|
Post by The Trane on Jul 21, 2017 12:21:27 GMT
Being expensive is hardly the point itself, imo. It's about what you get for your money. If you pay a lot, you expect a lot. This. I have no problems with the pricing per se – we must acknowledge it's not only production costs but also the cost of artistic work, dev work, etc – but I have a bit of a problem when the quality of the models is not what it could be (compared to what competitors deliver).
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Jul 21, 2017 13:18:31 GMT
Being expensive is hardly the point itself, imo. It's about what you get for your money. If you pay a lot, you expect a lot. This. I have no problems with the pricing per se – we must acknowledge it's not only production costs but also the cost of artistic work, dev work, etc – but I have a bit of a problem when the quality of the models is not what it could be (compared to what competitors deliver). What muddies the issue is that different people have different views on what you are paying for. I think some people feel like their "pay a lot, expect a lot" radar is satisfied because they think WM is a good game. Miniature quality comes second - what they are paying for is being able to play the game. Whereas someone like Cyel seems to feel like he is only paying for the miniatures, and if their quality is low, then his expectations are not met. Because he doesn't factor the game rules into the equation, which others do. So it's hard to discuss when people have fundamentally different expectations in terms of what they are buying.
|
|
|
Post by finnigan2004 on Jul 21, 2017 13:42:45 GMT
Basically, either game allows you to spend a great deal of money, or purchase somewhat inexpensive armies. Warmachine has better rules for competitive play (though some stuff in Mk. III-- ), but the armies are pretty much plug and play now. Games Workshop has better rules for creating unique and characterful armies with somewhat looser rules and balance. Models-- well, there is no comparison in terms of quality, but cost is becoming closer. I've been building GW models lately, and even their stuff from ten years ago is better in terms of quality. Comparing cost is silly because I have an elite grey knights army that I bought new, from a discounter, for just over $200.00 (just the models). Likewise, I have an eldar exodite army that costs-- well, you are more likely to see the president's tax returns because calculating the cost for me would be painful and risky (the wife might see the cost if I write it down and forget it somewhere). Privateer models cost just as much individually (often substantially more), so the real question is whether you will buy fewer of them when getting into their game. We all could stop buying models, after purchasing one army-- few of us do though. As others have said, it largely depends on what you value in terms of a game system-- character and model quality or somewhat tighter rule sets. I like both, but arguments about which is better almost invariably involve motivated reasoning and entrenched opinion. The only real answer is to find the system that embodies the qualities you prefer and buy into that one. Come to think of it-- those Wild West Exodus models look pretty cool...
|
|
|
Post by The Trane on Jul 21, 2017 14:18:57 GMT
What muddies the issue is that different people have different views on what you are paying for. I think some people feel like their "pay a lot, expect a lot" radar is satisfied because they think WM is a good game. Miniature quality comes second - what they are paying for is being able to play the game. Whereas someone like Cyel seems to feel like he is only paying for the miniatures, and if their quality is low, then his expectations are not met. Because he doesn't factor the game rules into the equation, which others do. So it's hard to discuss when people have fundamentally different expectations in terms of what they are buying. As others have said, it largely depends on what you value in terms of a game system-- character and model quality or somewhat tighter rule sets. Absolutely agree – quality is an inherently subjective property, although some aspects (moldlines in faces come to mind) are fairly easy to agree on. Some will appreciate rules, other very detailed miniatures, other less detailed minis; some prefer metal, yet others (me!) prefer GW plastics. And so on. I apparently appreciate the overall quality as I continue to buy and play, but still I wish for (imo) better sculpts and plastic.
|
|
spideredd
Junior Strategist
Summer Gamer
Posts: 588
|
Post by spideredd on Jul 21, 2017 14:26:19 GMT
[...] Warmachine has better rules for competitive play (though some stuff in Mk. III-- ), but the armies are pretty much plug and play now. [...] I don't think it's the case that any army is plug and play at all. Even taking the most powerful list in the world does not guarantee the least competent player a victory over anyone. You still need to know the interactions and how your opponents list is going to work. As for disparate power levels, looking at this as a Protectorate of Menoth player, I only see a few models that are truly non-viable in my own faction. I actually think that the balance is better than it was at this stage of MKII, but it could be better, at least in my own faction.
|
|
|
Post by Tekanan on Jul 21, 2017 14:40:31 GMT
I'm late to the bandwagon, but I'd just like to say that I did the math. I was supposed to release this for a blog post but failed to do so due to life getting in the way.
40k and WM cost almost the same mini-wise, but if you factor in the grand scheme of things (army list, longetivity, tournament lists, etc), there's a difference. In Mk.II, competitive lists is close to 40k tournament lists but in Mk.III, the cost of competitive WM surprisingly reduced.
I'm not saying WM is cheap, but if someone says 40k is comparatively cheap or cheaper, I know he's eye-balling it.
Infinity may be cheaper, but the cost of terrain (if required) will kill you. If you are looking for a cheap wargame, nothing beats X-Wing.
|
|
|
Post by Stormsmith Dropout on Jul 21, 2017 14:55:21 GMT
I'm late to the bandwagon, but I'd just like to say that I did the math. I was supposed to release this for a blog post but failed to do so due to life getting in the way. 40k and WM cost almost the same mini-wise, but if you factor in the grand scheme of things (army list, longetivity, tournament lists, etc), there's a difference. In Mk.II, competitive lists is close to 40k tournament lists but in Mk.III, the cost of competitive WM surprisingly reduced. I'm not saying WM is cheap, but if someone says 40k is comparatively cheap or cheaper, I know he's eye-balling it. Infinity may be cheaper, but the cost of terrain (if required) will kill you. If you are looking for a cheap wargame, nothing beats X-Wing. Have you analyzed Guild Ball? Just curious how it stacks up.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on Jul 21, 2017 15:01:28 GMT
I'm late to the bandwagon, but I'd just like to say that I did the math. I was supposed to release this for a blog post but failed to do so due to life getting in the way. 40k and WM cost almost the same mini-wise, but if you factor in the grand scheme of things (army list, longetivity, tournament lists, etc), there's a difference. In Mk.II, competitive lists is close to 40k tournament lists but in Mk.III, the cost of competitive WM surprisingly reduced. I'm not saying WM is cheap, but if someone says 40k is comparatively cheap or cheaper, I know he's eye-balling it. Infinity may be cheaper, but the cost of terrain (if required) will kill you. If you are looking for a cheap wargame, nothing beats X-Wing. Did you factor themes and free models into the cost of competitive WMH? Before the cost dissuaded me I certainly wasn't too keen on buy the 5 (identicle) gremlin swarms that you could take in one of the themes forGrymkin. 4 of which I could ONLY use in that list. Duplicating models for themes is a BIG turn off for me. I know PP are doing their whole faction-within-faction thing now but one of the most off-putting things for me with themes is buying multiple solos or CAs that would only see use in one list. At least in 40k if you buy two tactical marine boxes you know you'll use them because basic marines can be used in several unit types, whereas if I buy two units of Iron Fangs and like 3 Kovnik solos I'll only ever use them in the Iron Fang theme.
|
|
|
Post by Rowdy Dragon on Jul 21, 2017 16:03:33 GMT
At least in 40k if you buy two tactical marine boxes you know you'll use them because basic marines can be used in several unit types, whereas if I buy two units of Iron Fangs and like 3 Kovnik solos I'll only ever use them in the Iron Fang theme. So use them outside of theme. First of all PPs intent wasn't spam, like the Trencher theme has 20 different choices inside of it. Second: Just use them outside of theme. Its really stronger then you think.
|
|
|
Post by HereComesTomorrow on Jul 21, 2017 16:17:09 GMT
At least in 40k if you buy two tactical marine boxes you know you'll use them because basic marines can be used in several unit types, whereas if I buy two units of Iron Fangs and like 3 Kovnik solos I'll only ever use them in the Iron Fang theme. So use them outside of theme. First of all PPs intent wasn't spam, like the Trencher theme has 20 different choices inside of it. Second: Just use them outside of theme. Its really stronger then you think. But themes are the way it's intended to plaaaaaaay! Be honest, how much discussion do you see that doesn't pertain to themes these days? You read basically every forum. If I don't play in theme I'd be as well starting a Facebook group and talking to myself.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Jul 21, 2017 16:28:41 GMT
I'm late to the bandwagon, but I'd just like to say that I did the math. I was supposed to release this for a blog post but failed to do so due to life getting in the way. 40k and WM cost almost the same mini-wise, but if you factor in the grand scheme of things (army list, longetivity, tournament lists, etc), there's a difference. In Mk.II, competitive lists is close to 40k tournament lists but in Mk.III, the cost of competitive WM surprisingly reduced. I'm not saying WM is cheap, but if someone says 40k is comparatively cheap or cheaper, I know he's eye-balling it. Infinity may be cheaper, but the cost of terrain (if required) will kill you. If you are looking for a cheap wargame, nothing beats X-Wing. Have you analyzed Guild Ball? Just curious how it stacks up. Say about $200 for a full Guild and the 5 Union (Merc) players that will play for them. That's 17 models (one of which is really two), most of them 30mm. Typically you get to put 10 of them in your roster (of which you get to pick 6 per game), but only one can be a Union player.
|
|
|
Post by Tekanan on Jul 21, 2017 17:14:16 GMT
I did not put Guild Ball into the equation. If I ever get to posting an updated version of my analysis, I think I certainly should!
I compared 40k, WM, X-Wing, Infinity, and Firestorm Armada. I started this in 2016 actually, before updating it again for 2017 only to drop it from release.
At the top of my head, lists from LVO GT 2017 were taken to calculate avg 40k costs. For WM, it was lists from LVO, Smogcon and Cancon iirc. These were before the fancy new theme lists with free models being a prevalent factor.
On average, 40k is 1.5x more expensive than WM competitively. Non-competitively (i.e. single list WM), 40k is astonishingly 2.5x more expensive.
Alot of other factors actually make 40k more expensive in the long run. For example in Warmachine, a unit of Iron Fang Pikemen has a standard loadout. This means if I bought it in Mk.2, I don't have to buy another one in Mk.3. In 40k's case, changing a flamer in my tactical squad to a plasma gunner requires an extra spend (extra bit, new box, etc). Because of this, 40k in essence sells by itself.
Both games have their pros and cons. I understand how higher costed goods doesn't bode well to players but 40k being more expensive doesn't necessarily mean it's the worse game. It all boils down to what's in it for the person.
If you find yourself out priced in this hobby but wish to stay in it, there are many ways to be cash savvy about it all.
|
|
|
Post by welshhoppo on Jul 21, 2017 18:42:51 GMT
Lets not forget, several GW kits make it so that you are unable to create all the options for the units in questions
I was a CSM player, if I wanted a squad of Havocs with 4 autocannons, I'd have to buy 4 whole sets of Havocs to make them. You couldn't buy them individually and you couldn't just buy an autocannon.
At least the monoposed mono equipped wmh stuff comes with all the options.
|
|
|
Post by anderfreak on Jul 21, 2017 22:41:22 GMT
I played 40k for 12 years before switching over to warmachine.
The total prices are comparable on average. You can build an exorbitantly expensive 40K army at 1500 points, you can do the same with warmachine. You can also build a couple fairly competitive lists for just a couple hundred dollars in both cases.
The model quality of GW is unparalleled, and for good reason, they are the industry giant. They have the money to invest in extremely high quality injection molds and still sell them at a reasonable markup. PP is constantly teetering on the brink of just barely breaking even, they don't have a whole lot of spare cash to throw at revising their production methods, and when they do it's a massive expenditure for results that aren't even guaranteed.
I know a lot of you wont like this, but if you want PP to stick around as a company they SHOULD be raising their prices. This is a big difference between GW and PP for me, is that every year or so GW raises their prices by a percentage that makes up for inflation. I have never seen PP raise the prices on any of their products, and I know for a fact they already make LESS profit than GW does per unit sold.
For me, the biggest consideration when deciding to switch to warmachine wasn't price. I was always going to buy the whole Tyranid model range and I was always going to buy the whole Khador model range, even when I was making $10 an hour part time as a file clerk. Hobbies are expensive. That's just the nature of a hobby. Golfers, boaters, artists, shooters, etc all likely spend MORE money on their toys than we do on models, and I get to use my warmachine a lot more often than my buddies get to go shooting.
The biggest considerations were 1)rules 2)community 3)fun. GW makes terrible rules and they don't really care. GW's community is comprised solely of petulant children and super serial players trying to shoot you off the table top of turn 1. None of this was fun.
PP misses the mark on rules often, but having attended lock n Load a few times and having discussed the game with the employees, they genuinely WANT to make a good game, and make sure you're having fun playing it. GW wants to put out product. Rules just happen to be a convenient way to sell 3 new books every month. They don't give two shits if you actually want to play with their product, they just know that nerds will pay them money every time they update 3 pages of rules and fill 50 pages worth of recycled fluff.
|
|
|
Post by Bomma on Jul 21, 2017 22:42:32 GMT
Some recent warnoun releases for comparison (Aussie dollars) -
The jrs that grew up to be real warcasters seem to be $20 - $25 Morty2 - $47 Goreshade4 - $28 The Dreamer and Phantasms - $62 King of Nothing - $19 Old Witch 3 - $154
B.
|
|