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.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
take more detachments.

Which costs precious CP, and is even more crippling now that you only start at 6 CP in a 2000 point game and have to pay for the formerly-free WLT and relic.

lol yeah, at the moment i don't have much value as a customer, but i still have value as a customer currently, and it's really bad business to price customers out, because once you do that they're unlikely to come back when they're no longer priced out of the hobby...but the whole 'well i can afford it' or 'well i already have the models' mentality is so selfish and gakky. then one day you'll be priced out of the hobby as well, and you'll be crying about it.

Ok? You're the one who tried to make the argument that platoons are bad because they make the game too expensive and GW has a selfish interest in not doing it, it's not my fault that the reality of the current game is outside your budget with or without platoons. Call it selfish if you want but the reality is that you aren't a desirable customer for GW.

CP rules will change again in 3-9 months, that’s not a big deal.
Or maybe then the increase in firepower from increased numbers off sets the lower starting CP handicap, but now we get CP in each player’s command phase, so it’s not really that big of a deal.

And again, I explained why platoons would be bad for this faction, not for the game or the company. I have a space marine army that’s much more affordable to expand. The platoon system coming back as it was, would likely be a death knell for this faction. Obviously things wouldn’t shrivel up and die overnight but in the long term if the model wasn’t changed it would be the death of the faction.

Also I’d love to know who you think the target demo is, if you think people who can’t afford to drop $300+ in a year on plastic army men aren’t ‘valuable’ customers.
Most people my age don’t have $400 in savings and are spending 30-50% of their monthly income on housing costs.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
unless platoons can consist of a single squad, platoons are a terrible choice for the future of this army.

i've said in YT comments on the subject many times now.
platoons create a high financial bar of entry.

assuming we go back to something old school in how platoons work, a basic army required to play using platoons would look like this.

I doubt that. Just making Company and Platoon Commanders back into Command Squads doesn’t come with much in terms of additional costs. As you’re likely buying the 5 man Command Squad boxes anyway.

Infantry Platoons could easily be simplified to what they were previously, such as 1-3 Infantry Squads. So the minimum remains the same, it just opens up more troop slots for additional squads.

Jarms48 wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
unless platoons can consist of a single squad, platoons are a terrible choice for the future of this army.

i've said in YT comments on the subject many times now.
platoons create a high financial bar of entry.

assuming we go back to something old school in how platoons work, a basic army required to play using platoons would look like this.

I doubt that. Just making Company and Platoon Commanders back into Command Squads doesn’t come with much in terms of additional costs. As you’re likely buying the 5 man Command Squad boxes anyway.

Infantry Platoons could easily be simplified to what they were previously, such as 1-3 Infantry Squads. So the minimum remains the same, it just opens up more troop slots for additional squads.

ill check my old codexes but I thought a platoon mandated 2 infantry squads per platoon.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
CP rules will change again in 3-9 months, that’s not a big deal.

{citation needed}

This is purely your speculation that this is the case. And no, the advantage of multiple detachments does not offset starting at 0-1 CP in a game where the events of turn 1-2 are far more important than the events of turn 4-5. Being able to take multiple infantry squads in a single troops slot would be a win, and it would be a massive win if it comes along with putting SWS and HWS back into platoons.

And again, I explained why platoons would be bad for this faction, not for the game or the company. I have a space marine army that’s much more affordable to expand. The platoon system coming back as it was, would likely be a death knell for this faction. Obviously things wouldn’t shrivel up and die overnight but in the long term if the model wasn’t changed it would be the death of the faction.

You explained but your explanation doesn't match reality. GW isn't targeting 8 year olds who only have $50/year in birthday money, they're targeting adults with disposable income. And that target market isn't going to be discouraged by having to buy a full 25-model platoon to build their first army because they're buying a 500 point army to start with and expanding to 2000 points as fast as they can build and paint the models.

Also I’d love to know who you think the target demo is, if you think people who can’t afford to drop $300+ in a year on plastic army men aren’t ‘valuable’ customers.
Most people my age don’t have $400 in savings and are spending 30-50% of their monthly income on housing costs.

The target is adults with established careers, people like my coworkers who spend $300 in one trip to the gun range with their $5,000 AR-15 or $10,000/year just in parking fees for their boat. They'll take your money if they can get it, of course, but they're designing the game for the people who will impulse buy $1000 worth of stuff just because they can.

They did, however, give you Kill Team as a great option for a low-cost game in the 40k universe. Maybe that would be better suited to your needs?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
CP rules will change again in 3-9 months, that’s not a big deal.

{citation needed}

This is purely your speculation that this is the case. And no, the advantage of multiple detachments does not offset starting at 0-1 CP in a game where the events of turn 1-2 are far more important than the events of turn 4-5. Being able to take multiple infantry squads in a single troops slot would be a win, and it would be a massive win if it comes along with putting SWS and HWS back into platoons.

And again, I explained why platoons would be bad for this faction, not for the game or the company. I have a space marine army that’s much more affordable to expand. The platoon system coming back as it was, would likely be a death knell for this faction. Obviously things wouldn’t shrivel up and die overnight but in the long term if the model wasn’t changed it would be the death of the faction.

You explained but your explanation doesn't match reality. GW isn't targeting 8 year olds who only have $50/year in birthday money, they're targeting adults with disposable income. And that target market isn't going to be discouraged by having to buy a full 25-model platoon to build their first army because they're buying a 500 point army to start with and expanding to 2000 points as fast as they can build and paint the models.

Also I’d love to know who you think the target demo is, if you think people who can’t afford to drop $300+ in a year on plastic army men aren’t ‘valuable’ customers.
Most people my age don’t have $400 in savings and are spending 30-50% of their monthly income on housing costs.

The target is adults with established careers, people like my coworkers who spend $300 in one trip to the gun range with their $5,000 AR-15 or $10,000/year just in parking fees for their boat. They'll take your money if they can get it, of course, but they're designing the game for the people who will impulse buy $1000 worth of stuff just because they can.

They did, however, give you Kill Team as a great option for a low-cost game in the 40k universe. Maybe that would be better suited to your needs?

GW is targeting people with disposable income? Who is that exactly? Not minors. Not the majority of millennials, so is GW targeting boomers and the greatest generation?
Bruh, very few people have $5k ARs
So you’re trying to say GW is targeting people making roughly $500k/year? I’d love to see your source for that.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
CP rules will change again in 3-9 months, that’s not a big deal.

{citation needed}

This is purely your speculation that this is the case. And no, the advantage of multiple detachments does not offset starting at 0-1 CP in a game where the events of turn 1-2 are far more important than the events of turn 4-5. Being able to take multiple infantry squads in a single troops slot would be a win, and it would be a massive win if it comes along with putting SWS and HWS back into platoons.

And again, I explained why platoons would be bad for this faction, not for the game or the company. I have a space marine army that’s much more affordable to expand. The platoon system coming back as it was, would likely be a death knell for this faction. Obviously things wouldn’t shrivel up and die overnight but in the long term if the model wasn’t changed it would be the death of the faction.

You explained but your explanation doesn't match reality. GW isn't targeting 8 year olds who only have $50/year in birthday money, they're targeting adults with disposable income. And that target market isn't going to be discouraged by having to buy a full 25-model platoon to build their first army because they're buying a 500 point army to start with and expanding to 2000 points as fast as they can build and paint the models.

Also I’d love to know who you think the target demo is, if you think people who can’t afford to drop $300+ in a year on plastic army men aren’t ‘valuable’ customers.
Most people my age don’t have $400 in savings and are spending 30-50% of their monthly income on housing costs.

The target is adults with established careers, people like my coworkers who spend $300 in one trip to the gun range with their $5,000 AR-15 or $10,000/year just in parking fees for their boat. They'll take your money if they can get it, of course, but they're designing the game for the people who will impulse buy $1000 worth of stuff just because they can.

They did, however, give you Kill Team as a great option for a low-cost game in the 40k universe. Maybe that would be better suited to your needs?

GW is targeting people with disposable income? Who is that exactly? Not minors. Not the majority of millennials, so is GW targeting boomers and the greatest generation?
Bruh, very few people have $5k ARs
So you’re trying to say GW is targeting people making roughly $500k/year? I’d love to see your source for that.

The more people you have playing a game is good in theory, but you also need ways for people who have the money and the willingness to spend as much as their hearts desire to spend as much as they want / can. The 80-20 rule applies here. 80% of the results are caused by 20% of the population, so you're looking to make an eco system that best allows that to flourish. This is where the term whales comes from.

The problem with gw's monetization practices is that they do a bad job of implementing policies that actually facilitate that ecosystem. The buy in needs to be low, and the upper limit on bought value needs to be higher.

In a way you are both correct in my opinion.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
]GW is targeting people with disposable income?

Yep. Look at their actual product releases and current rules for the core game and it's very obvious that they're targeting people who can spend $1000+ on buying an army.

Who is that exactly? Not minors. Not the majority of millennials, so is GW targeting boomers and the greatest generation?
Bruh, very few people have $5k ARs
So you’re trying to say GW is targeting people making roughly $500k/year? I’d love to see your source for that.

In my company my closest peers (IOW, not higher management) are making $75-150k/year. And everyone I know there either has an expensive hobby that makes 40k look dirt cheap or is (like me) dumping a bunch of money into aggressively paying off a mortgage to maximize future finances. And that's mostly a mix of recent college graduates up to about 35 years old, with a couple people in the ~50 year old range.

And sure, it's not the majority of millennials but that doesn't matter. I bought a Reaver because it's cool. That's 20-30 years worth of your spending on 40k in a single purchase. From GW's point of view one of me is worth dozens of you. They don't need to appeal to the majority of millennials, they just need to successfully tap into the disposable income of the ones with money.

ill check my old codexes but I thought a platoon mandated 2 infantry squads per platoon.

I’ll save you the time. It did.

That’s why I said simplify it.

Jarms48 wrote:

ill check my old codexes but I thought a platoon mandated 2 infantry squads per platoon.

I’ll save you the time. It did.

That’s why I said simplify it.

must have misread your post, was babysitting a cat outside while I read it lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
]GW is targeting people with disposable income?

Yep. Look at their actual product releases and current rules for the core game and it's very obvious that they're targeting people who can spend $1000+ on buying an army.

Who is that exactly? Not minors. Not the majority of millennials, so is GW targeting boomers and the greatest generation?
Bruh, very few people have $5k ARs
So you’re trying to say GW is targeting people making roughly $500k/year? I’d love to see your source for that.

In my company my closest peers (IOW, not higher management) are making $75-150k/year. And everyone I know there either has an expensive hobby that makes 40k look dirt cheap or is (like me) dumping a bunch of money into aggressively paying off a mortgage to maximize future finances. And that's mostly a mix of recent college graduates up to about 35 years old, with a couple people in the ~50 year old range.

And sure, it's not the majority of millennials but that doesn't matter. I bought a Reaver because it's cool. That's 20-30 years worth of your spending on 40k in a single purchase. From GW's point of view one of me is worth dozens of you. They don't need to appeal to the majority of millennials, they just need to successfully tap into the disposable income of the ones with money.

if we’re humble bragging, I’m self employed living in a Victorian mansion with a jacuzzi, sauna, home dojo.
If GW is focusing on people you say, then they won’t be around for much longer.

40k isn’t a high end luxury good. The very few people with the income you’re talking about will have any interest in this game.
Also financial tip…’aggressively’ paying off a mortgage is a pointless waste of money. Either find a new place to buy and sell the old house, or pay your minimum and save up to move up…there’s really no point in paying off a house if it’s not your dream home.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
]if we’re humble bragging, I’m self employed living in a Victorian mansion with a jacuzzi, sauna, home dojo.

Except, unlike you, I'm not just making stuff up to win an internet argument.

If GW is focusing on people you say, then they won’t be around for much longer.

Why not? Like I said, my one Reaver was worth 20-30 years of you being a customer. And the numbers back me up, as GW keeps shifting towards an adult target market their financial reports show excellent profit numbers and no sign of slowing down.

40k isn’t a high end luxury good.

And "mid-level process engineer" is not even close to the top of the salary scale. We're talking about people in successful professional careers, not billionaires. 40k doesn't need to be a high end luxury good, it can be a fun hobby that is pretty cheap compared to a lot of other hobbies.

The very few people with the income you’re talking about will have any interest in this game.

Financial tip: $75k/year is entry-level salary for an engineer straight out of college. That's a huge number of people and I've met plenty of them who are interested in 40k.

Also financial tip…’aggressively’ paying off a mortgage is a pointless waste of money. Either find a new place to buy and sell the old house, or pay your minimum and save up to move up…there’s really no point in paying off a house if it’s not your dream home.

Financial tip: having a $0/month mortgage is pretty great for quality of life and "moving up" as fast as possible is a great way to ruin your finances.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
]if we’re humble bragging, I’m self employed living in a Victorian mansion with a jacuzzi, sauna, home dojo.

Except, unlike you, I'm not just making stuff up to win an internet argument.

If GW is focusing on people you say, then they won’t be around for much longer.

Why not? Like I said, my one Reaver was worth 20-30 years of you being a customer. And the numbers back me up, as GW keeps shifting towards an adult target market their financial reports show excellent profit numbers and no sign of slowing down.

40k isn’t a high end luxury good.

And "mid-level process engineer" is not even close to the top of the salary scale. We're talking about people in successful professional careers, not billionaires. 40k doesn't need to be a high end luxury good, it can be a fun hobby that is pretty cheap compared to a lot of other hobbies.

The very few people with the income you’re talking about will have any interest in this game.

Financial tip: $75k/year is entry-level salary for an engineer straight out of college. That's a huge number of people and I've met plenty of them who are interested in 40k.

Also financial tip…’aggressively’ paying off a mortgage is a pointless waste of money. Either find a new place to buy and sell the old house, or pay your minimum and save up to move up…there’s really no point in paying off a house if it’s not your dream home.

Financial tip: having a $0/month mortgage is pretty great for quality of life and "moving up" as fast as possible is a great way to ruin your finances.

not making anything, up I teach karate, and I do so from my own home it’s pretty perfect. Charge parents $50 to use the sauna while their kids are in class. It’s nice living in an old BnB

Yeah and 75k isn’t living the sort of life style you were describing earlier either.
Well enjoy living in your starter house. I’ll enjoy my 5k sq ft.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
not making anything, up I teach karate, and I do so from my own home it’s pretty perfect. Charge parents $50 to use the sauna while their kids are in class. It’s nice living in an old BnB

So let me get this straight: you live in a 5k sq ft. "mansion" but you somehow can't afford $100 to buy a couple of boxes of Cadians to make a complete platoon? Either you're lying about something here or you're spectacularly bad at managing your money.

Yeah and 75k isn’t living the sort of life style you were describing earlier either.

It's literally the salary range of the people buying those things I described earlier.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
not making anything, up I teach karate, and I do so from my own home it’s pretty perfect. Charge parents $50 to use the sauna while their kids are in class. It’s nice living in an old BnB

So let me get this straight: you live in a 5k sq ft. "mansion" but you somehow can't afford $100 to buy a couple of boxes of Cadians to make a complete platoon? Either you're lying about something here or you're spectacularly bad at managing your money.

Yeah and 75k isn’t living the sort of life style you were describing earlier either.

It's literally the salary range of the people buying those things I described earlier.

$138 plus tax. yes, because like your friends, i too enjoy shooting. though not with a $5k AR, with a $1200 AR, a $2k M1A...the rest of my guns don't reach that level of cost, but feeding them is expensive. then there's the fact that i moved into a 140 year old house, did you think that was just some how in pristine shape? fixing and painting the fence has cost me hundreds of dollars, not to mention the several thousand spent on the plumbing so far, not to mention feeding 2 cars, a motorcycle, and renovating a basement no one had been in, in what looks like a decade or two, so i can run my business out of it.

so yes, at the moment and the foreseeable future, i cannot afford $100+ for some little plastic toy soldiers. maybe once my old house is sold i can, but most of that money will be put into investments and savings as a safety net. i got a helluva deal on this house, my 1200sq ft starter home will sell for more than i bought this house for. thank god the therapist who used this for her office neglected the feth out of the place.

And you must live in a tiny ass village if people can afford to spend 10k on marina fees, making only 75k/year.
My large town is pretty cheap, and people around here can’t afford that gak on 75k/year. Even on 100k/year that’s not really feasible. Spending 10% or more of your salary on marina fees is irresponsible. In San Francisco for example the poverty line is roughly $80k/year
Many of the cities where most of our population lives has a poverty line at around 30-40k/year.

https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/poverty-san-francisco

johnpjones1775 wrote:
$138 plus tax. yes, because like your friends, i too enjoy shooting. though not with a $5k AR, with a $1200 AR, a $2k M1A...the rest of my guns don't reach that level of cost, but feeding them is expensive.

Cool, thanks for admitting your dishonesty here. There's a huge difference between "I can't afford $138 to be able to play my army" and "I choose not to buy more guardsmen because I'd rather spend the money on my guns". You could easily afford to buy the models required to take platoons, you simply choose not to do so. Which is fine, that's your choice. But don't expect much sympathy for your self-inflicted financial limits when we're discussing a change that would be a major buff for the rest of us.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
$138 plus tax. yes, because like your friends, i too enjoy shooting. though not with a $5k AR, with a $1200 AR, a $2k M1A...the rest of my guns don't reach that level of cost, but feeding them is expensive.

Cool, thanks for admitting your dishonesty here. There's a huge difference between "I can't afford $138 to be able to play my army" and "I choose not to buy more guardsmen because I'd rather spend the money on my guns". You could easily afford to buy the models required to take platoons, you simply choose not to do so. Which is fine, that's your choice. But don't expect much sympathy for your self-inflicted financial limits when we're discussing a change that would be a major buff for the rest of us.

No dishonesty here.
I have multiple hobbies.
I can’t afford to suddenly expand my army to have a legal force on a moment’s notice unless I give up something else, or spend my safety net money irresponsibly.

If you have to cut back in one or more areas, to have the money to do something, then you can’t actually afford to do that thing.

Your posts however do show just how insulated from what most people in America experience when it comes to life, thinking that spending 10% or more of your annual income on a marina slip is something most middle class people do.
Also luxury items, even the high end luxury items don’t have to be only available to billionaires. Plenty of luxury items are in the hands of non-billionaires.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can build a new SM army from scratch for $145 before taxes.
Why would a new person invest in the guard when it’s half the cost to start other armies?
Players who might like to start guard as a second or third army, will likely choose not to, if it costs $300+ to do so.

That all results in fewer people spending money on the faction, which results in less and less support of the faction.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
No dishonesty here.

It's absolutely dishonesty. You tried to pull the "poor me" act about how you can't afford to use platoons, millennials have no money after paying for rent, etc. And then it turns out the only reason you can't afford to buy those platoons is that you have thousands of dollars worth of guns and would rather spend your money at the range.

If you have to cut back in one or more areas, to have the money to do something, then you can’t actually afford to do that thing.

Not when "cutting back" means "decide to buy 40k instead of going to the range this weekend", not making any actual financial sacrifices. Otherwise you also can't afford your gun hobby, since you can't have the money for your range trip without cutting back on your 40k spending.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I can build a new SM army from scratch for $145 before taxes.

Maybe by the strictest technical definition of "army". You sure as hell won't be buying a complete army suitable for normal games for that price.

Why would a new person invest in the guard when it’s half the cost to start other armies?

Because cost isn't the only thing that matters and people tend to buy the army they think is cool, not the army with a starter set that costs $10 less.

And of course this has nothing to do with platoons. The cost to play IG is higher because the units are cheaper and that isn't going to change, having to take a full platoon to fill a troops slot is irrelevant when you'd still have to spend the same money on units other than infantry squads if you didn't.

So, I just want to say, this discussion between CadianSgtBob and johnpjones1775 is the single most hilarious thing I have read on this entire site so far. I'm fookin' dying from laughter .

 AtoMaki wrote:
So, I just want to say, this discussion between CadianSgtBob and johnpjones1775 is the single most hilarious thing I have read on this entire site so far. I'm fookin' dying from laughter .

yeah I realized it got very 2002 so I just went to bed.

Still depressing how some people want to price other people out of the army for no reason.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Still depressing how some people want to price other people out of the army for no reason.

What part of "platoons are a major buff" do you still not understand? It is not pricing people out for no reason, it's "pricing out" one person who just kind of prefers to buy guns instead of 40k models to give a huge buff to everyone else.

Could someone refresh me what the minimum platoon was again? Would the difference really be that significant when building a minimal sized battalion? Would it be relevant at all when building a 2000 points army?

That's not meant offensive I just struggle to follow the argumentation here

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Could someone refresh me what the minimum platoon was again? Would the difference really be that significant when building a minimal sized battalion? Would it be relevant at all when building a 2000 points army?

That's not meant offensive I just struggle to follow the argumentation here

Mandatory:
Command squad (officer + 4 models)
Infantry squad x2 (10 models each)

Optional:
Infantry squad x3
HWS x5 (3 models each)
SWS x2 (6 models each)
Conscripts x1 (20-50 models each)

So in practice the minimum requirement means nothing since virtually every list is taking 6+ infantry squads (or their equivalent in conscripts) at 2000 points to have enough screening and obsec bodies on the table. It's a straight buff because it allows you to fit a bunch of units into a single troops slot and avoid having to pay CP for more detachments to get enough bodies on the table and makes HWS/SWS obsec troops. Johnpjones1775 just has a very specific list and thinks that "I have a budget of $0 because I want to buy guns instead of 40k models" matters more than anything else.

Also note that in 5th you could take veteran squads as troops, so you weren't even required to fill your mandatory slots with platoons.

There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

If gun ownership sickens and disgusts you that's definitely a personal problem.

Hecaton wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

If gun ownership sickens and disgusts you that's definitely a personal problem.

No, it's that the second person doesn't actually understand what it means to not be able to afford 40k, let alone food. They conflate their situation with the first one. That's what sickens me. Hubris. Wealth privilege and wealth inequality.

I want to be able to afford $60 for a recruit starter, it would be amazing, I'd just keep getting them. But we literally can't afford food. I have had to sell all the 40k I'd collected in my youth just to feed us, barring my Necrons, which are all 3rd Ed because, as mentioned, I literally can't afford anything.

The person choosing guns over 40k has tons of money, they're choosing where it goes. The two situations are not equivalent.

I've had people on this very board tell me that 40k isn't for people like me (disabled, poor). Multiple people. THAT'S what I hate about the "I can't spend $100 on 40k so I can spend thousands on X" view.

It's definitely not the same as playing on a table (even if I've only ever played with paper circles and rectangles when I did play on a table), but, personally, I've been having a good time playing on tabletop simulator, especially as I've been getting into 3D modeling as a result. Big bonus, we can save our game and pick it up another day.

If you have a laptop or desktop, TTS isn't horribly expensive (although it's not free) and there's a lot of existing models available and Blender (for 3D modeling) is free (and has an absolutely insanely big community as well) if you want to dip your toes into digital kitbashing or modeling from scratch (or a combination of the two, which is what I've been doing)

We've started playing 8-12/side PL games on 22x30 boards because that's what we can fit on the bed with us when I can't move.

It's not much, but it scratches the itch.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Mandatory:
Command squad (officer + 4 models)
Infantry squad x2 (10 models each)

Optional:
Infantry squad x3
HWS x5 (3 models each)
SWS x2 (6 models each)
Conscripts x1 (20-50 models each)

That's 5th - 7th.

Prior to that it was just this.

Mandatory:
Command squad (officer + 4 models)
Infantry squad x2 (10 models each)

Optional:
Infantry squad x3

Jarms48 wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Mandatory:
Command squad (officer + 4 models)
Infantry squad x2 (10 models each)

Optional:
Infantry squad x3
HWS x5 (3 models each)
SWS x2 (6 models each)
Conscripts x1 (20-50 models each)

That's 5th - 7th.

Prior to that it was just this.

Mandatory:
Command squad (officer + 4 models)
Infantry squad x2 (10 models each)

Optional:
Infantry squad x3

Ya, when we started in 4th, we played against a guardsman now and then...damn, looking back, he had a baneblade. Floorhammer was how we rolled, his tanks had range, but Necrons just didn't die.

 Blndmage wrote:
There's a huge difference between "I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I literally can't afford food each month, and can't afford my medications, so am in too much pain to play even if I have the energy" *raises hand*
Vs
"I can't afford to spend money on 40k because I'd rather play with guns"

The second person there sickens and disgusts me. You cannot conflate the two.

I am not conflating anything.
I never once said the too are the same nor did I ever even imply it.
If you have to cut hobby Y long term to afford hobby X without creating financial risk, then you can’t afford hobby X.
It’s pretty simple.
Could I make changes? Yes. Would my gf be annoyed or upset at those changes? Most likely.

Take a chill pill and put your insecurities away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Could someone refresh me what the minimum platoon was again? Would the difference really be that significant when building a minimal sized battalion? Would it be relevant at all when building a 2000 points army?

That's not meant offensive I just struggle to follow the argumentation here

For long time players, it’s not much of an issue.
For players who haven’t been playing the faction long, and people looking too start the faction, it creates a barrier of over $300 before you can build the most basic legal army.
For a lot of people that’s a year or more of investment, especially once you include codex, paint supplies, etc thrown in for brand new people.

Now minimum army is 1 officer, and 2 infantry squads.
In the platoon format it requires 3 command squads, and 4 infantry squads.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
If you have to cut hobby Y long term to afford hobby X without creating financial risk, then you can’t afford hobby X.

Cutting a single day at the range is not "cutting hobby Y long term". You can not credibly argue that $150 is an impossible burden when you're spending thousands of dollars on your gun hobby.

For players who haven’t been playing the faction long, and people looking too start the faction, it creates a barrier of over $300 before you can build the most basic legal army.

That's incredibly dishonest and you know it. Nobody is playing a bare minimum 100 point army with one officer and one infantry squad even though that's technically the smallest legal patrol detachment. Once you start buying a 500 point army (growing to 2000 points) you're spending about the same amount of money whether or not platoons exist. If you don't have to take that second infantry squad to fill the platoon you still have to buy 60 points worth of models to replace it. And once you start building a normal 2000 point army you're going to have 6+ infantry squads anyway because you need screening and obsec bodies.