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.

Quasistellar wrote:
To be fair, you might not be wrong about the vehicles. I haven't built a historical kit in more than 10 years, so I don't know how good the modern kits are, but I remember them being quite fiddly for the sake if accuracy to the real world item, which is a limitation GW doesn't have. Are you comparing a modern historical kit to GW 20 year old designs still in production? GW does price theirs too high (IMO). Again, a fair complaint!

Wargames Atlantic models do look nice, but are we comparing them to the Cadian kit, or something newer like Skitarii, Hybrids, or SoB infantry? Again, sure, they're nice and cheaper, but they're pretty clearly riding on GWs IP coattails.

Actually i find the neophytes to be the worst offender.
Now i own my fair share of them, considering i used them to kitbash cultists /militia for my r&h army, however for the price.... ehh, no. And coattail riding is also not really true, since a scale isn't really coattail riding.
Also some of the newer kits have "issues"... Like the 8 bolter for 10 csm Squad... or the chainaxe default chaos terminators with 1 chainaxe in the kit but what feels like 2 dozens of the 2garden fences".
Also no unit should be priced so high in plastic, that i can get a custom unit done out of resin completely to my gusto and get away with cheaper.
Also, fantasy conversion rates are fantasy the aussies are not the only ones wondering about that.

I can't and won't defend Failcast. It's unforgivably bad. The fact that they still use it is actually offensive to me as a customer.

I also won't argue that others just straight up do low volume resin kits better in general.

Edit: You're also not wrong about the rules price. It's too much, and done in a very poor way (physical books) that creates haves and have-nots, and stifles balance because of printing lead times.

Actually i don't mind the books, what i mind is the lackluster quality of the rules in them and the price GW asks for them.
Now GW plastic for the most part is done in the UK, so okay more exensive, GW books, are printed in china, so no the higher price then contemporaries is not justifyable through a difergence of localised production cost.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Actually i don't mind the books, what i mind is the lackluster quality of the rules in them and the price GW asks for them.
Now GW plastic for the most part is done in the UK, so okay more exensive, GW books, are printed in china, so no the higher price then contemporaries is not justifyable through a difergence of localised production cost.

Can't argue too much with that, but I will say that similarly sized hardcover color books by other companies aren't TOO much cheaper, and GW does re-use art assets often. E.G., Frostgrave 2nd Edition is 224 pages at $35 vs Codex Space Marines $50 and 208 pages. I really just have to attribute the extra price GW wanting to position themselves as the "premium" option in wargaming, and a slight overhead of paying more artists. What's going to be rough is the cost of the much thinner supplements, and I'm just not sure I want to go through that again. I have Iron Hands, and it's not fun seeing your brand new book for a historically neglected subfaction get absolutely gutted and errata'd so much that the physical book is worthless within a month.

Hard to argue with the financial success of GW lately, and I'm a sucker myself that bought a new Codex this week (two actually).