

Better rules from actual game development would benefit everyone. GW plc, still has not learned that lesson.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Cause it's 5 of the character bikes perhaps?

And that makes it ok?

It's still 5 bikes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Cause it's 5 of the character bikes perhaps?

And that makes it ok?

It's still 5 bikes.

What do you think the ratio of sales on normal jetbikes vs. psyker jetbikes will be?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
Cause it's 5 of the character bikes perhaps?

And that makes it ok?

It's still 5 bikes.

While pricing is overpriced you don't seriously expect to get character model for same price as rank&file trooper? Not many companies do that. GW, PP, Warlord. All have character/leader models more pricey than basic guys which actually makes sense business wise if you think how price of models is formed and how much of each you expect to sell.

But if you disagree call when you see GW selling chaplain for price of tactical marine

@Jetbike price differences
Isn't that the point H.B.M.C. was making? We know they're more expensive because they're heroes, but the sheer difference is cost is ludicrous. A unique character has every right to cost more than a line trooper, but these aren't characters in the sense that you can only include one per force. The existence of the bundle is proof in itself that you're not only able to, but even to a degree expected to, take more than one of them in an army. And it's the same bike, from the same template; the only difference between the standard Jetbike troopers and the Farseer/Warlock versions are the riders, who make up at most 40% of the overall miniature. More than double the price for 40% of a miniature is insane, regardless of the established norm for pricing heroes.

 Tim the Biovore wrote:
@Jetbike price differences
Isn't that the point H.B.M.C. was making? We know they're more expensive because they're heroes, but the sheer difference is cost is ludicrous. A unique character has every right to cost more than a line trooper, but these aren't characters in the sense that you can only include one per force. The existence of the bundle is proof in itself that you're not only able to, but even to a degree expected to, take more than one of them in an army. And it's the same bike, from the same template; the only difference between the standard Jetbike troopers and the Farseer/Warlock versions are the riders, who make up at most 40% of the overall miniature. More than double the price for 40% of a miniature is insane, regardless of the established norm for pricing heroes.

Yes and I agree price difference is ridiculously high but still you really expect them to sell SAME AMOUNT of character bikes as regular bikes?

There's difference between selling 9 regular bikes and 1 character bike and selling 9 regular bikes and 5 character bikes. Here character bike still needs to cost more to ensure they make same amount of money after expenses.

 Tim the Biovore wrote:
@Jetbike price differences
Isn't that the point H.B.M.C. was making? We know they're more expensive because they're heroes, but the sheer difference is cost is ludicrous. A unique character has every right to cost more than a line trooper, but these aren't characters in the sense that you can only include one per force. The existence of the bundle is proof in itself that you're not only able to, but even to a degree expected to, take more than one of them in an army. And it's the same bike, from the same template; the only difference between the standard Jetbike troopers and the Farseer/Warlock versions are the riders, who make up at most 40% of the overall miniature. More than double the price for 40% of a miniature is insane, regardless of the established norm for pricing heroes.

Do you think that makes any difference at all? They're two completely different moulds.

Yep. Different moulds and 2 rather than 1 for normal jetbike for added fun. And even if they shared bike sprue(which does not exist) they would need to recoup cost of new rider sprue so unless they sell equal amounts of characters as grunts(somehow I doubt that...Scatbikes sure seemed to be more numerous than seer council) they need to factor in price of that sprue into price of model.

As it is character bike requires TWO new sprues. Now that is annoying. Guess they didn't want to offer complete regular biker sprue + additional sprue for biker character.