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.

VAYASEN wrote:
What is the deal with Adeptus Titanicus Warlord Titans and Knights etc?

I cant seem to find any and was thinking about buying a few to get started(never played/bought AT)

Probably repackaging them as well as changing the bases for the thinner LI ones.

 gorgon wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:
The worst part about this delay is that we're waiting on two games instead of just one; nothing on the Titanicus front whatsoever.

Yeah, I'm not expecting anything new for AT in the short term (maybe new Titans down the road as a dual release), but it'd be nice if the kits were available...

We already know we're getting new plastic warehouse weapons though?

Also iirc plastic dire Wolves or whatever

VAYASEN wrote:

It just makes me sad when I remember how much stuff came on the sprues for old Epic 'Space Marine' 2nd edition. I recall boxes like this-- 120 marines and 12 Land Raiders...

Inflation is a bitch. But let's also remember these old miniatures were basically monoposes, obviously smaller and the vehicles were hollow. Ah, and that at this time, plastic was basically seen as the miracle material (cheap to produce, easy for modelism) and not the polluting nightmare mess with significanty increased prices nowadays.

Chopstick wrote:
I'm surprised they had this many units left to reveal while the might be plastic armiger and mechanicum knights are no where to be seen.

This is probably the biggest investment GW has put into a launch side games for Specialist team, even more than side games from the warhammer team.

Not really. It's just that Warhammer Community has committed to a specific day in the week for HH "reveals", so they had to stick to it and put something new everytime.

The delay for release is simply an unfortunate situation. I expect people will be "angry" when they'll realize not everything showed so far will be actually for sale at the delayed release date.

I must have missed were we see the multipose, not-hollow models
going with a different scale is a choice and not a reason

and plastic is still the cheap to produce material compared to metal or resin

 kodos wrote:
I must have missed were we see the multipose, not-hollow models
going with a different scale is a choice and not a reason

and plastic is still the cheap to produce material compared to metal or resin

I think they meant monopose as in all the models have exactly the same pose. We know the new ones have a variety of poses. What impact his has on cost I have no idea.

Cheap is a relative term, I don’t think anyone should be surprised that this is more expensive than old epic, there are decades in inflation and production, warehousing costs etc between them. The cost will also reflect that this is a side game, not a mass game where they will sell the same volumes as 40K kits. So many people, like me will be put off because of the 30k setting so numbers of players will be lower. There fore sales lower, so kits will cost more to make back the investments in time and moulds etc.

Sarouan wrote:

VAYASEN wrote:

It just makes me sad when I remember how much stuff came on the sprues for old Epic 'Space Marine' 2nd edition. I recall boxes like this-- 120 marines and 12 Land Raiders...

Inflation is a bitch. But let's also remember these old miniatures were basically monoposes, obviously smaller and the vehicles were hollow. Ah, and that at this time, plastic was basically seen as the miracle material (cheap to produce, easy for modelism) and not the polluting nightmare mess with significanty increased prices nowadays.

Inflation is acceptable and expected. Continually raising prices higher than inflation and cutting the amount you get is actually corporate greed.
There's a difference.

 kodos wrote:
I must have missed were we see the multipose, not-hollow models
going with a different scale is a choice and not a reason

and plastic is still the cheap to produce material compared to metal or resin

Well, it just means you didn't have the Epic miniatures of that glorious past, that's all. I did, so I know.

There was only one model for tactical marines, one model for heavy weapon (missile launcher) marines, one model for assault marines, one model for sergeant marines...I think you get what I mean by that now ?

Old land raiders were hollow, by that I mean the underside was litterally hollow : there's nothing to cover it. So you better not put an upside-down land raider of that time for casualty / dioramas, cause it looks bad.

Nostalgia is cool, but better remember everything - not just the good parts.


As for the prices...it's not as cheap as you think it is, even Mantic Games had to raise their prices even if Ronnie was reluctant to do so, it should tell you something. Things change, countries are slowly moving to deal with the problem. Remember what happened with lead miniatures ? Well...don't be surprised if plastic gets the same treatment in the future. Because it is a polluting nightmare mess, like it or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Inflation is acceptable and expected. Continually raising prices higher than inflation and cutting the amount you get is actually corporate greed.
There's a difference.

World isn't black and white. Corporate greed isn't where you think it is. If you think that "removing corporate greed" will magically make the prices go back to the 90', you're just ignoring all the other factors leading to that, my friend.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Inflation is acceptable and expected. Continually raising prices higher than inflation and cutting the amount you get is actually corporate greed.
There's a difference.

World isn't black and white. Corporate greed isn't where you think it is. If you think that "removing corporate greed" will magically make the prices go back to the 90', you're just ignoring all the other factors leading to that, my friend.

And he didn't say they would go back to the 90', he literally said inflation is acceptable and expected. What he actually said is that they are increasing the prices more than just inflation

I am not justifying GW prices.

BUT, those prices for medium/big sized vehicles (i.e. LR, Baneblades...) are NOT that bad, taking into account: better detail, better sculpt, the old epic prices for those (3rd & 4th edition SHTs), and basically double the volume (due to scale creep/increase).

What SU-152 said. Inflation alone isn't enough to cover the rest leading to production of such models : they're more detailed, have more different parts, are obviously bigger, plastic is more expensive to produce than in the 90ies, logistic prices are also higher, renting for the stores are also higher, salaries are also higher (even if it doesn't look much )...it's more than just "corporate greed".

Don't misunderstand me, there are certainly some costs that aren't necessary and "greed" at the higher management does certainly exist...but it's not as simple as one could make it look like by writing "corporate greed" - as if the solution was simply to remove that and everything would be fine in the world. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not the solution that will magically make prices lower.

being more detailed and being bigger was a decision by GW
it might give a reason why they can be more expensive, but it is not something anyone asked for

there was no "please make it bigger and more detailed even if it means an increase in price" from the community

Sarouan wrote:
What SU-152 said. Inflation alone isn't enough to cover the rest leading to production of such models : they're more detailed, have more different parts, are obviously bigger, plastic is more expensive to produce than in the 90ies, logistic prices are also higher, renting for the stores are also higher, salaries are also higher (even if it doesn't look much )...it's more than just "corporate greed".

"Besides inflation there is also inflation"

Sarouan wrote:
There was only one model for tactical marines, one model for heavy weapon (missile launcher) marines, one model for assault marines, one model for sergeant marines...I think you get what I mean by that now ?

you are talking about different models and not multi pose

yes there are more different models with the new infantry, which is not really important for that scale as you end up with multiple of the same anyway in Epic
so if there is 1 Tactical Marine or 5 makes no difference as every Base will look the same anyway

if this is a reason for a higher price, it is win-lose for the players as they buy more and gain nothing, as armies will have identical Bases for the same unit types

 kodos wrote:
being more detailed and being bigger was a decision by GW
it might give a reason why they can be more expensive, but it is not something anyone asked for

there was no "please make it bigger and more detailed even if it means an increase in price" from the community

Well, if Mantic Games wants to go for 10mm scale for Warpath, it's certainly their choice too and Warpath customers weren't especially asking for it. But we're talking about GW here, so it's definitely not the same thing, isn't it.

However, there's a reason for bigger scale other than "raising prices" : painting / seeing details is easier on a higher scale. Sure, you may produce a lot of blob miniatures that look vaguely like geometric shapes for cheaper, but is it really what people who are fans of miniatures want ? Cheapness alone isn't enough, as Mantic Games is very well aware of their reputation of having "average looking miniatures that aren't worth to care about" (even if it's not deserved). People also expect a rise in quality in comparison to what was produced in the past, not just a copy-paste of what they did - partly because the ways to produce and sculpt miniatures have evolved meanwhile and things that weren't possible to do in the past are now possible.

GW could also double or triple the amount per box with no perceptible increase in cost. Obviously the same argument applies to every plastic kit by every company ever, but there's some unwritten agreement what's a reasonable expectation of value... 4 drop pods ain't it

 lord_blackfang wrote:
GW could also double or triple the amount per box with no perceptible increase in cost. Obviously the same argument applies to every plastic kit by every company ever, but there's some unwritten agreement what's a reasonable expectation of value... 4 drop pods ain't it

4 drop pods with no possibility to have the doors opened / closed sure do take less space on sprues than the same with detailed inside. I think that's the most likely reason they are just "that number", mind you. And sure, maybe people weren't asking for that and would have been ok with permanently sealed drop pods for cheaper, but that's not what GW made as a choice.

To me, it's more a design choice than a real price one.

(Of course, we still don't have any price list for the drop pod boxes so it's not like we actually know if it will be as outrageous as some people here assume it will be)

If drop pods were fixed in one position it would have to be open otherwise there's no way to tell which ones are deathstorm and which are regular transports. Don't they automatically open on landing anyway?

ray648 wrote:
If drop pods were fixed in one position it would have to be open otherwise there's no way to tell which ones are deathstorm and which are regular transports. Don't they automatically open on landing anyway?

Exactly. Sealed drop pods mean variants are useless and they're just here for deep strike transport. That's why in the 1st editions of Epic, they were mainly used as tokens for deployment - the real formation being the transported units.

That's clearly not the choice they make for LI rules here, so we're clearly paying for it with 4 drop pod boxes. Which price exactly, we still don't know though.

Andykp wrote:
Cheap is a relative term, I don’t think anyone should be surprised that this is more expensive than old epic, there are decades in inflation and production, warehousing costs etc between them. The cost will also reflect that this is a side game, not a mass game where they will sell the same volumes as 40K kits. So many people, like me will be put off because of the 30k setting so numbers of players will be lower. There fore sales lower, so kits will cost more to make back the investments in time and moulds etc.

Note that people has been adjusting the old Epic prices for inflation when putting them on the thread

 Albertorius wrote:


Note that people has been adjusting the old Epic prices for inflation when putting them on the thread

Not really, they're just putting prices that "they feel like" have been adjusted to inflation, but they obviously don't know the real costs GW has to reverberate somewhat.

It has the same worth as someone saying the Blood Angel army in battle report cost about "900€". It's just an estimation based on subjective perception / biased views of how they see GW. It's worth something only if you espoused the same views leading to that kind of "statement".

Sarouan wrote:
Well, if Mantic Games wants to go for 10mm scale for Warpath, it's certainly their choice too and Warpath customers weren't especially asking for it. But we're talking about GW here, so it's definitely not the same thing, isn't it. .

I guess you must be very excited about Warpath to bring that up here

but yeah, if multiple different models is a feature you are willing to pay more, this is up to you
but don't do marketing speech like people did not know that they wanted it but now they have to pay for it

I think anyone dissing the old Epic miniatures is an automatic perma-ban offence surely?

SU-152 wrote:
I am not justifying GW prices.

BUT, those prices for medium/big sized vehicles (i.e. LR, Baneblades...) are NOT that bad, taking into account: better detail, better sculpt, the old epic prices for those (3rd & 4th edition SHTs), and basically double the volume (due to scale creep/increase).

Yes and this is it really. The scale and detail of these miniatures has changed drastically since the originals, sculpting detail has increased so we have gone from the miniatures being single pose and an abstract representation of the unit, to belt buckles and eye lenses being visible - it's a big change.
Plus you will read a lot of the words 'boutique' and 'artisan' being used to describe these minis, and they are not priced to appeal to kids scraping together pocket money with their mates to cover the tabletop in little rhinos and battlewagons, as was the case in the 90s. It looks like an army of these guys is priced to appeal to the guy who has had a tax rebate and is wondering whether to hide it from his partner and buy an LI army, or tell her and use that money on a 2-week package holiday.

 Pacific wrote:
It looks like an army of these guys is priced to appeal to the guy who has had a tax rebate and is wondering whether to hide it from his partner and buy an LI army, or tell her and use that money on a 2-week package holiday.

"Couple Budget Tax" evasion is a worldwide bane in miniature wargamer couples for sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
I guess you must be very excited about Warpath to bring that up here

but yeah, if multiple different models is a feature you are willing to pay more, this is up to you
but don't do marketing speech like people did not know that they wanted it but now they have to pay for it

I actually think it's a good idea to go for 10mm scale in mass battle games - yeah, it's more expensive than 6mm, but it's honestly more pleasant to paint for me with my eyesight getting worse as years pass on. And it's easier to sell more detailed miniatures as well that way. So I'm certainly not blaming MG nor GW to go that way (*gasp* how dare I say that it's 10mm for GW ?! Yeah, well, scales are whatever you want them to be in miniature market - there's no actual universal scale and a labelled 8mm could be very well be 10mm depending on how you decide to measure them and how their proportions are).

What I wrote is not "marketing speech", I leave that for the concerned companies. When a company decides to launch a new game, it's always their choice and it's not especially about "what people ask them for". It's about launching a new game and marketing does their job to advertise it, that's all. And if you think it's just a matter of "willing to pay more", you're simply ignoring all the other factors behind. Besides, I know that no matter what'll happen, you'll keep supporting MG and dismissing GW because MG is your favorite company and GW is your hated one. So even if both companies took the exact same marketing decision, you'll defend it with one and attack it with the other. It has no factual basis, it's just a matter of "love/hate" relationship. There's not much to discuss in that situation, sadly.

Sarouan wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
GW could also double or triple the amount per box with no perceptible increase in cost. Obviously the same argument applies to every plastic kit by every company ever, but there's some unwritten agreement what's a reasonable expectation of value... 4 drop pods ain't it

4 drop pods with no possibility to have the doors opened / closed sure do take less space on sprues than the same with detailed inside. I think that's the most likely reason they are just "that number", mind you. And sure, maybe people weren't asking for that and would have been ok with permanently sealed drop pods for cheaper, but that's not what GW made as a choice.

To me, it's more a design choice than a real price one.

My point is, they could put 8 or 12 in a box and it wouldn't make an impact on manufacturing cost. Of course, people might notice if they put 8 copies of a sprue in a X€ drop pod box but only 2 copies of a sprue in a X€ infantry box... bottom line is, no matter the design cost, additional copies are peanuts, it's entirely GW's choice to put very little product in a box.

My take on this minis side:

1st and 2nd Edition Space Marine miniatures were more like "tokens" than "models". Modern miniatures are no longer this abstract blob, the differences are very significant. I wouldn't pay inflated 1990's GW prices for a new Epic scale game if the minis still looked like tokens. I'd probably skip the whole thing to be honest. My interest in the miniature games of my youth are only kept alive by the massive advances in miniature quality in 2023. Heck, the majority of HH illustrations are photoshopped picts of the actual miniatures, there's no way you could have pulled that off in the 90's without them looking comical af. Are the prices fair considering the improvement on quality? You tell me.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
it's entirely GW's choice to put very little product in a box.

It totally is.

It's simply a question of having a package that's not necessarily optimized compared to how the rules allow you to fill that miniature in your list ("I need to take x boxes for a drop pod formation while I only need y for a rhino formation ! That's outrageous !").

It's not really a GW problem specifically. It actually happens everywhere when the sculpting guys, the rule guys and the packaging / price guys don't necessarily interact a lot about that topic (or simply don't see it as a problem in itself).

 lord_blackfang wrote:

My point is, they could put 8 or 12 in a box and it wouldn't make an impact on manufacturing cost.

That isn't true though. The upfront manufacturing cost of plastic kits is intrinsically tied to sales volume, and cutting that volume can result in products that are either barely profitable or even make a loss.

We also know that GW had a minimum expected profit from a product before it gets approved for development. That's because the typical profit on the rest of their model range is so high, if they start to allocate tooling & injection molding resources to anything that doesn't sell well enough, it's effectively a loss to them. Why would they accept £10k profit on a niche model when they can make £50k profit on another kit of the same size via the same resources?

So let's say for the sake of argument that a drop pod kit cost them £60k to develop, costs £3 to produce / package / distribute, and they will sell a box of four at £30 retail. Their goal is to make £50k profit from this kit. To keep this simple I'm sticking to GBP figures:

Approximately half of GW's sales go to trade accounts, so at 60% trade price they make £18 per unit from these. For the sake of simplicity we'll average this out with direct sales to £24.

After deducting the costs that leaves £21 per unit, and they will need to sell 2,858 units to recoup the development cost of the kit, and another 2,380 units. That results in a sales target of 5,238.

Customers go out and buy 5,500 boxes of drop pods, and the kit is narrow commercial success.

Now if you double the contents of the box that may increase the raw cost by a small amount, say to £3.50. Their sales target increases slightly to 5,365

However now that they're getting twice as many per box, customers only bought 3,000 units. In GW's eyes that's a failure, it only barely recouped the investment cost and generated far less profit than pretty anything else they sell.

Now I'm not arguing that GW should be selling four drop pods at £30. I personally don't plan to buy any. This is to give people a better understanding of the commercial process that produces such outcomes.

What I fully expect GW to do is release drop pods at around £30 and see who bites. Then after a while they'll either repack them into boxes of 6 or 8 and try to squeeze more sales, or use them to fill out 'value' in xmas battleforce type sets.

I am well aware. The reductio ad absurdum of that argument being, obviously, to manufacture a single box and sell it for £110.000.

The real question is where the sales axis meets the perceived value axis. Clearly GW doesn't think that drawing in extra customers by making the game more affordable would offset reduced profit per customer.

Should be worth baring in mind that GW been focusing a lot on combine boxes as sale items.

Having a high price on a box of marines is great for when they selling, but it also means they can do bundle boxes that look great when compared.

Someone looking to join the game that’s keen, may see a single box as epenxive but jump on a box that’s $300+ if it’s then 40% of the normal price.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I am well aware. The reductio ad absurdum of that argument being, obviously, to manufacture a single box and sell it for £110.000.

The real question is where the sales axis meets the perceived value axis. Clearly GW doesn't think that drawing in extra customers by making the game more affordable would offset reduced profit per customer.

I think their ability to manufacture enough stuff is a pretty big factor. They struggle to satisfy the demand they have at the current prices.