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.

and that enjoyment isn't necessarily always wedded to how technically superior the rules are

Which is exactly how a game like 40k, which has horrible rules, has such a huge following. The rules are not the primary concern.

As GW do not appeal to people who care about game play.People are into 40k DESPITE the 'crappy' rules.

Therefore if the rules were written to appeal to people who care about game play, they would attraact more people to the product range.
As ''gamers'' would get the added value of good game play which they currently do not.

The current potential customers who are put of by 'crappy' rules and subsequently poor value for money to them.Are not catered to by GW.

More volume of sales and positive word of mouth about great game play.Would greatly benefit everyone concerned.

Higher volume of sales to lower costs through economies of scale.And fixing the biggest complaints about 40k and A.O.S. 'crappy' rules and 'cost of entry.'
Seems like a potential fix to the current insane GW prices.

Or do you think crappy rules are a good thing in general?

 auticus wrote:

and that enjoyment isn't necessarily always wedded to how technically superior the rules are

Which is exactly how a game like 40k, which has horrible rules, has such a huge following. The rules are not the primary concern.

Agreed! I love both Warhammer brands because I enjoy the backgrounds of both immensely. Mantic and other companies can't even come close to that for me.

 Coldhatred wrote:

 auticus wrote:

and that enjoyment isn't necessarily always wedded to how technically superior the rules are

Which is exactly how a game like 40k, which has horrible rules, has such a huge following. The rules are not the primary concern.

Agreed! I love both Warhammer brands because I enjoy the backgrounds of both immensely. Mantic and other companies can't even come close to that for me.

This is why I play their video games and read their novels. Enjoying the fiction without the absurd prices and terrible gameplay.

Lanrak wrote:
As GW do not appeal to people who care about game play.People are into 40k DESPITE the 'crappy' rules.

Therefore if the rules were written to appeal to people who care about game play, they would attraact more people to the product range.
As ''gamers'' would get the added value of good game play which they currently do not.

The current potential customers who are put of by 'crappy' rules and subsequently poor value for money to them.Are not catered to by GW.

More volume of sales and positive word of mouth about great game play.Would greatly benefit everyone concerned.

Higher volume of sales to lower costs through economies of scale.And fixing the biggest complaints about 40k and A.O.S. 'crappy' rules and 'cost of entry.'
Seems like a potential fix to the current insane GW prices.

Or do you think crappy rules are a good thing in general?

Oh come now, can't we do better than this?

Thinking 40K is "crappy" is the absolute definition of subjectivity. 40K 8th is a short rule set, if not a simple one from an administrative view, so it doesn't even qualify under your "taking 400 pages to do what others do in 40" criterium. If someone is playing and enjoying 40K, how likely are they to think it's crappy? How likely are they to feel that the rules weren't written to appeal to them? They've doubled their turnover while simply paying lip service to making 40K a competitive game.

But it doesn't matter, because, as much as it sticks in my throats to admit, Kirby was right. GW is a model company, not a games company. I know this from witnessing the financial improvements not linked with the release of AOS or the new edition of 40K, but most closely associated with the releases of big boxes of models loosely camouflaged as a game and the release of long awaited factions or models which has seen even the most hardcore GW critics devolve into squealing fanboys (and girls, of course) and completely forget everything they'd previously crucified GW for (if only temporarily) in exchange for the right sort of new shiny.

I love the 40K universe, I still want to be part of it, and I wish the game was something I was excited to play. But it isn't, and there's cold hard data that proves it doesn't need a good game to make an absolute fortune, and leaving the sort of gamers' you're talking about cash on the table, because it appears, as much as I wish it wasn't the case, there's just not enough of it to be worth the effort of chasing it.

But there's clearly a big renaissance in 40K, and if you're someone who enjoys 40K or someone who can be satisfied with collecting and painting models and other ancillary stuff like Black Library then it's probably about as good a time to be a GW fan as there's ever been. If, when we're this far into 8th, you're still railing against GW for not making the game you want and haven't just moved in to something you prefer, when clearly GW are unable or unwilling to make a tight, competitive game, then there comes a point when the finger shouldn't be pointing at Workshop. Go buy a jeep rather than complaining your coupe sucks at off roading.

Yep. I buy less of it every year because I don't play any of it, but
with Necromunda that might change.

(though honestly, I will probably buy and paint a bunch of Necromunda
and not play it)

Probably buy a lot more of their prices weren't so insane...

Lanrak wrote:
As GW do not appeal to people who care about game play.People are into 40k DESPITE the 'crappy' rules.

Therefore if the rules were written to appeal to people who care about game play, they would attract more people to the product range.
As ''gamers'' would get the added value of good game play which they currently do not.

Potentially wrong. If the rules were written like some people on dakka on forums want, more restrictive. They might lose costumers they have depending on what sacrifices they make to bring balance.

Better balance is better for the game but not everything that is good for the game, or more generally the hobby, is better for balance.

@Asreal13.
If you notice in my post I put referred to the rules as 'crappy' .As this is how several people have referred to the 40k rules in negative way.
'Crappy', 'terrible' ,'horrible', 'hot mess', etc.

My objective comparative assessment would call the 8th edition 40k rules ''needlessly complicated and tactically shallow''.

You should write rules to cover the intended game play.
GW have not defined the game play for 40k since 2nd ed.
Simply so they can just put what ever they like into the game with out worrying about the effect on game play.

The 8th ed rule set still failed to define the intended game play.
So has ended up yet another 'WHFB in space clone ' with all the associated issues from previous editions.
Lack of player interaction.
Massive imbalance between shooting and assault functionality.
Messy and ineffective morale system.
All leading to counter intuitive game play.

All of these require some for of additional rules to try to get the game to actually work. (EG over watch to correct the lack of player interaction.etc.)

I never said that GW HAVE to write better rules.

But pointing out ignoring ''gamers'' is reducing GW potential sales and positive word of mouth , and therefore effecting the retail price.


I am not asking GW to write a tight competitive game.Just proposing a rule set that follows a clearly defined game play would appeal to more potential customers.

There are lots of good rules sets from game companies I enjoy playing. I gave up on GW ever writing a rule set for 40k/WHFB/A.O.S, focused on game years ago.

I an not expecting GW to move from their business model of going for the 'easiest to please' of their potential customer base. But simply pointing out a factor that is limiting GWs potential customer base, and therefore effecting the retail price GW have to charge to remain in the black.

@Earth 127.
Have you ever seen rules written for a specific game play by a professional game developer that is allowed to focus on game play?

The sort where all units options are equally valuable in a tactically rich game play.And multiple play styles are valid .

If GW are not writing rules for random pick up and play games that is great.
Just do not put PV on anything and let the players arrange and narrate their games how they want.

Then no one would complain about balance issues , as they would just sort it out them selves.(Eg like Stargrunt II)

If rules are written focusing on commonality, the stats cover ALL units in the game effectively.
(EG how the units work in the game are covered in the same way.)

As opposed to the GW way where every slight difference has a special rule. Because the core rules only cover a fraction of the units in the game.
(Standard troops in the open.)

Lanrak wrote:
As GW do not appeal to people who care about game play.People are into 40k DESPITE the 'crappy' rules.

Therefore if the rules were written to appeal to people who care about game play, they would attraact more people to the product range.
As ''gamers'' would get the added value of good game play which they currently do not.

The current potential customers who are put of by 'crappy' rules and subsequently poor value for money to them.Are not catered to by GW.

More volume of sales and positive word of mouth about great game play.Would greatly benefit everyone concerned.

Higher volume of sales to lower costs through economies of scale.And fixing the biggest complaints about 40k and A.O.S. 'crappy' rules and 'cost of entry.'
Seems like a potential fix to the current insane GW prices.

Or do you think crappy rules are a good thing in general?

You have made this rather strange assertion before that "gamers" do not play 40K. People who play 40K are absolutely "gamers" and they care about game play.

The game play current 40k gives is exactly what my group is looking for. We don't want tactically deep play we want evocative play where we just have a laugh and roll some dice. We have other games for tactical depth.

I also figured out why GW's prices might not yet be too high. I think they are still low enough that anyone who has a monthly hobby budget can buy a kit perhaps every month or two. If you spend $50 or $100 a month on geeky stuff, be it through steam, mobile games, board games, card games, miniatures, RPGs or whatever, then you can easily fit a $50 kit in there every so often. Or even GW's expensive things like the new Greater Daemon every few months.

It's sadly true you can no longer grab a single booster to add to a unit with pocket money. The closest they have to that are the easy to build boxes and those are not available across many factions at all.

I kinda lost your train of thought there but I think I agree. A perfect game would be awesome but there are many factors that aren't as straightforward.

GW's pricing isn't that insane. It's very definetely not a race to the bottom but also not comparatively what the hell are you thinking? Mostly.
Tough I wonder if they couldn't at least offer some more better value bundles (BoP and BfC are dirt cheap compared to other sets).

GW's prices look fine until you take your head from the sand (sprue?) and have a good long look at the rest of the miniature wargaming market, and all of the competitors.
Then you either realise that you are being ripped off and frantically wade to the shore, or the tiny plastic marines succeed in their assault on your brain, take control of your cortex and you jam your head back down, proclaiming all else to be blasphemy to the great Gdubs.

Or GW kits might actually have qualities that differentiate them from other manufacturers and people make informed decisions and still buy their products.

 master of ordinance wrote:
GW's prices look fine until you take your head from the sand (sprue?) and have a good long look at the rest of the miniature wargaming market, and all of the competitors.
Then you either realise that you are being ripped off and frantically wade to the shore, or the tiny plastic marines succeed in their assault on your brain, take control of your cortex and you jam your head back down, proclaiming all else to be blasphemy to the great Gdubs.

the inexplicable brand loyalty baffles me too, I think the friction comes when people muddle negative GW sentiments as personal attack similar to stuff like Brexit, The Donald or Marmite in the wider world

Lanrak wrote:

Spoiler:

@Asreal13.
If you notice in my post I put referred to the rules as 'crappy' .As this is how several people have referred to the 40k rules in negative way.
'Crappy', 'terrible' ,'horrible', 'hot mess', etc.

My objective comparative assessment would call the 8th edition 40k rules ''needlessly complicated and tactically shallow''.

You should write rules to cover the intended game play.
GW have not defined the game play for 40k since 2nd ed.
Simply so they can just put what ever they like into the game with out worrying about the effect on game play.

The 8th ed rule set still failed to define the intended game play.
So has ended up yet another 'WHFB in space clone ' with all the associated issues from previous editions.
Lack of player interaction.
Massive imbalance between shooting and assault functionality.
Messy and ineffective morale system.
All leading to counter intuitive game play.

All of these require some for of additional rules to try to get the game to actually work. (EG over watch to correct the lack of player interaction.etc.)

I never said that GW HAVE to write better rules.

But pointing out ignoring ''gamers'' is reducing GW potential sales and positive word of mouth , and therefore effecting the retail price.


I am not asking GW to write a tight competitive game.Just proposing a rule set that follows a clearly defined game play would appeal to more potential customers.

There are lots of good rules sets from game companies I enjoy playing. I gave up on GW ever writing a rule set for 40k/WHFB/A.O.S, focused on game years ago.

I an not expecting GW to move from their business model of going for the 'easiest to please' of their potential customer base. But simply pointing out a factor that is limiting GWs potential customer base, and therefore effecting the retail price GW have to charge to remain in the black.

You're still using things that are your opinion as examples of objectivity, and ignoring counter points to other statements of your opinion backed by evidence just to restate those opinions. I can't see how this discussion progresses while that's happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chamberlain wrote:
Or GW kits might actually have qualities that differentiate them from other manufacturers and people make informed decisions and still buy their products.

Well, obviously I'm going to ask for suggestions as to what those qualities might be, except ubiquity, we'll take that as read.

Also, I disagree it's an informed choice, at least in the sense that the buyer weighs up all the options and chooses the best one. I'd assert that for any buyer with an idea there's a wargaming hobby outside of GW it's an emotional choice either through sunk cost fallacy or an attachment to the broader ideas the models represent i.e. "I know they're expensive, but I like Space Marines" or "OMG they've done Genestealer Cults, I've fantasies about having them as an army since I was 12."

 Azreal13 wrote:

Well, obviously I'm going to ask for suggestions as to what those qualities might be, except ubiquity, we'll take that as read.

What qualities do miniatures have? Material? Sculpting? Size? Art style? Build experience? Resistance to accidental damage?

If Reaper bones are $3 a miniature for something like a basic grunt and GW are $5, I think it's an informed decision to simply like hard styrene more than flexible PVC. Anyone who pays extra for that is not "having their head in the sand."

I've painted some Infinity miniatures for people and while they are technically excellent, I didn't enjoy it and found they took more time to get to my usual standard. The details are fine, but they are also shallow. GW on the other hand has deep and exaggerated detail. I'm not making a decision out of ignorance because I prefer GW for this reason.

I'm a big fan of anime and build gunpla kits. A friend wrote some rules for them, but we quickly found that there's a reason the gunpla community talks about being careful with plastic cement because it can make the plastic brittle. We had breaks through simple handling and the occasional accident. The kits are excellent and objectively superior model kits to GW, but they are for minor posing and display. We still occasionally play our gundam battles, but we have kits we simply don't use. GW kits on the other hand, can handle a beating. I'm not shutting off my brain for choosing GW for this reason.

For my historical gaming I like 15mm. I have some Plastic Soldier Company tanks and infantry that are all very realistic. The proportions on the figures are very much like those of scale model figures. GW on the other hand has a cartoon style. I find I prefer it for my sci-fantasy over more realistic sci-fi miniatures out there. GW's proportions can be described as objectively wrong if you compare them to a real person. I'm not uninformed because I want a comic book aesthetic in my sci-fantasy games.

Also, I disagree it's an informed choice, at least in the sense that the buyer weighs up all the options and chooses the best one. I'd assert that for any buyer with an idea there's a wargaming hobby outside of GW it's an emotional choice either through sunk cost fallacy or an attachment to the broader ideas the models represent i.e. "I know they're expensive, but I like Space Marines" or "OMG they've done Genestealer Cults, I've fantasies about having them as an army since I was 12."

You can read informed as "as informed as any hobby purchasing decision can be" if you like. Also, GW customers are a population and we honestly don't know how many know about what competitors and have tried working with which materials, which miniatures and so on. What I am objecting too is this notion that what causes people to buy GW is ignorance. I'm certain GW benefits from customer ignorance, but I think this caricature of GW customers as having ignorance as the cause of their purchasing needs to stop.

That sentiment is just a masturbatory display of ego. "It can't possibly be that people actually find GW's product to be... good? Nah. It must be ignorance, right? They can't possibly be making an informed decision like I do or they would make the choices I make!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I am no longer convinced that sunk cost fallacy is a reasonable thing to point out in the case of people with existing GW miniature collections. It's not just past money put into a collection of miniatures that is "lost" (it's not really, but that's the point of it being a sunk cost fallacy) but future utility.

Shifting away from something you already have means that you are not employing your existing property in the most effective way possible into the future. If miniatures I already own are sitting on a shelf rather than being used then I am not employing my assets efficiently. Like if I own tools but never build anything with them.

This is still loss aversion but it is not logically fallacious.

I'm certain GW benefits from customer ignorance, but I think this caricature of GW customers as having ignorance as the cause of their purchasing needs to stop.

It'll stop when people stop referring to GW and their games as "the hobby," coming on places like Dakka having spent an absolute fortune on Citadel PVA glue (for example) asking for advice because they've no idea it's simple white wood glue, or posting 40K and Sigmar related questions in general discussion because they don't understand Dakka is about wargaming and not GW.


It isn't a caricature, it's an existing subset of GW consumers.

Also, doesn't the subject matter... matter? "I like space marines" "OMG Genestealer Cults!" are what? Expressions of fondness for something. I am very interested in the history of the late 19th century. I think choosing to get some miniatures for the Franco-Prussian war as part of my interest is a totally rational thing to do. I think it makes sense to act out of "an attachment to the broader ideas the models represent" as hobbies are about enjoyment.

If someone were to come along and go "but if you got these WW2 miniatures it'd be better for reasons X, Y and Z" and I respond "that's nice, but that's the 20th century and I'm actually interested in the 19th," then in no way am I being irrational.

Similarly if someone does like the subject matter of a given fantasy or sci-fi miniature line, they're also acting in a rational manner when they buy them for that reason.

But they're acting based on an emotional imperative. They're buying something because they like it, if that thing isn't the best/cheapest option and bought out of preference, or even if it is the best or cheapest option and bought for other reasons, it isn't the rational choice.

You can't justify a preference for Eldar over Tyranids, or WWI over black powder era in logical terms. You can express why you hold a preference in highly articulate terms, but it will never be a logical choice, only ever an emotional one.

But you're talking as if rational and emotional are mutually exclusive, when it is of course entirely possible to act rationally based on emotionally driven motivations.

 Azreal13 wrote:
But they're acting based on an emotional imperative. They're buying something because they like it, if that thing isn't the best/cheapest option and bought out of preference, or even if it is the best or cheapest option and bought for other reasons, it isn't the rational choice.

Divorcing emotion from the equation when talking about enjoying a hobby seems kind of ridiculous to me. Sort of like asking someone who likes romantic comedies to go see a horror movie instead because the movie in question is a technically superior piece of film making.

It's far more irrational to act against your own preferences for the sake of rationality than to act in accordance with them for emotional ones.

You can't justify a preference for Eldar over Tyranids, or WWI over black powder era in logical terms. You can express why you hold a preference in highly articulate terms, but it will never be a logical choice, only ever an emotional one.

It is logical to choose the option you like over the one you don't when the goal is enjoying a hobby.

But you're talking as if rational and emotional are mutually exclusive, when it is of course entirely possible to act rationally based on emotionally driven motivations.

Actually I agree with the second phrase there. What I'm objecting to is the idea that people buying something because they like the subject matter is somehow an invalid way of making a decision. That it somehow doesn't count as a real informed decision because they buy what they like. That horror movie might be a technical masterpiece and demonstrate a true genius of filmmaking,-- oh and the tickets are free!-- but if someone doesn't like horror movies, skipping the movie in favour of a rom-com would be a valid decision. Similarly someone liking space marines is making a valid decision when buying them.

 Azreal13 wrote:

I'm certain GW benefits from customer ignorance, but I think this caricature of GW customers as having ignorance as the cause of their purchasing needs to stop.

It'll stop when people stop referring to GW and their games as "the hobby," coming on places like Dakka having spent an absolute fortune on Citadel PVA glue (for example) asking for advice because they've no idea it's simple white wood glue, or posting 40K and Sigmar related questions in general discussion because they don't understand Dakka is about wargaming and not GW.


It isn't a caricature, it's an existing subset of GW consumers.

So you’ll stop when NooBs stop being NooBs and instead enter a new endeavour with an encyclopaedic knowledge of it?

I'm not judging them for it, merely stating they exist. Everybody is ignorant until they actually learn gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chamberlain wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
But they're acting based on an emotional imperative. They're buying something because they like it, if that thing isn't the best/cheapest option and bought out of preference, or even if it is the best or cheapest option and bought for other reasons, it isn't the rational choice.

Divorcing emotion from the equation when talking about enjoying a hobby seems kind of ridiculous to me. Sort of like asking someone who likes romantic comedies to go see a horror movie instead because the movie in question is a technically superior piece of film making.

It's far more irrational to act against your own preferences for the sake of rationality than to act in accordance with them for emotional ones.

Ok? Perhaps you can show me where I've said something that led you to believe I thought otherwise? Because all I'm seeing is you making self evident statements without apparently going anywhere with them a thread this point.

You can't justify a preference for Eldar over Tyranids, or WWI over black powder era in logical terms. You can express why you hold a preference in highly articulate terms, but it will never be a logical choice, only ever an emotional one.

It is logical to choose the option you like over the one you don't when the goal is enjoying a hobby.

Yes, the logical action based on an emotional reaction is to buy the thing you like. The preference remains wholly emotional.

But you're talking as if rational and emotional are mutually exclusive, when it is of course entirely possible to act rationally based on emotionally driven motivations.

Actually I'm saying exactly that same thing as that last sentence. The dismissal of preferences on emotional grounds as not being logical is nonsense vulcan talk divorced from the human experience.

I'm not dismissing them? Just stating that the decision to buy a product that is fundamentally similar but more expensive is founded more in emotion than it is in logic. The decision to buy 10 Imperial Guard when you can buy 40 WW2 troops for a similar price because you like the Guardsmen isn't based on any real logic, it's based on a preference, which is a wholly emotionally driven thing. To like Guardsmen but buy WW2 guys because they offered better value and "would do" as Guardsmen would be a decision more based in logic, to like Guardsmen and buy Tyranids would be an illogical decision.

 Azreal13 wrote:

I'm not dismissing them?

Then stop talking dismissively about the decision making of your fellow hobbyists.

Stop assuming I'm being dismissive?

This entire exchange stems from your rejection of my statement that GW customers are making informed decisions. It doesn't get much more dismissive than that.

"I disagree it's an informed choice"

"sunk cost fallacy"

"wholly emotional"

"emotional imperative"

Holy feth.

It's really a shame those poor GW customers can't see how they're acting out of a fallacy and start making the decisions you would make. Those poor souls.

No, it stems from your assumption that I believed emotional buying decisions were somehow "bad."

Which I simply don't, I'm just as guilty as anyone of making purchasing decisions based on emotional reactions. GW do not make either the cheapest models, objectively, nor in many cases, albeit subjectively, the best ones. Therefore, a customer buying GW on the basis of it being an "informed choice" which I qualified as weighing up all the options and choosing the best, must to some extent be using non-objective, i.e. subjective i.e. emotional reasoning in order to buy them.

What you've then done is assume I'm condemning them for doing so, reading back apparently because despite my qualification we've different ideas of what "informed choice" means.


Edit.
Let me give a real world example. I recently upgrade my TV. In order to choose the new model, I read reviews, compared specs, shopped around for best prices etc. I then made a buying decision based on the best reviewed model in my price range that had the features I wanted. I ultimately ended up buying a Sony. This is what I consider making an informed buying decision. What I feel GW customers, or some at least as we should never speak in absolutes, do is follow a similar process, but they end up choosing a Samsung because they prefer them to Sony for entirely subjective reasons.

I do not condemn them for it, while I may disagree with it in some circumstances, but I can't consider it a fully informed decision if some of the information is disregarded.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, it stems from your assumption that I believed emotional buying decisions were somehow "bad."

Which I simply don't, I'm just as guilty as anyone of making purchasing decisions based on emotional reactions. GW do not make either the cheapest models, objectively, nor in many cases, albeit subjectively, the best ones. Therefore, a customer buying GW on the basis of it being an "informed choice" which I qualified as weighing up all the options and choosing the best, must to some extent be using non-objective, i.e. subjective i.e. emotional reasoning in order to buy them.

What you've then done is assume I'm condemning them for doing so, reading back apparently because despite my qualification we've different ideas of what "informed choice" means.


Edit.
Let me give a real world example. I recently upgrade my TV. In order to choose the new model, I read reviews, compared specs, shopped around for best prices etc. I then made a buying decision based on the best reviewed model in my price range that had the features I wanted. I ultimately ended up buying a Sony. This is what I consider making an informed buying decision. What I feel GW customers, or some at least as we should never speak in absolutes, do is follow a similar process, but they end up choosing a Samsung because they prefer them to Sony for entirely subjective reasons.

I do not condemn them for it, while I may disagree with it in some circumstances, but I can't consider it a fully informed decision if some of the information is disregarded.

First, is it logical to buy a TV? It's just going to waste your time. You could use that money for food, or to retire earlier.

All right, so let's assume it is logical to buy a TV. You could go for a model cheap enough to buy 2 TVs instead of 1. How is it logical to choose just 1 TV when you could have 2, if there's no logical reason to buy 10 guardsmen instead of 40 WWII troops. Is it logical to want more of something instead of less of something when you don't need more?

Where did your feature list come from? Is there a logical resolution? A logical contrast ratio? A logical screen size? How is fulfilling the list of criteria for a TV more informed than fulfilling criteria like this:

I want a sci-fi model...
of an ork...
with a big energy gun...
that I can use for Warhammer 40K...
in official tournaments.

Practically every purchasing decision could be framed as emotional. You're jealous of your neighbor's TV so you get a new one. You're afraid of thieves so you try to buy a house in a safe-looking neighborhood. You're afraid of starving so you eat. You enjoy playing 40K so you buy miniatures for that game. You enjoy bragging about bargains online so you get the highest model count bundle you can find. That doesn't make any of those decisions uninformed.

There's nothing else out there like GW to buy. If you want sci-fi or fantasy, and if you like that type of rules, and you like those big cartoony models, you're pretty much stuck with them. Sure, there's probably 200 skirmish games out there right now, and there's historicals, and there's Mantic. What other choice is there to put hundreds of models on a 6' x 4' table, where each model's position and equipment matters, and then have the armies blow each other off the board over the course of a few IGOUGO turns and call it a game - without too many deep tactical decisions to make. And you want the models to be hard plastic. And you want to be able to buy tools and paint and glue all from the same company. And you want books filled with stories about what these models represent and pictures of what they and the table should look like.

Many people think that's a crappy game or a crappy hobby, but you can still make informed decisions within those restrictions.

For analogy, choosing to buy more historical miniatures instead of fewer guardsmen isn't any more logical than going to the supermarket and just buying whatever gives you the most calories, vitamins, and so on, for your money. At least food has objective reasons to buy them like calories and vitamins. Miniatures don't. The only reason to buy them is for entertainment. Leaving out the entertainment difference between playing a game I like vs. games I don't like would be completely illogical and uninformed.

As you appear to be trying to argue against me while stating many things I agree with, and have said I agre with in this thread, and haven't really made any sort of conclusion or appeared to have stated any clear position I can respond to, I'm at a loss as to what to do with that post?

To be fair, the quality of many GW/FW models is fantastic compared to others. Infinity models are certainly high-quality, but they are far from being as modular and customizable as GW/FW models.

It's hard to compare price points when there's not much out there like it.