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.

The post about forge world prices for GW plastics is sort of obvious/inevitable when you think about it.

GW spelled it all out in a previous report. They only want to increase prices on new releases. They want an average price increase of 3% a year, around 1/3 of their sales is new releases so the new kits need to be around 9-10% higher each and every year.

Given time GW's prices of new kits will be around the prices of past FW kits.


Lugft Huron £23


Primaris Librarian £22.50

It took five years, but it did happen. And it's only up from here. 9% a year on new releases, some savings in start collecting boxes and stand alone game boxes/starters, old kits keep their current price (even AoS reboxes with round bases).

In 10 years basic infantry boxes will cost the double from now? :0 Those beautifull 80€ 10-man infantry squads. We all will feel like sisters of battle players

 Chamberlain wrote:
The post about forge world prices for GW plastics is sort of obvious/inevitable when you think about it.

GW spelled it all out in a previous report. They only want to increase prices on new releases. They want an average price increase of 3% a year, around 1/3 of their sales is new releases so the new kits need to be around 9-10% higher each and every year.

Given time GW's prices of new kits will be around the prices of past FW kits.


Lugft Huron £23


Primaris Librarian £22.50

It took five years, but it did happen. And it's only up from here. 9% a year on new releases, some savings in start collecting boxes and stand alone game boxes/starters, old kits keep their current price (even AoS reboxes with round bases).

maybe its just me, or maybe its the quality of the painters, but that Huron model makes the primaris look like basically wet garbage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am not a fan of kingdom death (though I do have the crossover model for WoK) the point he is making on cost vs "quality" is pretty obvious that one is overpriced even comparatively even if you dont like the aesthetic you are still getting more product for the same price.

" They want an average price increase of 3% a year"

Is that in nominal prices or excluding inflation?

I'm not an expert but I think most corporate financial reports don't talk in terms of inflation. I think it's probably 3% in actual currency rather than inflation adjusted.

I've said it many times- what kind of gak glue are people using that makes metal models so undesirable? Why do people think they'll fall apart with only a funny look given to them?

This happens to precisely zero of my metal models and there is so much internet hyperbole here it's just not funny.

Issues with metal:

1) Paint chips/rubs off more easily. Especially annoying in game like blood bowl or Necromunda where you are constantly standing models up and down. It also rubs off more easily when painting which is kinda annoying.

2) It bends. Although this can help conversion work it is super annoying to find a warped sword that you need to try and straighten (and is never quite right). In fairness resin bends too, which is why a lot of people prefer plastic, but at least hot water works on resin.

3) Conversion are harder; pieces are heavier and need to be pinned (which is fiddly) and more greenstuff work is required because superglue doesn't give the same smooth finish as plastic glue.

4) Detail. Metal swords are never as pointy, metal chains are never as detailed, metal cloaks are too chunky etc.

Do I still buy metal? Sure, for single piece man sized models (or two or three piece models).

Would I buy a metal dragon or similar large creature? Not unless there were no plastic or resin versions available anywhere.

For 2 so does plastic and when it bends it's harder to bend back than metal.

I prefer plastic myself.
It would be really interesting to see a graph of GW prices overlaid with Forgeworld and average inflation over the last few years.
We’ve always complained about high prices, I just wonder how high they are rising.

 Denny wrote:
Issues with metal:

1) Paint chips/rubs off more easily. Especially annoying in game like blood bowl or Necromunda where you are constantly standing models up and down. It also rubs off more easily when painting which is kinda annoying.

2) It bends. Although this can help conversion work it is super annoying to find a warped sword that you need to try and straighten (and is never quite right). In fairness resin bends too, which is why a lot of people prefer plastic, but at least hot water works on resin.

3) Conversion are harder; pieces are heavier and need to be pinned (which is fiddly) and more greenstuff work is required because superglue doesn't give the same smooth finish as plastic glue.

4) Detail. Metal swords are never as pointy, metal chains are never as detailed, metal cloaks are too chunky etc.

Do I still buy metal? Sure, for single piece man sized models (or two or three piece models).

Would I buy a metal dragon or similar large creature? Not unless there were no plastic or resin versions available anywhere.

People talk about metal like it's some kind crystal that breaks just by looking at it. So much misinformation it's sad. I just think peeps are copy pasting some old metal myths.

Prep time for metal minis like Infinity is the same ( maybe even less cause of fewer parts) as GWs. Minis won't fall apart with a decent glue. You don't need to pin them just a bit of scoring will do.


1. True, paint will cheap easier cause of the heavier and sharper material.
2. Plastic bends and breaks as well.
3.True
4.This is just untrue. Metal and resin are both much superior in details. This and being stronger (metal) material are big pros over plastic.

 Grimtuff wrote:
I've said it many times- what kind of gak glue are people using that makes metal models so undesirable? Why do people think they'll fall apart with only a funny look given to them?

This happens to precisely zero of my metal models and there is so much internet hyperbole here it's just not funny.

as a grumpy old relic of the Lead age I broadly agree, its these young whippersnapper to used to Lego like plastics, yes of course Plastic and Resin offer a higher resolution but often, especially in GW cases, its nudges designs towards far too busy models and swirly gak which is fine for centre piece HQ's and the like but it tends to tickle down, like I said before some of the charm of the older GW metals is the limits of metal defining their character (although all metal 40k vechiles where terrible)

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Do we really need to go through the differences between fantasy/sci-fi and historical ranges again?

We can make a like for like comparison.

For example, everybody knows what a skeleton looks like, so when GW do a skeleton warrior, there's not much design work beyond adding a spear and shield.

Other companies also do generic skeleton warriors with a shield and spear.

And yet, GW's is more expensive, and there's really no justification for it.

4-5 years ago, you were getting 30 Wargames factory skeleton warriors for £20.

GW were doing 10 skeleton warriors for £18...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Do we really need to go through the differences between fantasy/sci-fi and historical ranges again?

If the difference you're talking about is the cost to design a fantasy/sci-fi model compared to just copying something from history, it's a largely completely irrelevant difference when GW is involved. The look/style/design/aesthetic of GW's stuff is fairly well set in stone by this point with all of the artwork done over the last 20+ years. By this point, GW might as well be treated the same as historicals in this regard.

Good post.

GW could phone in Space Marines by now.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
I've said it many times- what kind of gak glue are people using that makes metal models so undesirable? Why do people think they'll fall apart with only a funny look given to them?

This happens to precisely zero of my metal models and there is so much internet hyperbole here it's just not funny.

as a grumpy old relic of the Lead age I broadly agree, its these young whippersnapper to used to Lego like plastics, yes of course Plastic and Resin offer a higher resolution but often, especially in GW cases, its nudges designs towards far too busy models and swirly gak which is fine for centre piece HQ's and the like but it tends to tickle down, like I said before some of the charm of the older GW metals is the limits of metal defining their character (although all metal 40k vechiles where terrible)

Plastic does not offer higher resolution!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Do we really need to go through the differences between fantasy/sci-fi and historical ranges again?

We can make a like for like comparison.

For example, everybody knows what a skeleton looks like, so when GW do a skeleton warrior, there's not much design work beyond adding a spear and shield.

Other companies also do generic skeleton warriors with a shield and spear.

And yet, GW's is more expensive, and there's really no justification for it.

4-5 years ago, you were getting 30 Wargames factory skeleton warriors for £20.

GW were doing 10 skeleton warriors for £18...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Do we really need to go through the differences between fantasy/sci-fi and historical ranges again?

If the difference you're talking about is the cost to design a fantasy/sci-fi model compared to just copying something from history, it's a largely completely irrelevant difference when GW is involved. The look/style/design/aesthetic of GW's stuff is fairly well set in stone by this point with all of the artwork done over the last 20+ years. By this point, GW might as well be treated the same as historicals in this regard.

Good post.

GW could phone in Space Marines by now.

I believe that's that case why we see so many space marines cause it takes much less hassle, copy-pasting, to do pink marines than something new.

I hate metal simply because I hate super glue. I vastly prefer plastic glues that set faster and are less nasty when they get on me.

 Modock wrote:
People talk about metal like it's some kind crystal that breaks just by looking at it. So much misinformation it's sad. I just think peeps are copy pasting some old metal myths.

I own a lot of metal models and have been painting them for a couple of decades.
I'm not talking about my experience of what people have said, I'm talking about why I don't like metal.
You are free to disagree of course, but please don't suggest I'm spreading metal myths (which sounds like a VH1 show. Do they still have VH1?)

 Modock wrote:

1. True, paint will cheap easier cause of the heavier and sharper material.
2. Plastic bends and breaks as well.
3.True
4.This is just untrue. Metal and resin are both much superior in detals. This and being stronger (metal) material are big pros over plastic.

On 2), IMO plastic rarely bends but does break far more than metal. However plastic breaks are very easy to fix and tend to be just as strong. When metal breaks you have a problem (I still remember when Richard stepped on my metal High Elf dragon back in the 90's. Wing snapped at the mid point. Model was ruined forever. Still angry about it. Of course he also blinded me in my left eye in an unrelated incident, so maybe its partly that, but dang I liked that dragon.)

4) Maybe this depends on what you mean by details, but I just finished a metal chaos champion where the sword was basically a giant club with a vague point at the end. Metal cannot do sharp points or fine details well; look at that new ghost character model from AoS. There is no way that model could be produced in metal; it would bend under its own weight.

 auticus wrote:
I hate metal simply because I hate super glue. I vastly prefer plastic glues that set faster and are less nasty when they get on me.

Gorilla glue is your friend. I've dropped countless metal models on the floor with it when painting them with no components having come apart. It's that damned good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Denny wrote:


4) Maybe this depends on what you mean by details, but I just finished a metal chaos champion where the sword was basically a giant club with a vague point at the end. Metal cannot do sharp points or fine details well; look at that new ghost character model from AoS. There is no way that model could be produced in metal; it would bend under its own weight.

I'm sorry, but are you high right now? There is literally no way to refute this without me being rude.

 Denny wrote:

 Modock wrote:
People talk about metal like it's some kind crystal that breaks just by looking at it. So much misinformation it's sad. I just think peeps are copy pasting some old metal myths.

I own a lot of metal models and have been painting them for a couple of decades.
I'm not talking about my experience of what people have said, I'm talking about why I don't like metal.
You are free to disagree of course, but please don't suggest I'm spreading metal myths (which sounds like a VH1 show. Do they still have VH1?)

 Modock wrote:

1. True, paint will cheap easier cause of the heavier and sharper material.
2. Plastic bends and breaks as well.
3.True
4.This is just untrue. Metal and resin are both much superior in detals. This and being stronger (metal) material are big pros over plastic.

On 2), IMO plastic rarely bends but does break far more than metal. However plastic breaks are very easy to fix and tend to be just as strong. When metal breaks you have a problem (I still remember when Richard stepped on my metal High Elf dragon back in the 90's. Wing snapped at the mid point. Model was ruined forever. Still angry about it. Of course he also blinded me in my left eye in an unrelated incident, so maybe its partly that, but dang I liked that dragon.)

4) Maybe this depends on what you mean by details, but I just finished a metal chaos champion where the sword was basically a giant club with a vague point at the end. Metal cannot do sharp points or fine details well; look at that new ghost character model from AoS. There is no way that model could be produced in metal; it would bend under its own weight.

4.I don't know which century is that mini from but you're simple wrong! Metal can go smaller and thinner than plastic.

Take a look at that knife on the left mini. No plastic can go that thin and remain strong as that.

 Grimtuff wrote:
I'm sorry, but are you high right now?

If only.

 Grimtuff wrote:
There is literally no way to refute this without me being rude.

There literally is.
You could try. 'That's really not my experience. Were you working on an old model or something?'

 Modock wrote:
4.I don't know which century is that mini from

20th.
That was the last one right? It had all the digital watches and global conflicts.

 Modock wrote:
but you're simple wrong! Metal can go smaller and thinner than plastic.

Take a look at that knife on the left mini. No plastic can go that thin and remain strong as that.

Does look good. I'm only basing this on my own experiences and could be wrong.
As a counterpoint though, can you show me a metal miniature with a cloak as thin as the Knight of Shrouds?
Plus . . . that's a small knife. Metal can do spikes/knives no problem. It struggles more with the longer thinner bits in IMO. But most of my metal models tend to be classics. Maybe that's the difference; I'm talking about the metals from back in the day, not these new fancy whippersnappers with their new fancy metal models.

Let's just say there's a reason why pikemen for historical games usually are either made of plastic or come without pikes. Long, thin metal bends very easily and is impossible to get straight again (I used to collect WFB Dogs of War, I know a thing or two about bent pikes). That is why you use steel or copper rod on historical minis a lot. Also, you can bend it back, sure, twice, maybe three times. Then we're getting into the realm of breaking and that tends to be very difficult to fix compared to plastic models.

I am a big fan of metal models (I like the heft, my IG consists of about 300 metal guardsmen and associated stuff), but a lot of modern gaming models couldn't be made in metal properly. Not necessarily because of details, but because they wouldn't stand up or could not support their own weight. Anybody remember the 2nd edition face-plant Hormagaunts?

The knife is 0,7mm thick, I measured it. For comparison sake I added a GW mini. Notice the huge scale difference.
The details are superior on Infinity models. The fingers on female mini are tinnnny.




Well this is getting way off topic so I'll leave it be.

I liked metal when it was actually lead. Filing pewter is a PITA.

Metal is superior to plastic for detail, but often it doesn't matter - plastic has ENOUGH detail. If I wanted to put the effort into a top-end paint job, I'd go with resins, but I'm not that ambitious anymore.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Teafortheteapot wrote:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-AU/The-Harbingers-Collection-2018
For four 32mm models.

the US site has it as $140,

$140 seems a rather poor value when the Kingdom Death : Monster Dragon King expansion has a $150 MSRP.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/poots/kingdom-death-monster-15/posts/1748638

Pretending that the GW 32mm figures trade against 4 of the 35mm figures, for $10 more, KD provides a couple extra 35mm figures, an Ogre-class boss (Tyrant) *and* a giant Dragon.

I like a lot of the KD models, but the details on that dragon aree terrible. Look like a cheap plastic toy. I got it for 25$ (IRRC) on the first kickstarter, but I honestly wouldn't pay more than 50 or at the very max 75 for it (cause the other minis are really nice)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:

Teafortheteapot wrote:
I thought GW couldn't surprise me with pricing anymore . . .

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-AU/The-Harbingers-Collection-2018

I actually scrolled up to check if I was on the NZ website. That's US$175 BTW. For four 32mm models.

WHO buys this?
Honestly, does ANYONE actually buy this?

Yeah, it's mindboggling

 Grimtuff wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I hate metal simply because I hate super glue. I vastly prefer plastic glues that set faster and are less nasty when they get on me.

Gorilla glue is your friend. I've dropped countless metal models on the floor with it when painting them with no components having come apart. It's that damned good.

When I search for Gorilla Glue, google only gives me information about marihuana seeds...

And yeah, Resin and Metal have a finer detail than Plastic by virtue of being casted in a 3D mold instead of 2D sprues. Plastic has come a long way, of course, so right now the difference in detail is not THAT big that makes the status quo of old stand.
I prefer plastic all day. But at the same time I'm not as worried about the finnest of the detail in my miniatures. I prefer a more accesible medium to my miniatures, because I play mass battles games. (But I have a ton of metal/resin heroes from 3rd party companies without a problem)

 Galas wrote:
When I search for Gorilla Glue, google only gives me information about marihuana seeds..

https://www.gorillatough.com/ and https://www.gorillatough.com/international-distributors/

Smoke glue everyday?

But wow yeah lot of the images is of the herbal type.

 Azreal13 wrote:

The "well I'll just use plastic toy shop £1 soldiers" defence is another old favourite too. We'll chuck the "I might as well just use home made card tokens" argument on the pile as well while we're at it.

Speaking as a veteran player, in bygone days, of The US Marines vs. The Invasion of the Cheap Plastic Dinosaurs, I will defend the value of the Bag O' Soldiers (and dinosaurs) over that of the Space Marines.

I had a lot of fun playing that game. (Gods, I haven't played it since 1984?!)

I fully intend to introduce my daughter to wargaming via cheap plastics bought in bags.

The Auld Grump - a lot of folks got their start from Airfix, back in the day.

 auticus wrote:
At the end of the day, there are people that will divide the cost of the army by the models gained, and that is what is most important to them, regardless of quality, scale, or anything of that nature.

Now you see, I would agree with you here but GW's models are not good quality. I can sculpt details better than they can, and their 'hair' looks more like tentacles or fins or a mix of both. Warlord Games produces figures for Bolt Action that manage to be both cheaper and superior to GW's by a fairly large margin, and then there is CB whom someone else mentioned above, but I'll leave them out as comparing GW to them would be like comparing Doctor Who to Rick and Morty.

No, GW made a grave error with its move towards this new cartoony theme. I can only hope that they realise this at some point.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 auticus wrote:
At the end of the day, there are people that will divide the cost of the army by the models gained, and that is what is most important to them, regardless of quality, scale, or anything of that nature.

Now you see, I would agree with you here but GW's models are not good quality. I can sculpt details better than they can, and their 'hair' looks more like tentacles or fins or a mix of both. Warlord Games produces figures for Bolt Action that manage to be both cheaper and superior to GW's by a fairly large margin, and then there is CB whom someone else mentioned above, but I'll leave them out as comparing GW to them would be like comparing Doctor Who to Rick and Morty.

No, GW made a grave error with its move towards this new cartoony theme. I can only hope that they realise this at some point.

Bolt action?

well i guess if you are into that sort of thing but find them pretty dull with no real details. some of the konflict stuff is cool until i saw the first sculpts of those heavy us marines and nearly gagged.

but in all seriousness this is all subjective for everyone and its going to be of different value to everyone.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Galas wrote:
When I search for Gorilla Glue, google only gives me information about marihuana seeds..

https://www.gorillatough.com/ and https://www.gorillatough.com/international-distributors/

Thanks! I swear, I don't smoke weed

 Desubot wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:

 auticus wrote:
At the end of the day, there are people that will divide the cost of the army by the models gained, and that is what is most important to them, regardless of quality, scale, or anything of that nature.

Now you see, I would agree with you here but GW's models are not good quality. I can sculpt details better than they can, and their 'hair' looks more like tentacles or fins or a mix of both. Warlord Games produces figures for Bolt Action that manage to be both cheaper and superior to GW's by a fairly large margin, and then there is CB whom someone else mentioned above, but I'll leave them out as comparing GW to them would be like comparing Doctor Who to Rick and Morty.

No, GW made a grave error with its move towards this new cartoony theme. I can only hope that they realise this at some point.

Bolt action?

well i guess if you are into that sort of thing but find them pretty dull with no real details. some of the konflict stuff is cool until i saw the first sculpts of those heavy us marines and nearly gagged.

but in all seriousness this is all subjective for everyone and its going to be of different value to everyone.

I guess it is down to a matter of taste, but even if I leave aside that and just compare quality-too-quality of the mini's Warlords still wins hands down against GW's over proportioned and poorly detailed models that seem to rely on being covered in gribbly bits to prevent the viewer noticing the poor quality of the detailing.