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.

Price depends where you are in the world.
New Zealand its $98
USA its $60
UK its £35

 emanuelb wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


Now, the flip side is that nobody but GW could get away with some of the absurd pricing. Ad Mech chicken walkers at $60 each? GTFO. But gW can get away with it, because nobody else has figured out how to get people to not only buy one of those for $60, but to buy a half dozen or more because they're good in the game.

But GW so outclasses nearly all other wargames miniatures manufacturers that even when you can go apples to apples, there's always a "yeah, but GW is so much better" argument to be made.

I asume you are talking about the Sydonian Dragoon? - https://www.games-workshop.com/en-EU/Sydonian-Dragoon-2017

First of all, it is not 60$. Especially not at the local/online store.

I mean, it is $60. Yes, I can get 15% off, and yes, it's dramatically cheaper in Euros, and cheaper still in Sterling. But the MSRP on that bad boy is sixty bucks.

Second, the model is simply amazing. It is huge, it looks outstanding, and you get a ton of extra bits to customize it however you want, make it a Dragoon or a Balistarii, different type of weapons, etc. I do not feel at all robbed for what I payed, in fact I'm gonna buy another one because how good it looks.
And this is my experience with GW so far - I get enough content from their boxes that I feel their prices are fair (for the hobby, at least) - both in term of quantity and quality. Maybe fair is not the right word, but I never felt cheated when buying GW, even when I bought characters - like Tigurius for example - the amount of extra bits, extra options for anything, the quality of the mini, all makes it a worthy purchase for me.

I am not sure if you are disagreeing with me, or just making a follow up point. I was using this as an example of a model that's excessively priced, but is still bought, which is something that not a lot of manufacturers can do.

Granted, I live in Europe, so maybe the prices are cheaper here for warhammer, but I disagree with the model being excessively priced.

I play other games and I bought minis for Warmachine, Bushido, Armada, Conquest. My experience in general is that, at best, other manufacturer's models might be slightly cheaper - in the case of Sydonian Dragoon, maybe 10$ less.
But if you take into consideration other factors, like the size of the models (GWs are usually bigger), the details, extra options, then I think it totally makes up for the extra price.
And let's not forget the quality of life difference: GWs models are the only ones that comes with instructions how to build - maybe a small thing, but boy sometimes is annoying searching the net and watching videos so you can assemble your model. Just put a small flyer so I know how to assemble. Then comes the quality of the plastic, easy to clean and easy to glue with plastic glue.

My point is, coming into this hobby fairly recently, everybody was saying how Warhammer is soo expensive. And yes, it is, but once you compare with the competition, not anymore.
The prices are on average fairly similar, but the quality is notable better. I don't know, I feel GW gets a lot of unfair hate. I have my own issues with Warhammer, it is far from perfect, but price is not one of the problems.

The only significant price difference I've seen is for historicals. I can buy boxes of very cheap soldiers from Zvezda or Italeri, and they are indeed significantly cheaper than WArhammer. But scale aside, you are getting what you pay for.

The prices aren’t fairly similar outside of Europe/UK, though. That’s a significant issue.

 emanuelb wrote:
I don't know, I feel GW gets a lot of unfair hate

the hate comes not from a "per model" perspective but how much you nee to pay to play that game

this is also the difference between the "Warhammer Hobby" and the "Wargaming Hobby", as the former you look at single models that look cool, and you look at the price per model, for the later people look at the price per game
hence it does not matter of a single Space Marine is similar priced to other single models, if you pay 3-4 times the amount to play the game

same as the details and quality of a single model does not matter a lot if you need 100 of them

there is a reason why models for Rank&File games are different in price, quality and options, than those made for Skirmish games, because you simply don't need to have the perfect detailed model that cost 5€ if it is never seen in detail again because it will stand in the middle of a unit of 30 others

there is a difference if you just play with 24 models in total, than you want 24 different models, non being duplicated, everyone being detailed and good looking and the higher price of 5-10€ is ok
but if you play with "armies" with 10 units were each unit has 24 models it is not important that there are no duplicates, or they are highly detailed and have options (outside the command models in the front rank) and you definitely don't want to pay 5-10€ per models to get things you don't need

in the first case you pay 120-240€ for the "army" and get the quality appropriate for the game size, for the 2nd example you also pay 120-240€ for the army and get appropriate quality for the game size

And this is were the hate for GW comes from, because they sell the models for the first case and write their rules for the 2nd case and the combination of high per model price and needing a lots of them makes it expensive

of course, if you just collect models and don't play, this is different and GW also focus on this market, so you actually buy display models as gaming pieces and their marketing is that good that most people think you "need" display model quality to play

PS: just as an example, Perry Miniatures are considered the top brand for historical wargaming with many people use their models for humans in fantasy as well
their models are 0,5€ per model for Infantry and 2€ for Cavalry, yet comparing them model by model to GW, you would consider the quality and design abysmal or worse
yet because they make models for games were you have 24-36 models per unit, they are considered the best quality available for that type of game because the have the quality needed too look good on the table within a unit and it doesn't matter that the single model is not perfect

On prices across companies? Brace yourself for what might, at first, seem like a hot take. But I promise that if you stick with this post, and I explain myself well, this will at least provide food for thought.

Ready?

GW’s pricing model is beneficial for other companies, and may be the key to others being profitable

In short, my rationale is thus.

1. GW do have high prices.
2. GW are the market leader. The biggest fish in the pond by some margin.
3. A common, near universal approach for a new game is “just be cheaper per model or more affordable for a force than GW”.

If GW lowered their prices, and ran on a lesser profit margin (check their financials for accurate info. It’s not what some claim, but still healthy), then would-be competitors may not be able to get their feet under them. I say that as if prices were much of a muchness, a particular “why not give us a whirl” route is closed off.

And with GW’s recent successes, other companies can point to that info to try to persuade outside investors the industry does have significant money behind it. How significant? GW brings in more money than the entire British Fishing Industry.

Right. There you go. A claim, seemingly a wild and spicy meataball of a claim, which perhaps isn’t as spicy as labelled.

if you GW would lower their prices and start selling plastic bits (like the HH weapon boxes), the whole 3D printing market would die over night as the main justification is that you get the design for less

the only reason to buy a 3D printed copy of a Land Raider (or buy the files and a printer) is that you are cheaper than going with the original in plastic

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On prices across companies? Brace yourself for what might, at first, seem like a hot take.

GW’s pricing model is beneficial for other companies, and may be the key to others being profitable

In short, my rationale is thus.

1. GW do have high prices.
2. GW are the market leader. The biggest fish in the pond by some margin.
3. A common, near universal approach for a new game is “just be cheaper per model or more affordable for a force than GW”.

If GW lowered their prices, and ran on a lesser profit margin (check their financials for accurate info. It’s not what some claim, but still healthy), then would-be competitors may not be able to get their feet under them. I say that as if prices were much of a muchness, a particular “why not give us a whirl” route is closed off.

And with GW’s recent successes, other companies can point to that info to try to persuade outside investors the industry does have significant money behind it. How significant? GW brings in more money than the entire British Fishing Industry.

Right. There you go. A claim, seemingly a wild and spicy meataball of a claim, which perhaps isn’t as spicy as labelled.

I don't know if that's a particularly hot take. Definitely well-reasoned though and I completely agree. Whether a company like WGA selling IG-proxies, or a company like Mantic that has been able to tick their prices slowly upward, the high-ceiling of GW pricing does leave an ample margin for companies operating below.

 kodos wrote:
if you GW would lower their prices and start selling plastic bits (like the HH weapon boxes), the whole 3D printing market would die over night as the main justification is that you get the design for less

the only reason to buy a 3D printed copy of a Land Raider (or buy the files and a printer) is that you are cheaper than going with the original in plastic

GW would have to lower thier prices by a fantastical amount for thier Land Raider (etc) to compete price wise with a 3d print copy.
It won't happen.
It can't happen.

Nor will the 3d print market die. Not overnight nor over time.

 emanuelb wrote:
Granted, I live in Europe, so maybe the prices are cheaper here for warhammer, but I disagree with the model being excessively priced.

Yeah, I use the Dragoon as a sort of shorthand for a point I should have made clearer. For starters, GW prices are bad for anybody not on the Pound, and generally the further away from the UK you get, the worse the exchange gets. Euros aren't too bad, USD is worse, and Aussies and Kiwis get abused pretty bad. The dragoon is current 35 pounds, and I'd buy them all day at $40USD.

Teh bigger point is that of course GW models are high quality, with lots of optional parts, great instructions, and good support with painting videos. What makes GW unique isn't being able to see one Dragoon for$60. After all, Gunpla sells for a lot, and people buy dumber stuff for more money.

What chaps my particular ass, and I don't think I'm alone, is that the Dragoon isn't something you buy one of. They're buyable in units of up to six, and at various times in 8th and 9th full bricks of six were very potent in the game. For me, it's not spending $60 on one really cool model that bothers me, it's looking at spending $360 for a unit of of them. And then realizing that you built them as Dragoons, but the Ballistarii are now much stronger.

But I was cherry picking arguably one of the worst examples of GW's pricing to really make the broader point, which is that if you avoid the incredibly pricy models/armies, GW is, IMO, a pretty decent value for the money compared to most "Adult" hobbies.

 kodos wrote:

 emanuelb wrote:
I don't know, I feel GW gets a lot of unfair hate

the hate comes not from a "per model" perspective but how much you nee to pay to play that game

this is also the difference between the "Warhammer Hobby" and the "Wargaming Hobby", as the former you look at single models that look cool, and you look at the price per model, for the later people look at the price per game
hence it does not matter of a single Space Marine is similar priced to other single models, if you pay 3-4 times the amount to play the game

same as the details and quality of a single model does not matter a lot if you need 100 of them

there is a reason why models for Rank&File games are different in price, quality and options, than those made for Skirmish games, because you simply don't need to have the perfect detailed model that cost 5€ if it is never seen in detail again because it will stand in the middle of a unit of 30 others

there is a difference if you just play with 24 models in total, than you want 24 different models, non being duplicated, everyone being detailed and good looking and the higher price of 5-10€ is ok
but if you play with "armies" with 10 units were each unit has 24 models it is not important that there are no duplicates, or they are highly detailed and have options (outside the command models in the front rank) and you definitely don't want to pay 5-10€ per models to get things you don't need

in the first case you pay 120-240€ for the "army" and get the quality appropriate for the game size, for the 2nd example you also pay 120-240€ for the army and get appropriate quality for the game size

And this is were the hate for GW comes from, because they sell the models for the first case and write their rules for the 2nd case and the combination of high per model price and needing a lots of them makes it expensive

of course, if you just collect models and don't play, this is different and GW also focus on this market, so you actually buy display models as gaming pieces and their marketing is that good that most people think you "need" display model quality to play

PS: just as an example, Perry Miniatures are considered the top brand for historical wargaming with many people use their models for humans in fantasy as well
their models are 0,5€ per model for Infantry and 2€ for Cavalry, yet comparing them model by model to GW, you would consider the quality and design abysmal or worse
yet because they make models for games were you have 24-36 models per unit, they are considered the best quality available for that type of game because the have the quality needed too look good on the table within a unit and it doesn't matter that the single model is not perfect

I have to say I haven't thought from this angle. I'm used to people complaining that you need a lot of models for 40k, which makes the game expensive, to which I reply - well, this is a wargame, you need lots of models for wargames. Same as any other mass battle game.

Still, I do have an issue with your reasoning. Why do people play Warhammer primarily? I don't think it's for the rules. While I believe the curent edition it is actually very solid, I don't think the rules are the strongest point for warhammer. So if I'm primarily interested in a game, why choose warhammer? There are games with better rules out there. I think most people are drawn to 40k because of the quality of the models (and the lore) - so if say, GW was to lower their prices and also lower the quality of the models, I wonder if anybody would still play the game.

 Polonius wrote:


What chaps my particular ass, and I don't think I'm alone, is that the Dragoon isn't something you buy one of. They're buyable in units of up to six, and at various times in 8th and 9th full bricks of six were very potent in the game. For me, it's not spending $60 on one really cool model that bothers me, it's looking at spending $360 for a unit of of them. And then realizing that you built them as Dragoons, but the Ballistarii are now much stronger.

True, if you play competitive, the price for the game goes way up, esp. since many of their discount boxes don't contain optimal units. I'm also a gamer and I play 40k, but I'm not very competitive, so I'm not affected that much - I like Sydonian Dragoon, I buy one and include it in my army. But at top level you do need full bricks of Balistarii for Addmech, and that add the price quite a lot, esp. since this unit is a bad deal in term of points per $ (I believe is around 70~ points).

 emanuelb wrote:
Still, I do have an issue with your reasoning. Why do people play Warhammer primarily? I don't think it's for the rules. While I believe the curent edition it is actually very solid, I don't think the rules are the strongest point for warhammer. So if I'm primarily interested in a game, why choose warhammer? There are games with better rules out there. I think most people are drawn to 40k because of the quality of the models (and the lore) - so if say, GW was to lower their prices and also lower the quality of the models, I wonder if anybody would still play the game.

Most people play 40k because most people play 40k
it is the game played and if you want to do certain things and not just play at home with 1-2 friends, it is 40k

playing the game just for the models, well you can play most of the games out there with GW models. 90% of the games on the market (including 40k) are model agnostic games (as the rules and models are independent from each other), no need to play a bad game because you like those models

the other point is, if people would play 40k for the models only, there would not be such a large 3rd party market to offer alternatives of lower price/quality
there are more people using non-GW models to play 40k, than going with GW models in other games, hence it must be the rules not the models

so the main reason 40k is the game played is because it has such a large player base and offers the best possibilities to get a game done
same reason why specific sports are played in areas not matter if people like it or not (for example Tennis is the sport the company I work for, they have it as social event and offer all the possibilities to do so, and there are a lot of people who would like to play something different, but than you have to organise and pay it all on your own and while you can always find someone to play Tennis in the companies sports hall, trying to get a 4 vs 4 soccer game at a regular basis is nearly impossible and people just play Tennis instead)

40K also has a wide mix of aesthetics.

Consider something with a strong but singular design ethos, such as Warmahordes.

Great if you like that, not great if you don’t like that. For what it’s worth I’m in the latter camp. Not a big fan of Steampunk at the best of times, and even less so it’s chosen exaggerations.

40K however? Everything has its own internal design language. So whether playing or just collecting, GW have cast their net wider than others in terms of visual appeal. And rules be damned. You want to be a successful wargame, visual appeal is a significant part of that, unless you’re Just Offering A Rule Set of course!

To mildly build on my previous post, GW is also setting benchmarks in terms of kits. We’re spoiled with plastics (easy to assemble, easy to convert, even if Bitz aren’t as easy to come by as they once were), and for the most part, pretty ready supply.

Compare the supply side in particular. I know I can get my grubby mitts on a given kit pretty quickly. And even where it’s sold out, its typically a couple of weeks rather than months to get it back in stock. X-Wing? Hahahaha no. Warmahordes basically no longer exists in the U.K.

In short, you can have the objectively best rules and objectively best models. But….if nothing is actually on sale, or worse, your market is flooded with Scalpers? You’re pretty much screwed.

 emanuelb wrote:
Why do people play Warhammer primarily?

It's probably because it's everywhere. Go to most FLGS and it's there. It's not just there, it's probably the biggest single section of the store barring comics and CCGs. This makes it really easy to find groups and pick-up games anywhere there's an FLGS.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Warmahordes basically no longer exists in the U.K.

Elementgames and waylandgames both have Warmachine.

But I agree that availability is very important for a game. I live in Romania, and if I want to buy some Warmachine, I have to import it from Germany (extra shipping) or even UK (extra vat tax). Same for Malifaux, Infinity. But Warhammer? There are multiple romanian stores that have the whole range, free shipping, easy to handle, POD, etc. Much easier to get into.

Firestorm Games also have generally good stocks. That said the old stuff (MK1-3) is almost all gone from a lot of places in the UK. The MKIV is appearing but its going to hit that issue of being very high priced.

In terms of models I am happy enough with GW though I do bargain hunt. I haven't bought a sealed kit that wasn't at least discounted the 15% you can get.

In terms of books however I have no real interest in picking up a codex or any supplement/chapter approved becaue there really isn't a lot of value that I have found so I source my 40k rules elsewhere. They got my book money in 8th and after a few too many books became obsolete a bit too soon for me I decided to source my rules from elsewhere for this edition. I have only 2 9th books, and I am fine with that as it seems 10th is on its way anyway.

Yes, that's one of my biggest issues with 40k. You need to buy the core book, then the codex (for each army), then, if you play marines, a supplement, then other supplements/campaigns/ other places where the rules for your army might be scattered. Then a new edition comes out, and we're doing it all over again. Every 3 years a new edition is overkill.

 kodos wrote:
if you GW would lower their prices and start selling plastic bits (like the HH weapon boxes), the whole 3D printing market would die over night as the main justification is that you get the design for less

the only reason to buy a 3D printed copy of a Land Raider (or buy the files and a printer) is that you are cheaper than going with the original in plastic

No it isn't. Its an important reason, but there are a lot of awesome variants out there, especially in the vehicle field, that can slot easily into 40k unit types. Aesthetics of the specific model, personalisation, wanting to field a different and impressive model for a bit of wow factor. All valid reasons to 3D print a model.

3D printing is like pre-kitbashing, when you can manufacture the precise and awesome looking bit, rather than having to assemble it from other parts, or scratch build it.

And paper printers will die out of GW lowers the cost of codexes

 Flinty wrote:

 kodos wrote:
if you GW would lower their prices and start selling plastic bits (like the HH weapon boxes), the whole 3D printing market would die over night as the main justification is that you get the design for less

the only reason to buy a 3D printed copy of a Land Raider (or buy the files and a printer) is that you are cheaper than going with the original in plastic

No it isn't. Its an important reason, but there are a lot of awesome variants out there, especially in the vehicle field, that can slot easily into 40k unit types. Aesthetics of the specific model, personalisation, wanting to field a different and impressive model for a bit of wow factor. All valid reasons to 3D print a model.

3D printing is like pre-kitbashing, when you can manufacture the precise and awesome looking bit, rather than having to assemble it from other parts, or scratch build it.

it is, yet the money is made with the 1:1 copies, specially on the vehicle side

*citation needed.

 emanuelb wrote:
Yes, that's one of my biggest issues with 40k. You need to buy the core book, then the codex (for each army), then, if you play marines, a supplement, then other supplements/campaigns/ other places where the rules for your army might be scattered. Then a new edition comes out, and we're doing it all over again. Every 3 years a new edition is overkill.

Yep. I would like to see edition churn be more in the 5-6 year range. I think that would be fine as they are already adding on a 6 month tournament tax with the chapter approveds. Not that they will listen tome, and I am sure they have smarter people than myself advising them on what they can get away with. Which is fine, but I will sources my rules elsewhere. Pick up the occasional codex? Sure. But this edition I only have the core book (due to indomitus) and the admech codex which I got specifically because it was fairly new (get a decent 2+ years out of it) and it was easier for the crusade my group was running.

I think GW will have to shift to 5-6 year. Horus Heresy, Old World, AoS, 40K, Necromunda, AT not to mention Warcry and Underworlds.

It's too many games getting too many updates too fast on the 3 year rotation. Esp if GW wants customers to remain within their ecosystem. Throw expansion books on top and GW is running a risk that their desire to maximise profits off established gamers through expansion books and fast new editions is going to backfire and people will end up drifting away

 kodos wrote:

Perry Miniatures are considered the top brand for historical wargaming with many people use their models for humans in fantasy as well
their models are 0,5€ per model for Infantry and 2€ for Cavalry, yet comparing them model by model to GW, you would consider the quality and design abysmal or worse
yet because they make models for games were you have 24-36 models per unit, they are considered the best quality available for that type of game because the have the quality needed too look good on the table within a unit and it doesn't matter that the single model is not perfect

Hold on.
In what universe are Perry miniatures "Abysmal or Worse" compared to GW?!?

Perry miniatures are excellent figures. Exaggerated features, a plethora of skulls and needless filigree do not a better miniature make.

Compare a Perry infantry or Cavalry to a GW LOTR infantry or Cavalry (the nearest equivalent) and you'll find a rather comparable product.

Some were even sculpted by the Perry's, IIRC.

The fact that no one else has challenged your assertion suggests that GW has done an excellent job of selling us a very specific and skewed idea of what a "good" miniature is.

 Eilif wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Perry Miniatures are considered the top brand for historical wargaming with many people use their models for humans in fantasy as well
their models are 0,5€ per model for Infantry and 2€ for Cavalry, yet comparing them model by model to GW, you would consider the quality and design abysmal or worse
yet because they make models for games were you have 24-36 models per unit, they are considered the best quality available for that type of game because the have the quality needed too look good on the table within a unit and it doesn't matter that the single model is not perfect

Hold on.
In what universe are Perry miniatures "Abysmal or Worse" compared to GW?!?

Perry miniatures are excellent figures. Exaggerated features, a plethora of skulls and needless filigree do not a better miniature make.

Compare a Perry infantry or Cavalry to a GW LOTR infantry or Cavalry (the nearest equivalent) and you'll find a rather comparable product.

Some were even sculpted by the Perry's, IIRC.

The fact that no one else has challenged your assertion suggests that GW has done an excellent job of selling us a very specific and skewed idea of what a "good" miniature is.

No, it's just not worth the effort to try & disabuse people of thier opinions on what a decent mini is/isn't.

Perry's Miniatures are great. I've also been looking at a bunch of viking minis, and came across plastic minis that were a bit over $1 per mini, and they looked good. Looking at the price of Space Marines makes me glad that I prefer Mechanicus. I wanted a Devastator Squad, but $26 a mini is a bit much, even if they look good.

Alternatively, I love Skaven, and I can easily get 20 minis for $40, so $2 a mini. Games Workshop can be really well priced, but then you get Flayed Ones who come in a box of 5 for $55.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
God, Skaven would be so much cheaper in England. It's like $10 cheaper per box.

 Eilif wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Perry Miniatures are considered the top brand for historical wargaming with many people use their models for humans in fantasy as well
their models are 0,5€ per model for Infantry and 2€ for Cavalry, yet comparing them model by model to GW, you would consider the quality and design abysmal or worse
yet because they make models for games were you have 24-36 models per unit, they are considered the best quality available for that type of game because the have the quality needed too look good on the table within a unit and it doesn't matter that the single model is not perfect

Hold on.
In what universe are Perry miniatures "Abysmal or Worse" compared to GW?!?

Perry miniatures are excellent figures. Exaggerated features, a plethora of skulls and needless filigree do not a better miniature make.

Compare a Perry infantry or Cavalry to a GW LOTR infantry or Cavalry (the nearest equivalent) and you'll find a rather comparable product.

Some were even sculpted by the Perry's, IIRC.

The fact that no one else has challenged your assertion suggests that GW has done an excellent job of selling us a very specific and skewed idea of what a "good" miniature is.

Comparing historical minis with fantasy/sf ones is always difficult. I have to say that I am quite impressed with perry's minis - if I was playing historicals.

Looking at their medieval cavalry, they are really nice: https://www.perry-miniatures.com/product/ao-70-agincourt-mounted-knights-1415/

But then, you have:

- https://www.games-workshop.com/en-EU/Chaos-Knights-2016

- https://www.games-workshop.com/en-EU/Start-Collecting-Slaves-To-Darkness-2019

- https://www.games-workshop.com/en-EU/Varanguard-Knights-of-Ruin

These are Victrix Vikings, they come 60 to a box and they're definitely better miniatures in any technical aspect than their nearest GW equivalent (LotR Rohan)

comparing new Victrix to 20 year old Perry is unfair for the Perry's as things were different when they made the LotR stuff

yet looking at Victrix Miniatures that are similar old, well "those were cheap" was only good thing you would have heard from them and people still avoid the Napoleonic French from them because of that (though they have re-done them in between)

 Eilif wrote:
Hold on.
In what universe are Perry miniatures "Abysmal or Worse" compared to GW?!?

I have both on the table, at the moment though it is Sigmarines and 1804-12 French Infantry, and you get all the negative points people you get for non-GW models

Mould lines across the face, soft details on the site, limited options, hard to clean lines over details, fixed bases, no instructions, no dynamic poses
those are still good Miniatures that look great in Mass Formation, but when people talk about why GW is the best on the market and why you must pay 5€ per model and why only the perfect models are worth gaming with (specially something that is ok in Mass Formation is not good enough)

read the argument why other manufacturers are not as good as GW and GW is still worth the price because you get the better quality, compared to the Perry Models those not even close on the individual model but what they do is they are great for the task and way cheaper than anything from GW

and you have similar with Victrix, a GW Fanboy will throw them in the pin, together with Perry and Mantic, simply because they are gaming pieces and not up to the display model standard GW Marketing tells them they need to play games

I don't think the Perry Minis are bad, they are just not as good as GW and never will (there is a reason the GW models are made like a scale model kit, and not like perry ones a solid piece, you just can't get the level of detail that way)
yet the problem is that GW is selling you unnecessary high detail/quality on individual models to justify the high price for gaming and therefore great models that are good for gaming will be rejected because they are not display models

that said, GW is not worth the price for gaming, it is worth the price for display/diorama but not for gaming not matter how good the quality is and how good marketing tells people that this must be the minimum

 Eilif wrote:

Compare a Perry infantry or Cavalry to a GW LOTR infantry or Cavalry (the nearest equivalent) and you'll find a rather comparable product.
Some were even sculpted by the Perry's, IIRC.

Most of them were made by the Perrys hence they were not allowed to make any Fantasy thing after they left GW
yet the difference between both is casting technology and the LotR models show their age, same as some of the very first perry kits

that the Perry models have a great reputation rather comes from the fact that there are no 1:1 comparisons and people in the GW bubble don't buy historical models

Eilif wrote:The fact that no one else has challenged your assertion suggests that GW has done an excellent job of selling us a very specific and skewed idea of what a "good" miniature is.

which is exactly my point, GWs marketing tells you what you "need" for gaming and anything less is not acceptable, and this also plays in the hand of some influencers that show the perfect models of instagram were a 100€ worth paintjob is "the minimum you need to play the game"
and nobody questions why you "need" special equipment to make pictures, only the most expensive paints are the minimum starting point and so on
just look at what the "average" gaming model from GW looks like on the web compared to the historical models, were the big difference is that the one is a model, the other one an army and for an army, not every single model needs to be perfect

and someone having an army done, should at least get the same respect as someone painting great single models (no matter if the individual in the army does not look good)

everything is going around the perfect model with the perfect paint job and therefore it is worth the high price, so you don't question if anything of it
and here Perry and Victrix are just lucky that they don't make anything that is a 1:1 replacement for GW, but make different models for a different market outside the "need to be perfect, price does not matter" GW bubble

TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Alternatively, I love Skaven, and I can easily get 20 minis for $40, so $2 a mini. Games Workshop can be really well priced,

given that those are the old core box miniatures, they are still overpriced for what you get (had them here and sold them off again and got the Mantic ones instead)