A perspective on insane GW prices

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.

**Peregrine**

Denny wrote:
I think Star Wars ships are (in general) low on detail and kind of boring. Most spaceships are when you really look at them IMO. They are giant sealed environments floating/cruising in space. Details are not required.

That's a rather unimaginative way of looking at things. I mean, we're talking about the Star Wars ships that were a pretty substantial revolution in starship design, especially in a film context, for their elaborate detail work. If the only thing you can think of for painting them is just painting the whole ship white then that seems like much more of a problem with you than with the ship.

**Kirasu**

Denny wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Denny wrote:
For me the X-wing model is low detail and dull compared to the equivalent GW moel.

I don't understand that at all. IMO the X-Wing model is at least as detailed as the GW model, if not better detailed. On things like detail sharpness, minimum feature size, etc, the X-Wing model just trashes the GW stuff. It's an excellent representation of the "real" ship, with few flaws that I can find. The only thing it's lacking is the GW-style skulls and purity seals copied over every possible surface, and that's much more clutter than detail.

I agree it is an accurate representation of a Star Wars ship.

I think Star Wars ships are (in general) low on detail and kind of boring. Most spaceships are when you really look at them IMO. They are giant sealed environments floating/cruising in space. Details are not required.

Perhaps a better word would be . . plain?
Dull?
Overly Uniform?
Uninspiring?

I mean, you paint them white . . . and then plain the black bits . . . shade and highlight . . . that's it?
I suppose at that point you could weather them. But given the scale it would be pretty dang tiny weathering. Maybe a glowing engine would provide the option of using an actual primary colour?

There are no organic shapes, no meaningful variance of texture, no fur or skin or claws or even much metal (bar weathering and cabling).
No features to pick out. No eyes. No blood and guts, no basing options. No green slime or glowing warpstone, or mutated skin birthing into flailing tentecles. No question of 'What colour should I use for this daemons skin. Would a purpley-grey offset the yellow, or clash too heavily?' In fact no real decisions about colour theory because the colour schemes already set.

I think I would feel like I was painting a piece of plastic to look like a bigger piece of plastic. And I don't even get to pick the colour.

Please not that I'm not saying you can't do an amazing job on them; painting a ship to look like an actual full scale ship would be very challenging, far beyond my modest skills.
But I would far rather paint twenty Skaven than one spaceship. Whether it is Star Wars or not. And yes, that would count for Battlefield Gothic too.

Again, I'm not making a statement about what other people should do or should like. I find the in-game value assessment interesting and understandable.If you like them buy them and have fun.
But if someone gave me a bunch of spaceship models for free I would have no interest in painting them. And no amount of in-game content would offset that, because I never field anything that I haven't painted, and any enjoyment from the game would be offset by having to paint models that I personally find as artistically inspiring as grouting.

YMMV.

So you're saying that military vessels look like military vessels? That's the whole point of them.. to be uniform and functional. Sounds like you enjoy organic models which is fine but why would you expect a military vessel to anything you mentioned? Tons of people paint "boring" or "uninspired" tanks in Flames of War because they look realistic.

**JohnHwangDD**

I'm sorry, but in a spaceship context, vessels comes out as Chekov saying "wessels"...

**Turnip Jedi**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm sorry, but in a spaceship context, vessels comes out as Chekov saying "wessels"...

and by strange coincidence most of Denny's points are bang on for the Star Trek wessels, the newer ones are better but still nowhere near X-Wing

**Denny**

Peregrine wrote:
Denny wrote:
I think Star Wars ships are (in general) low on detail and kind of boring. Most spaceships are when you really look at them IMO. They are giant sealed environments floating/cruising in space. Details are not required.

That's a rather unimaginative way of looking at things. I mean, we're talking about the Star Wars ships that were a pretty substantial revolution in starship design, especially in a film context, for their elaborate detail work. If the only thing you can think of for painting them is just painting the whole ship white then that seems like much more of a problem with you than with the ship.

They were revolutionary in 1977. Like flared trousers. Or the walkman.

And when its an established canon I don't think painting a ship the colour the ship is is unimaginative. Its just the colour it is. The Millennium Falcon is off-white. The Tie Fighter is off-white. The X-wing is off-white. The Star Destroyer is off-white.
I could paint them a different colour, just like I could paint Superman green and purple, or paint British Grenadier's blue, or paint viking raiders with metal skin and glowing blue weapons.

But if I was going to paint those things I'd prefer to try and make them look 'real' for want of a better word.

Again, I'm only explain why *I* see no value in buying Star Wars kits. If you like them great. Likewise someone else might find chaos cultists a terrible chore as a) you need to convert if you want variety b) you needs loads of them which means loads of money spent/boxes to make and paint and c) they have a very low in game value in terms of points if not utility. and those points all make perfect sense to me.

but personally I love painting them. Its awesome. I can do any colours I want, or hack apart limbs and add heads. I ca use anything from my bits box and can make each one a project, and even if some don't turn out great on mass they look awesome. I'd rather paint them than almost anything else. YMMV.

**Peregrine**

Denny wrote:
And when its an established canon I don't think painting a ship the colour the ship is is unimaginative. Its just the colour it is. The Millennium Falcon is off-white. The Tie Fighter is off-white. The X-wing is off-white. The Star Destroyer is off-white.
I could paint them a different colour, just like I could paint Superman green and purple, or paint British Grenadier's blue, or paint viking raiders with metal skin and glowing blue weapons.

But then you can't talk about having choices with 40k models. You have established canon color schemes, and all you can do is execute them according to the GW process. There are more colors involved, sure, but you aren't getting any more creativity. Except, of course, that you seem to be willing to break away from canon when painting 40k models, arbitrarily giving yourself more options. Don't you think this is kind of a double standard?

Also, your original statement was that the Star Wars model was "low detail", not that you don't enjoy painting that particular subject. Those are two very different things, and only one of them is relevant in a discussion of objective value for a model.

**tneva82**

Peregrine wrote:
Denny wrote:
And when its an established canon I don't think painting a ship the colour the ship is is unimaginative. Its just the colour it is. The Millennium Falcon is off-white. The Tie Fighter is off-white. The X-wing is off-white. The Star Destroyer is off-white.
I could paint them a different colour, just like I could paint Superman green and purple, or paint British Grenadier's blue, or paint viking raiders with metal skin and glowing blue weapons.

But then you can't talk about having choices with 40k models. You have established canon color schemes, and all you can do is execute them according to the GW process. There are more colors involved, sure, but you aren't getting any more creativity. Except, of course, that you seem to be willing to break away from canon when painting 40k models, arbitrarily giving yourself more options. Don't you think this is kind of a double standard?

Also, your original statement was that the Star Wars model was "low detail", not that you don't enjoy painting that particular subject. Those are two very different things, and only one of them is relevant in a discussion of objective value for a model.

Umm...What? 40k canon specifically supports various colour schemes. Nothing in star wars canon has supported that. There's not single mention that there even might be red star destroyers or golden x-wings or whatever. 40k canon meanwhile has been set up so that it has all the freedom you need to create your own colour schemes.

Seriously have you ever played 40k or read any of the books there? From your post seems nope, never.

**Insectum7**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Where have you seen it for sale?

There are a bunch of the easy-to-build products at my FLGS. I almost picked up the Contemptor before I reminded myself that I'm a boxnaught guy.

The X-Wing type models look a little soggy to me too.

**Rygnan**

tneva82 wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Denny wrote:
And when its an established canon I don't think painting a ship the colour the ship is is unimaginative. Its just the colour it is. The Millennium Falcon is off-white. The Tie Fighter is off-white. The X-wing is off-white. The Star Destroyer is off-white.
I could paint them a different colour, just like I could paint Superman green and purple, or paint British Grenadier's blue, or paint viking raiders with metal skin and glowing blue weapons.

But then you can't talk about having choices with 40k models. You have established canon color schemes, and all you can do is execute them according to the GW process. There are more colors involved, sure, but you aren't getting any more creativity. Except, of course, that you seem to be willing to break away from canon when painting 40k models, arbitrarily giving yourself more options. Don't you think this is kind of a double standard?

Also, your original statement was that the Star Wars model was "low detail", not that you don't enjoy painting that particular subject. Those are two very different things, and only one of them is relevant in a discussion of objective value for a model.

Umm...What? 40k canon specifically supports various colour schemes. Nothing in star wars canon has supported that. There's not single mention that there even might be red star destroyers or golden x-wings or whatever. 40k canon meanwhile has been set up so that it has all the freedom you need to create your own colour schemes.

Seriously have you ever played 40k or read any of the books there? From your post seems nope, never.

Have you never seen/read anything Star Wars outside of the movies? Because there sure are alternate colour schemes of ships, quite a few in fact. When this

is a thing, pretty much any alternate colour scheme of a basic ship can pass pretty easily. On the Star Destroyer front, there aren't that many full recolours, although there are examples of custom jobs like Thrawn's

. It's not out of the question at all that a certain ace pilot, or high ranking admiral, would ask for specific paint jobs on their ships to mark themselves out, which is just as much 'canon supporting various colour schemes' as 40k.

**Peregrine**

tneva82 wrote:
There's not single mention that there even might be red star destroyers or golden x-wings or whatever.

Uh, actually there is. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Errant_Venture

**Slipspace**

Also, there are quite a few different colour schemes in the background. Wedge repainted his X-Wing, for example, and there's no reason why you can't come up with your own squadron colours for your ships. I've seen a lot of this sort of thing at tournaments and it always looks pretty cool seeing a bunch of ships all painted in matching colours.

**A Town Called Malus**

Slipspace wrote:
Also, there are quite a few different colour schemes in the background. Wedge repainted his X-Wing, for example, and there's no reason why you can't come up with your own squadron colours for your ships. I've seen a lot of this sort of thing at tournaments and it always looks pretty cool seeing a bunch of ships all painted in matching colours.

This. Not to mention, in the two most recent films we have seen Poe's X-Wing, which is black and orange, unlike any other X-Wing seen thus far in the films.

It's almost like pilots enjoy personalising their aircraft, such as those who kept kill tallies on their kites, or painted teeth and eyes on the noses of their A-10s etc.

**Denny**

Peregrine wrote:

But then you can't talk about having choices with 40k models. You have established canon color schemes, and all you can do is execute them according to the GW process. There are more colors involved, sure, but you aren't getting any more creativity. Except, of course, that you seem to be willing to break away from canon when painting 40k models, arbitrarily giving yourself more options. Don't you think this is kind of a double standard?

I've only ever created my own Craftworld/Renagade Chapter/Kabal/Blood Bowl Team. So no, there is no establish colour scheme. And I don't execute them to GW processes and I don't have to break canon, because the background is deliberately written to give me virtually complete freedom to do what I want. My renagade chapter is made of a bunch of cast offs from other chapters. I've done this so I can have the freedom to build them from whatever bits I want. Painting a GW specified faction (say, Ultramarines second company) holds very little appeal for me. For the same reason I never got on with the Hobbit game, because I don't want to spend time trying to match the green of the elven cloaks.

So no, I don't think this is a double standard. I just think you are making assumptions.

Peregrine wrote:
Also, your original statement was that the Star Wars model was "low detail", not that you don't enjoy painting that particular subject. Those are two very different things, and only one of them is relevant in a discussion of objective value for a model.

By low detail I mean . . . there are no details.
I understand that some people read this as 'badly made' or 'lack of crisp lines' but I literally just mean there is very little detail to paint on the ship. A perfect sphere could be flawlessly cast to be seamless and utterly perfect in every way . . . and it would still have no detail, regardless of 'crispness'.

So I stand by my assessment that the ships are low on detail and dull (IMO) to paint.

Unless you fancy some canon breaking freehand. But I can't picture Vader flying around with tribal tattoos symbols on his Tie Bomber.

Rygnan wrote:
Have you never seen/read anything Star Wars outside of the movies?

I thought the extended universe was reconed out of existence?
(Genuine question; heard this from a long suffering Star Wars fan but he might have been overplaying it. He just keeps going on about how all his books never happened anymore)

**AdmiralHalsey**

The books did never happen anymore.
Incidentally, there is a red star destroyer in the books.

And this is hugely off topic now.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Also, there are quite a few different colour schemes in the background. Wedge repainted his X-Wing, for example, and there's no reason why you can't come up with your own squadron colours for your ships. I've seen a lot of this sort of thing at tournaments and it always looks pretty cool seeing a bunch of ships all painted in matching colours.

This. Not to mention, in the two most recent films we have seen Poe's X-Wing, which is black and orange, unlike any other X-Wing seen thus far in the films.

It's almost like pilots enjoy personalising their aircraft, such as those who kept kill tallies on their kites, or painted teeth and eyes on the noses of their A-10s etc.

It's a different, more modern model than the rest of the Resistance though? Resistance typically fly T-70, but Poe's one is a T-85.

Anyways. ......

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Probably been said before but I was browsing GW prices yesterday, and by God, what I saw shocked me.

£90, yes £90 for a 20 man Horus Heresy space marine squad at Forgeworld.

£50 for a 10 women sisters of battle squad, the same models that have probably been around for nearly 2 decades!!!

Kamikaze prices.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Why, it's almost as if you're looking at the very highest!

20 man Heresy era squad? Can do that for £60. Two boxes of MkIII or MkIV plastics. Bonus, they come with additional weapons the FW one's don't. Or if you shell out a little extra, get Calth or Prospero and score a solid start to a Heresy army.

Sisters? Literally the only army with no plastic alternative.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Why, it's almost as if you're looking at the very highest!

20 man Heresy era squad? Can do that for £60. Two boxes of MkIII or MkIV plastics. Bonus, they come with additional weapons the FW one's don't. Or if you shell out a little extra, get Calth or Prospero and score a solid start to a Heresy army.

Sisters? Literally the only army with no plastic alternative.

£60 is still pretty steep. For that price, I'd be expecting a free shoulder massage to be included

**Turnip Jedi**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Why, it's almost as if you're looking at the very highest!

20 man Heresy era squad? Can do that for £60. Two boxes of MkIII or MkIV plastics. Bonus, they come with additional weapons the FW one's don't. Or if you shell out a little extra, get Calth or Prospero and score a solid start to a Heresy army.

Sisters? Literally the only army with no plastic alternative.

But why spend money on the reasonable value of those boxed games when I can splurge more or less the same money for 4 character models that require me to pre-own 3/4 AoS army's...

Whilst I still think GW product is overpriced, the wild fluctuations is what baffles me most, with BB teams and Shadespire edging close to reasonable, then they pull my favoured punchbag of the Harbingers, obviously theres some variables but 5-10 models for £20 or 1 seems a redonkulus variable

**Denny**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kamikaze prices.

Except the company seems to be making money . . .

I agree they look like Kamikaze prices, but the bottom line suggests otherwise.

Either than or possibly these niche models are pretty much inconsequential to the bottom line, and you might as well charge a bucket load for them because you sell so few of them anyway, and the collectors who buy them probably don't care about the price.

**JohnHwangDD**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
£50 for a 10 women sisters of battle squad, the same models that have probably been around for nearly 2 decades!!!

Fair price per point compared to Guardsmen (10 Tallarn are 25+ GBP). No valid complaint exists here.

**Earth127**

Turnip Jedi wrote:

Whilst I still think GW product is overpriced, the wild fluctuations is what baffles me most, with BB teams and Shadespire edging close to reasonable, then they pull my favoured punchbag of the Harbingers, obviously theres some variables but 5-10 models for £20 or 1 seems a redonkulus variable

Reminds me of something their CEO wrote in the last yearly report (the june one not januari. he stated they were looking into "diversifying the price range" or something like that.

**Desubot**

Earth127 wrote:
Turnip Jedi wrote:

Whilst I still think GW product is overpriced, the wild fluctuations is what baffles me most, with BB teams and Shadespire edging close to reasonable, then they pull my favoured punchbag of the Harbingers, obviously theres some variables but 5-10 models for £20 or 1 seems a redonkulus variable

Reminds me of something their CEO wrote in the last yearly report (the june one not januari. he stated they were looking into "diversifying the price range" or something like that.

I think part of that was with their range of cheaper snap fits and getting into other types of store with their rebranded assault on black reach stuff.

**Azreal13**

tneva82 wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Denny wrote:
And when its an established canon I don't think painting a ship the colour the ship is is unimaginative. Its just the colour it is. The Millennium Falcon is off-white. The Tie Fighter is off-white. The X-wing is off-white. The Star Destroyer is off-white.
I could paint them a different colour, just like I could paint Superman green and purple, or paint British Grenadier's blue, or paint viking raiders with metal skin and glowing blue weapons.

But then you can't talk about having choices with 40k models. You have established canon color schemes, and all you can do is execute them according to the GW process. There are more colors involved, sure, but you aren't getting any more creativity. Except, of course, that you seem to be willing to break away from canon when painting 40k models, arbitrarily giving yourself more options. Don't you think this is kind of a double standard?

Also, your original statement was that the Star Wars model was "low detail", not that you don't enjoy painting that particular subject. Those are two very different things, and only one of them is relevant in a discussion of objective value for a model.

Umm...What? 40k canon specifically supports various colour schemes. Nothing in star wars canon has supported that. There's not single mention that there even might be red star destroyers or golden x-wings or whatever. 40k canon meanwhile has been set up so that it has all the freedom you need to create your own colour schemes.

Seriously have you ever played 40k or read any of the books there? From your post seems nope, never.

40K supports alternate colour schemes, yes. But so does Star Wars. Saying "I can't paint my X Wings a different color" isn't true. What you're essentially saying is "I can't paint my Red Squadron X Wings a different color and still have them be Red Squadron X Wings." Even if there's no official canon support for that in SW (any more,) there equally isn't anything for your Space Fairies and their rainbow colored armour in 40K, doesn't stop you doing it.

What this is no different from is "I can't paint my Blood Angels purple and still be canon Blood Angels." Which is true, but the same concept. In such vast universes as we're dealing with, there's no reason for either to limit alternate schemes, but both limit "historical" paintjobs in the same way.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Denny wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kamikaze prices.

Except the company seems to be making money . . .

I agree they look like Kamikaze prices, but the bottom line suggests otherwise.

Either than or possibly these niche models are pretty much inconsequential to the bottom line, and you might as well charge a bucket load for them because you sell so few of them anyway, and the collectors who buy them probably don't care about the price.

Well, they ain't making money from me. Not anymore.

I say this every time a thread like this pops up, but by the beard of Zeus, who's buying this stuff? At those prices?

Vallejo paints and Tamiya paints are cheaper and better IMO.

I get 500ml of PVA glue for £1 from poundland. The same stuff is £7 or £8 from GW.

Sand I get free from my local beach, but even people without a beach can save a packet and get it from a DIY store for peanuts. Feth me, GW sell a tiny little tub for £7

Army Painter tufts and grass is cheaper and better, Revell poly cement is cheaper and better, Gorilla superglue is cheaper and better, and so on and so on.

It amazes me that GW haven't collapsed long ago.

I appreciate the fact that some people love GW minis, I did too at one time, and I won't deny that, but feth me, the competition out there offers a lot of good stuff. Cheaper.

People should shop around IMO.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
£50 for a 10 women sisters of battle squad, the same models that have probably been around for nearly 2 decades!!!

Fair price per point compared to Guardsmen (10 Tallarn are 25+ GBP). No valid complaint exists here.

Surely 20 guardsmen for £50 should compare favourably to the Sisters?

**Peregrine**

Denny wrote:
I've only ever created my own Craftworld/Renagade Chapter/Kabal/Blood Bowl Team. So no, there is no establish colour scheme. And I don't execute them to GW processes and I don't have to break canon, because the background is deliberately written to give me virtually complete freedom to do what I want. My renagade chapter is made of a bunch of cast offs from other chapters. I've done this so I can have the freedom to build them from whatever bits I want. Painting a GW specified faction (say, Ultramarines second company) holds very little appeal for me. For the same reason I never got on with the Hobbit game, because I don't want to spend time trying to match the green of the elven cloaks.

So no, I don't think this is a double standard. I just think you are making assumptions.

But if you're willing to make up your own color scheme for GW games why can't you do the same for Star Wars games? It's a double standard because you're fine with making up your own stuff so it's interesting to paint when you're defending the game/models you like, but when it comes to the models you aren't buying you're restricted to only using the canon schemes and complaining about your lack of options.

By low detail I mean . . . there are no details.
I understand that some people read this as 'badly made' or 'lack of crisp lines' but I literally just mean there is very little detail to paint on the ship. A perfect sphere could be flawlessly cast to be seamless and utterly perfect in every way . . . and it would still have no detail, regardless of 'crispness'.

But X-Wing ships have plenty of detail. They just don't have lots of skulls and purity seals copy-pasted over every possible surface like GW models often do. Again, we're talking about the universe that revolutionized scifi design by having all the detail bits on the outside. An Armada or X-Wing model has tons of mechanical bits, panel lines, windows, etc to paint.

Unless you fancy some canon breaking freehand. But I can't picture Vader flying around with tribal tattoos symbols on his Tie Bomber.

Nope, we could definitely never have anything like that.

**JohnHwangDD**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
£50 for a 10 women sisters of battle squad, the same models that have probably been around for nearly 2 decades!!!

Fair price per point compared to Guardsmen (10 Tallarn are 25+ GBP). No valid complaint exists here.

Surely 20 guardsmen for £50 should compare favourably to the Sisters?

Both are fairly priced.

**master of ordinance**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Surely 20 guardsmen for £50 should compare favourably to the Sisters?

Both are fairly priced.

I... I am going to pretend I never saw this. £25 for 10 basic Infantry? Warlords will give me 30 for that price, with plenty of extra bits thrown in.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
£50 for a 10 women sisters of battle squad, the same models that have probably been around for nearly 2 decades!!!

Fair price per point compared to Guardsmen (10 Tallarn are 25+ GBP). No valid complaint exists here.

No. Really really no. A fair price for the Sisters and metal Guardsmen would be £15 for a box of ten, which incidentally is what Warlords sell their metal units at. £25 for 10 is extortion and £50 is outright delusional.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
£60 is still pretty steep. For that price, I'd be expecting a free shoulder massage to be included

£60 nets me mt of an Infinity army, the core and extras of a Bolt Action army, the better part of a Antares army..... The list goes on. For £60 I would expect about 70 - 80 infantry. Or 60 infantry plus armour and supporting elements.

**John Prins**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I say this every time a thread like this pops up, but by the beard of Zeus, who's buying this stuff? At those prices?

AFAIK, mostly parents who don't know better or have enough money to not care. Most people using their own money pretty quickly figure out most of the tools can be acquired more cheaply elsewhere.

Vallejo paints and Tamiya paints are cheaper and better IMO.

One thing GW paints have going for them is easy availability. Your GW store probably has the paint you need when you run out. Ordering online is less reliable, and my local Vajello dealer doesn't always have the paint I want. Finding Reaper anywhere nearby is next to impossible (I order from the USA), so I don't mind GW paints when I need a paint for bulk painting Salamanders or Tau. Detail paints almost never run out, after all.

I get 500ml of PVA glue for £1 from poundland. The same stuff is £7 or £8 from GW.

Yeah, it's nuts.

Sand I get free from my local beach,

Definitely NOT worth sorting organic crap out of beach sand. If you live in a winter country, check the sand you spread on your walkway ice, but it's often pretty fine and even the time spent sifting out the coarser stuff isn't worth it IMO, just get model railroad grit - 100% clean and consistent.

GW knows it can sell overpriced peripherals to first time buyers - starting the hobby? Here's XYZ you'll need, one stop shopping. For most of this stuff it's a one time sale and they know it. Great for busy moms and dads shopping for little Timmy's first foray into a hobby that isn't an XBOX.

**Mothboi666**

I'm sure others have seen this maybe in this thread but death company are 55aud while assault marines are 75aud for less bits, like how is that possible it is blatant profiteering