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.

"How much does it really cost to develop a cool model?"
Do you buy recast GW or recast 3rd party models?

If recast GW, why not generic?

 Trickstick wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
How much does it really cost to develop a cool model? not to much since we can literally do it now ourselves and print them ourselves using 3D printers. So really lets take that out of hte cost because its so cheap.

I don't think you understand how the miniature design process works.

Are you sure? I can't spot any holes. I'm ready to start my own model making business!

SemperMortis wrote:
It took me about 8 hours to design the Grot tanks I am using

Got some pictures you can post?

 Peregrine wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
It took me about 8 hours to design the Grot tanks I am using

Got some pictures you can post?

I can get some and PM them to you if you want I actually brought one with me.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
How much does it really cost to develop a cool model? not to much since we can literally do it now ourselves and print them ourselves using 3D printers. So really lets take that out of hte cost because its so cheap.

I don't think you understand how the miniature design process works.

Are you sure? I can't spot any holes. I'm ready to start my own model making business!

I know you can't argue without making up points or ignoring parts of posts but damn that was quick even by your standards.

I really wish I had put a disclaimer in to my original post showing that I was making numbers up but the point was relevant to the costs that GW charges for little plastic army men.
Ohhh wait....I did.

SemperMortis wrote:

Yes I know I made numbers up out of thin air and I am well aware there are a lot more over head costs associated with running a business, I am merely pointing out how ridiculous GW's prices are and how they could easily entire a larger fan base and encourage their current fan base to stop buying recasted models AND to buy MORE models by simply reducing the massive price of the game.

SemperMortis wrote:
I can get some and PM them to you if you want I actually brought one with me.

Post them here? I think they'd be a rather informative contribution to this discussion.

 Peregrine wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
I can get some and PM them to you if you want I actually brought one with me.

Post them here? I think they'd be a rather informative contribution to this discussion.

I would rather not for a number of reasons including but not limited to the Mods probably not liking it.

For the purposes of the discussion, though, are they a reimplementation of a GW model (mostly), or an implementation of what a Grot Tank should look like?

Because those are two very different things.

Look at Kings of War's High Elves or Empire vs GW's High Elves or Empire. Look at Kromlech Orkz vs GW's Orkz. A fairly generic concept, but a very different execution.

Bharring wrote:
For the purposes of the discussion, though, are they a reimplementation of a GW model (mostly), or an implementation of what a Grot Tank should look like?

Because those are two very different things.

Look at Kings of War's High Elves or Empire vs GW's High Elves or Empire. Look at Kromlech Orkz vs GW's Orkz. A fairly generic concept, but a very different execution.

Comparing a FW tank to the one I printed ....let me put it this way, I won't be selling them online for fear of GW lawyers

SemperMortis wrote:

Bharring wrote:
For the purposes of the discussion, though, are they a reimplementation of a GW model (mostly), or an implementation of what a Grot Tank should look like?

Because those are two very different things.

Look at Kings of War's High Elves or Empire vs GW's High Elves or Empire. Look at Kromlech Orkz vs GW's Orkz. A fairly generic concept, but a very different execution.

Comparing a FW tank to the one I printed ....let me put it this way, I won't be selling them online for fear of GW lawyers

Right. So you didn't actually design anything, but merely copied someone else's design.

 Crimson wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Bharring wrote:
For the purposes of the discussion, though, are they a reimplementation of a GW model (mostly), or an implementation of what a Grot Tank should look like?

Because those are two very different things.

Look at Kings of War's High Elves or Empire vs GW's High Elves or Empire. Look at Kromlech Orkz vs GW's Orkz. A fairly generic concept, but a very different execution.

Comparing a FW tank to the one I printed ....let me put it this way, I won't be selling them online for fear of GW lawyers

Right. So you didn't actually design anything, but merely copied someone else's design.

In the same way that GW modeled Leman Russes after WW1 Tanks yes. Or how they modeled Eldar on Elves from dozens of other genres, or how they modeled Catachans on Vietnam era US Soldiers/Marines or how they modeled Vostroyans on Russian infantry from the napoleonic times or (insert dozens of other examples of GW copying others)

You really have no clue about the difference between being inspired by something an directly copying. Furthermore, real history is actually free game; you can in fact produce exact replicas of real Napoleonic infantry without the French government suing you.

 Crimson wrote:
You really have no clue about the difference between being inspired by something an directly copying. Furthermore, real history is actually free game; you can in fact produce exact replicas of real Napoleonic infantry without the French government suing you.

Ahh, so what I must have done was scanned a Grot tank and used that with a few minor tweeks? Or, did I use the scale as a rough guideline and than use tank features from numerous modern/historical (Mostly WW2) tanks and fill in the dimensions with bitz I liked....like soviet style ridged armor and Sherman tank style turret?

But hey, since GW did it its fine, but feth me If I do it right?

SemperMortis wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
You really have no clue about the difference between being inspired by something an directly copying. Furthermore, real history is actually free game; you can in fact produce exact replicas of real Napoleonic infantry without the French government suing you.

Ahh, so what I must have done was scanned a Grot tank and used that with a few minor tweeks? Or, did I use the scale as a rough guideline and than use tank features from numerous modern/historical (Mostly WW2) tanks and fill in the dimensions with bitz I liked....like soviet style ridged armor and Sherman tank style turret?

But hey, since GW did it its fine, but feth me If I do it right?

That's for the court to decide. Combining historical references in a specific visual way is an unique artistic creation.

 Crimson wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
You really have no clue about the difference between being inspired by something an directly copying. Furthermore, real history is actually free game; you can in fact produce exact replicas of real Napoleonic infantry without the French government suing you.

Ahh, so what I must have done was scanned a Grot tank and used that with a few minor tweeks? Or, did I use the scale as a rough guideline and than use tank features from numerous modern/historical (Mostly WW2) tanks and fill in the dimensions with bitz I liked....like soviet style ridged armor and Sherman tank style turret?

But hey, since GW did it its fine, but feth me If I do it right?

That's for the court to decide. Combining historical references in a specific visual way is an unique artistic creation.

So you are saying what I did was fine

SemperMortis wrote:
How much does it really cost to develop a cool model? not to much since we can literally do it now ourselves and print them ourselves using 3D printers.

That's an absurd argument.

Yes, you can design and print a model yourself at home. That doesn't make it a negligible expense for a company to do it, any more than we would assume that a baker is overcharging for a professionally decorated cake just because I have an oven and a packet of cake mix.

The company producing the models has to pay for concept art (potentially several iterations before a final design is nailed down, all of which have to be paid for), sculpting (which can range from a few hours to months, depending on the complexity of the kit, and is different for different intended casting materials) and the cost of the mould (relatively cheap and fast for resin or metal production, considerably more expensive and time consuming for plastic injection moulding). Much of this is cheaper for companies that do it in-house, compared to outsourcing it, but it's still all stuff that has to be paid for and isn't cheap if you have anyone competent doing it.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

So you are saying what I did was fine

More relevant to the discussion at hand, what you did was copy an existing design for 3D printing rather than develop something original for casting.

Apples and oranges.

SemperMortis wrote:
I would rather not for a number of reasons including but not limited to the Mods probably not liking it.

The mods have, in the past, had zero problems with people posting similar projects.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Again, people have been forceasting - quite unsuccessfully - that GW will crumble any second now because of those types of decisions for at least fifteen years.

In fact, GW's stock price has steadily risen until recently and you can't blame GW for the electorate's idiocy.

I'm not sure what chart you're looking at, but it fell steadily from January of 2014 to June of 2016. It rose to it's ATH in September of this year and is on the way back down again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghorgul wrote:


How does the saying go, when you find yourself in a hole, you stop digging? With GW it continue like "you lie more" instead:
"Soup is off the Menu" while increase CP generation from Battalion and Brigade at the same time. To my understanding "Loyal 32" is a thing because you get 5 CPs with minimally filled Battalion and there is almost no drawback to doing this.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/04/16/warhammer-40000-big-faq-1-the-low-downgw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-2/

I don't know whether to find it hilarious or sad that GW's idea of soup was units with different keywords in the same detachment. Every tournament player in existence views soup as taking 3 detachments from 3 different codexes, which the battle brothers beta rule actually made more powerful instead of nerfing. Are the people in charge of writing rules really that dense or do they have a marketing guy with a gun to their head?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost like making physical codexes be the basis of your rules is a dumb idea, or something.

It would be so much easier if they could just update an electronic codex once a month as they see fit, but no, they are locked into literally Victorian Era thinking.

That would require utilizing technology, which seems to fall somewhere between arcane knowledge and downright heresy to GW.

You can make whatever silly argument you want. Just let us know when you have a business able to rival GW with similar quality , but cheaper models that aren't direct ripoffs.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's almost like making physical codexes be the basis of your rules is a dumb idea, or something..

It worked just fine for an awful long time before the internet came along.

The problem isn't the rules being in physical books, it's the rushed production schedule resulting in inadequately edited final products. Whether the rules are in physical books or electronic files, I'd much rather they took the time to fix any issues with them before publishing, rather than after.

 Toofast wrote:
I don't know whether to find it hilarious or sad that GW's idea of soup was units with different keywords in the same detachment. Every tournament player in existence views soup as taking 3 detachments from 3 different codexes, which the battle brothers beta rule actually made more powerful instead of nerfing. Are the people in charge of writing rules really that dense or do they have a marketing guy with a gun to their head?

There was definitely a period in early 8th where soup was being used as a term for a detachment featuring models from multiple armies, united via Imperium/Chaos/Eldar keyword. I'm pretty sure the change to use the term to look at the composition of an army didn't turn up until around the same time as the publication with Battle Brothers, or at least not long beforehand.

I thought this thread was supposed to be about whether CA was a marketing move or not and the last few pages have been discussing the virtues of 3d printing and GW's mark up.

Even the mods have been taken off topic.

If you want to discuss these items I'd suggest that another thread is the place for it. The topic of this thread is: 'was CA a marketing move and not a balance move?' I'm really, really struggling to see how the current discussion is in any way relevant?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I thought this thread was supposed to be about whether CA was a marketing move or not and the last few pages have been discussing the virtues of 3d printing and GW's mark up.

Even the mods have been taken off topic.

If you want to discuss these items I'd suggest that another thread is the place for it. The topic of this thread is: 'was CA a marketing move and not a balance move?' I'm really, really struggling to see how the current discussion is in any way relevant?

But that debate has been settled. It is clearly both because the reality is that to the matched players out there, balancing the game is good for everyone hence it is a form of marketing. GW are using it as a marketing tool saying, we know its not perfect but we will keep trying to make it perfect. The only issue is there idea of perfect doesn't match everyone's but then it is their game and we are still buying their models.

 Nithaniel wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I thought this thread was supposed to be about whether CA was a marketing move or not and the last few pages have been discussing the virtues of 3d printing and GW's mark up.

Even the mods have been taken off topic.

If you want to discuss these items I'd suggest that another thread is the place for it. The topic of this thread is: 'was CA a marketing move and not a balance move?' I'm really, really struggling to see how the current discussion is in any way relevant?

But that debate has been settled. It is clearly both because the reality is that to the matched players out there, balancing the game is good for everyone hence it is a form of marketing. GW are using it as a marketing tool saying, we know its not perfect but we will keep trying to make it perfect. The only issue is there idea of perfect doesn't match everyone's but then it is their game and we are still buying their models.

So /end thread then I guess?

nah I'm kidding. I was enjoying reading the debate on all things not of this thread until you killed it.

but my point was only my opinion. GW as a company has historically spent very little on marketing. They have heavily relied on word of mouth, white dawrf and their highstreet presence in lieu of actual marketing.

Now they continue this attitude but with a twist. They've restarted their community outreach and have joined forces with community "LEADERS" like Reece et al to help promote them. One of the biggest feedbacks they've recieved from all sources is balance.

Their answer is to balance the game through faq's and points adjustments. I honestly believe these adjustments are great and have a habit of promoting sales. I know that I personally have purchased more models based on their efficiency in the current ruleset. I am also here on Dakka crowing about it.

So in a way their general attitude towards balance via CA and other mediums is their in lieu marketing. Which is why I consider it to be both.

My take is that it's a marketing tool dressed as a balance change. When you think about it, CA is already redundant by the time it releases by virtue of the fact that it is written so far in advance.

Units that exist in the current meta were ignored because CA is prepared so early. So from a balance perspective though attempts have been made to make underperforming units/factions better, ultimately it hasn't addressed the big tickets of the tournament meta. Perhaps that's what the FAQs are for?

However for those people who don't play competitive 40k but enjoy matched play with pals and beers I can see the draw for this product.

It's not a product for me but I suppose it has a market. However as it's impact on balance is outdated as it is released I believe in reality it can't be called a balance tool as much as a marketing one.

Can't disagree with you there but i'd suggest a more nuanced alternative take on what you say.

We will all agree that CA being so far in advance fails to create the necessary effect of balancing the meta/game. It doesn't go far enough for the exact reasons you have stated.

BUT
it has achieved something. The rhetorical question(although I'm interested in your opinion) is, has CA achieved any balancing affect?

Regardless of how small or incomplete that affect is, I think it has balanced the game.

CA hasn't balanced jack, armies that struggled before will still struggle after, anyone playing melee is still facing an up hill struggle and cover rules are still garbage.

hobojebus wrote:
CA hasn't balanced jack, armies that struggled before will still struggle after, anyone playing melee is still facing an up hill struggle and cover rules are still garbage.

Lets assume that CA is intended for specific things and not everything and is more than just points. The missions alone are a sweeping change. Was it there intention to fix melee armies or cover rules? I think not. Cover is as you said complete garbage but after multiple updates and tweaks to the rules in which they have chosen not to amend these rules we have to assume that they are as intended. All out melee armies do not have a place in the current 40k and I believe this is absoulutely by enforced design. I think the designers view this as a sci-fi game in which pew pew shooting is stronger than combat. This is no different to modern day warfare. The debate on whether the game should be better for melee is not for this thread.

I think those points you raised are true but not relevant to CA. My point is by addressing points and drastically changing missions CA has balanced some things. Have you looked at or played the new CA missions?

I *have* tried the new CA missions. They are IMHO amazing, but ultimately useless as ITC won't (likely) adopt them, which means the competitive "meta" is still going to be using boring missions designed to keep their listbuilding meta going strong. There's a chance they might after LVO, but I doubt it as they seem to feel that bland tournament missions that you can tailor are better than missions that encourage you to bring a balanced force to mitigate potentially bad scenarios.

Also on the other topic, if GW would move to the modern age they could respond quicker with FAQs and actual updates, maybe even do something like Privateer's CID (which is an amazing idea among all the other old GW-like things that company has done recently) to try to balance things and get more feedback than just from people with an agenda like Reece and co.

 Nithaniel wrote:
Can't disagree with you there but i'd suggest a more nuanced alternative take on what you say.

We will all agree that CA being so far in advance fails to create the necessary effect of balancing the meta/game. It doesn't go far enough for the exact reasons you have stated.

BUT
it has achieved something. The rhetorical question(although I'm interested in your opinion) is, has CA achieved any balancing affect?

Regardless of how small or incomplete that affect is, I think it has balanced the game.

I suppose it remains to be seen exactly what the effect will be. There's no question in my kind that it's had some impact though. Even if that impact is in the beer and pretzels sphere of play. The bigger question for me is whether there will be an impact on the current top tier lists.

In my heart of hearts I think the answer is no. People who play fluffy or mono lists will be better served and Tau look very strong since the changes but whether those changes are enough to topple the dreaded Imperial/Ynarri soup lists is very unlikely. If those lists aren't toppled the meta will stay as it is.