|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Nov 28, 2017 5:57:52 GMT
[SNIP] Even though there will be some people that want to avoid the game because it seems costy after see this post, it can't be helped; although it is the most expensive lists we can imagine, but you may expect the average costs required to play the game, and usually we need and have more models than the models required to make a tight standard point list. Few beginners in the miniature games are starting with a functional standard point list either, and they are encouraged to start with a starting box then expand their collection leisurely - because they need to know which one would meet their taste, and the models are expensive. In short, problem? Complete newbies may take a look at the potential of a $600+ army after doing some initial online research and walk away without having bought a boxed set. The great thing about the Mk3 battle boxes is that the buyer, presumably a newby, gets a pretty good look at the fun of wargaming (or Warmachine if they already play miniature wargames) with a relatively low entry cost. Those battle boxes are a great value, and I think PP did a pretty good job of coming up with those Mk3 battleboxes. But the perception of a great value disappears if the newby finds out that they might be dropping a lot more money to field a full army than they expected. Look, we all kvetch about PP's business practices in one way or another. Or we might have have heated arguments about unit point costs and the rules. This is all stuff that a newby will probably ignore due to lack of understanding. All of the yelling, screaming, finger-pointing, wild accusations, straw man arguments, grand declarations, multi-chapter explanations, and other idiocy that constitutes normal discussion on this we website we can put in the "No Big Deal" category. But, when we start to highlight one of the biggest barriers to getting into a new hobby, cost, you have gotten into an area that ~anybody~ will understand. That info, regardless of any other conditions, counter-arguments, or logic that goes with it, can drive away new players.Look, we all know that miniature wargaming is not a cheap hobby. We all know that there are ways to put together a new army for less money. We all know that GW makes you buy bigger, more expensive armies to play "games of the right size." We get it. But just because we get it doesn't mean it is a good idea to flaunt these truths. None of what we take for granted matters to a complete newby (or their parents) that sees big $$$ and says "I can't afford that." Are you for real? Yes, all things considered the battleboxes are dirtcheap but to imply that those boxes are in any way representative of the game is borderline criminal towards anyone who wants to play with the existiny community. Nobody plays battlebox games, everybody plays their 75pt weblists so not only should you tell new players they will be down 500 dollars for their first list if they buy it new, you should also tell them just buying models they like will eventually cost them a lot more money because of list synergie, in line with that they should know that while the top of the powercurve is pretty varied the game in it's entirety is not that well balanced at all so they will be "forced" to buy models they don't want... and oh, theu must if course buy 2 or 3 lists to play in any tourney because the game is so well balanced, and maybe more importantly they should know that the game is constantly changing and their ones valid list might be "illegal" sooner than one might think. Not only that, people that bought everything a faction has to offer might one day find their collection unsuitable for listbuilding because theme-shitstorm happened and you will be "forced" to spam a lot of a little bit. God forbid you try and make use of all those fun interactions PP build into the game over the years. The fact you implore us to actively stop new players from learning about any of that boggles my mind.
|
|
whydak
Junior Strategist
Posts: 288
|
Post by whydak on Nov 28, 2017 6:50:42 GMT
I thought I have good idea but I managed to get only ~750$ with Legion
Lyllyth3 Proteus 3x Harrier 2x Throne Sacral Vault 2x hellmouth 2x gobber cheff 3x shperherd 2x tinker
Not sure about optimal Legion BG though. But 1p solos are good for this xd
|
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
Post by crimsyn on Nov 28, 2017 7:22:52 GMT
If I want to get stupid, I can get Khador to about $920
Theme: WGK Old witch 2. — $125 3x Berserker or Mad Dog - $105 12x WGI (min) - $600 Gobber Tinker - $22 Field Gun x2 (free from theme) - $50 Mortar (free from theme) - $20
|
|
|
Post by drillbossd on Nov 28, 2017 7:56:32 GMT
I think this will be pretty good but have to calculate tomorrow: conflictchamber.com/#cb201b_-0Peu4d4d4d4d4d4dfHfHfHeMeM2Q2Q2QdHdHhmhmeNfFfFf4f4f44n0V0V2NMinion Army - 74 / 75 points [Theme] Will Work for Food Jaga-Jaga, the Death Charmer [+29] - Bull Snapper [5] - Bull Snapper [5] - Bull Snapper [5] - Bull Snapper [5] - Bull Snapper [5] - Bull Snapper [5] Bog Trog Trawler [3] Bog Trog Trawler [3] Bog Trog Trawler [3] Efaarit Scouts [6] Efaarit Scouts [6] Feralgeist [2] Feralgeist [2] Feralgeist [2] Gobber Tinker [2] Gobber Tinker [2] Gremlin Swarm [3] Gremlin Swarm [3] Maximus [4] Swamp Gobber Chef [1] Swamp Gobber Chef [1] Swamp Gobber River Raider [4] Swamp Gobber River Raider [4] Swamp Gobber River Raider [4] Totem Hunter [0(6)] Farrow Bone Grinders (max) [8] Farrow Bone Grinders (max) [8] Swamp Gobbers Bellows Crew [2]
|
|
|
Post by drillbossd on Nov 28, 2017 8:09:05 GMT
Actually this should be more: conflictchamber.com/#cb201b_-0PeubNbN4d4d4dfHfHfHeMeMdHdHhmhmfFfF0V0V0V0V0V0VMinion Army - 75 / 75 points [Theme] Will Work for Food (Jaga-Jaga 1) Jaga-Jaga, the Death Charmer [+29] - Boneswarm [7] - Boneswarm [7] - Bull Snapper [5] - Bull Snapper [5] - Bull Snapper [5] Bog Trog Trawler [3] Bog Trog Trawler [3] Bog Trog Trawler [3] Efaarit Scouts [0(6)] Efaarit Scouts [6] Gobber Tinker [2] Gobber Tinker [2] Gremlin Swarm [3] Gremlin Swarm [3] Swamp Gobber Chef [1] Swamp Gobber Chef [1] Farrow Bone Grinders (max) [8] Farrow Bone Grinders (max) [8] Farrow Bone Grinders (max) [8] Farrow Bone Grinders (max) [8] Farrow Bone Grinders (max) [8] Farrow Bone Grinders (max) [8] Edit: $591 dollars here.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Nov 28, 2017 8:30:41 GMT
I guess what I wonder when I read this discussion is whether anyone actually goes out and buys the exact models that make up one specific 75 point list and assumes that that is the extent of their investment in the hobby.
As I see it, most of the hobby is about collecting. You buy models that you want in your collection and then you make lists from that. You don't just own one specific list and nothing else. That's not what I would expect people to do anyway.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Nov 28, 2017 8:48:01 GMT
I guess what I wonder when I read this discussion is whether anyone actually goes out and buys the exact models that make up one specific 75 point list and assumes that that is the extent of their investment in the hobby. As I see it, most of the hobby is about collecting. You buy models that you want in your collection and then you make lists from that. You don't just own one specific list and nothing else. That's not what I would expect people to do anyway. That's a good point. It is exactely what I did with trollbloods though. There are some mini's in that faction I really like and want to paint, so I made one workable list with those mini's and ordered those models. I might add to that in the future but it's mostly meant as a hobbyfaction I wanted to he able to play with as well. Will do the same with grymkin and curcle ones trollbloods are painted, and maybe farrows at some time in the future. Legion is my main faction to go to town with though (and since I have no idea how to paint them I love these sideprojects).
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Nov 28, 2017 9:20:45 GMT
I agree with Wishing. People would run out of things to paint pretty quickly if all they ever bought was a single 75pts list.
|
|
|
Post by Blargaliscious on Nov 28, 2017 12:18:34 GMT
Complete newbies may take a look at the potential of a $600+ army after doing some initial online research and walk away without having bought a boxed set. The great thing about the Mk3 battle boxes is that the buyer, presumably a newby, gets a pretty good look at the fun of wargaming (or Warmachine if they already play miniature wargames) with a relatively low entry cost. Those battle boxes are a great value, and I think PP did a pretty good job of coming up with those Mk3 battleboxes. But the perception of a great value disappears if the newby finds out that they might be dropping a lot more money to field a full army than they expected. Look, we all kvetch about PP's business practices in one way or another. Or we might have have heated arguments about unit point costs and the rules. This is all stuff that a newby will probably ignore due to lack of understanding. All of the yelling, screaming, finger-pointing, wild accusations, straw man arguments, grand declarations, multi-chapter explanations, and other idiocy that constitutes normal discussion on this we website we can put in the "No Big Deal" category. But, when we start to highlight one of the biggest barriers to getting into a new hobby, cost, you have gotten into an area that ~anybody~ will understand. That info, regardless of any other conditions, counter-arguments, or logic that goes with it, can drive away new players.Look, we all know that miniature wargaming is not a cheap hobby. We all know that there are ways to put together a new army for less money. We all know that GW makes you buy bigger, more expensive armies to play "games of the right size." We get it. But just because we get it doesn't mean it is a good idea to flaunt these truths. None of what we take for granted matters to a complete newby (or their parents) that sees big $$$ and says "I can't afford that." Are you for real? Yes, I am, and it comes from an understanding of marketing and how people think. The battleboxes are representative of the game - they show how the game mechanics work and the fun that can be had playing the game. Battlebox games are a more limited format than a full 50 or 75 point game, but battlebox games are an excellent beginning of Journeyman leagues and other slow-growth formats that slowly get the new player into collecting miniatures and playing more in-depth games. Yes, the battlebox casters are not going to help you win the tournament scene - they were never meant to do that. The battlebox casters are marketing tools designed to be fun to play for new players in smaller game formats. They are meant to be good at Battlebox games on up through 35-50 point games, at which point most new players will start to look at other casters, think about building a bigger collection, and maybe consider playing in tournaments. Everything that you went on about is not Warmachine / Hordes - it is what is associated with playing the game in the Steam Roller tournament format. Players don't need to play Steam Roller scenarios, nor do they need to participate in preparation for tournament play or tournaments themselves. I don't want you to deny new players the knowledge of the tournament scene nor of the costs involved in getting into "the serious fun" of the tournament scene. But, it would be smart to wait to tell them that *after* they get hooked onto playing the game.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Nov 28, 2017 12:36:32 GMT
I couldn't agree more Blarg, the game doesn't have to he played like that, you can play it "casually" but admitting a good deal of the playerbase plays with tournaments in mind is not blathering, that's just being honest. No, you don't have to play it like that (in fact I like trying wonky stuff more than achieving excellence with a tourney list myself) but in this game you run into a lot of players that do, that don't stick to battleboxgames and it's not wrong to prepare potential players to that and all that entails beforehand.
Really I don't understand your position unless you're a crooked storeowner. Or a ... crackdealer or something, going on about "getting people hooked" before telling em what they are in for.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Nov 28, 2017 12:51:54 GMT
I think Blarg just comes from a position where what matters is the game itself, not the community or the tournament scene or anything player-driven. But he wants new people to start playing the game to make WMH a good business for PP. So it annoys him when people talk about the tournament scene in such a way that it might turn people off from the game.
But a lot of people do think that it matters, hugely, and that players should be aware of WM as a tournament game and so on. Just a disagreement between Blarg and others.
|
|
|
Post by Blargaliscious on Nov 28, 2017 12:57:25 GMT
Really I don't understand your position unless you're a crooked storeowner. Or a ... crackdealer or something, going on about "getting people hooked" before telling em what they are in for. There is a surprising amount of similarity between marketing and drug dealing, sad to say.
|
|
|
Post by Blargaliscious on Nov 28, 2017 14:07:39 GMT
I think Blarg just comes from a position where what matters is the game itself, not the community or the tournament scene or anything player-driven. But he wants new people to start playing the game to make WMH a good business for PP. So it annoys him when people talk about the tournament scene in such a way that it might turn people off from the game. But a lot of people do think that it matters, hugely, and that players should be aware of WM as a tournament game and so on. Just a disagreement between Blarg and others. Close, but not really. The community generally does better the bigger it is, and your FLGS will generally be more attentive to our stocking and hosting needs, so I'm interested in growing the size of the community. The tournament scene and anything else player-driven will attend to itself in a big, healthy community, but you have to have enough players who are active. If you were to think of a gaming community in terms of physics, a big, healthy gaming community will have a lot of momentum to it. Momentum (p) is equal to its mass (m) times its velocity (v). There are a lot of types of friction that will sap the velocity out of a gaming community: lack of time, lack of playing space, lack of interest to stock the game by the store owner, etc. A lot of players will only see the momentum in terms of velocity - the number of games played in the meta over a period of time. I'm coming at things from the mass side of the equation - if you have enough mass (number of players) then there is enough inertia to maintain the momentum, and the velocity will be less likely to be reduced. Part of the problem is that the mass (number of players) will not stay constant, it will decrease as the velocity decreases. (I'm dipping into Einstein here now.) So, you have to make efforts to keep the mass high by continuously adding players to maintain the mass. Keep the mass high and the player-driven efforts will attend to keeping the velocity high. You also have to have enough players to keep PP in business. Yes, theoretically, people could keep playing Warmachine / Hordes after PP were to go out of business, but we all know that's crap. Nobody wants to play a game that is no longer supported or updated. I used to play an *excellent* wargame called "Babylon 5 Wars" by Agents of Gaming years ago. Say what you will about the TV show, the game had a great rules system for playing a starship combat game that had real depth to it while still being relatively simple. The community effectively evaporated after Agents of Gaming went out of business. While I couldn't give a damn about the owners of PP, I do want the business to be successful so that my hobby is maintained. As a casual gamer I have no problem with the idea of people being "serious fun gamers" and playing Warmachine / Hordes only in a competitive way using the Steam Roller tournament format. (In all honesty, I hope they have a great time.) But, for some reason, the "serious fun gamers" can't seem to accept, sometimes even intolerant of the idea, that people may not want to play the game competitively. That one-way direction of tolerance, and the awful behavior that comes with it, can drive away potential new players. I will stand up against competitive gaming only thinking, because once it is accepted I believe that we will lose players over time and the game will collapse. Think I'm being silly? Go try to strike up a game of "Star Fleet Battles" at your FLGS.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Nov 28, 2017 16:01:28 GMT
I think Blarg just comes from a position where what matters is the game itself, not the community or the tournament scene or anything player-driven. But he wants new people to start playing the game to make WMH a good business for PP. So it annoys him when people talk about the tournament scene in such a way that it might turn people off from the game. But a lot of people do think that it matters, hugely, and that players should be aware of WM as a tournament game and so on. Just a disagreement between Blarg and others. Close, but not really. The community generally does better the bigger it is, and your FLGS will generally be more attentive to our stocking and hosting needs, so I'm interested in growing the size of the community. The tournament scene and anything else player-driven will attend to itself in a big, healthy community, but you have to have enough players who are active. If you were to think of a gaming community in terms of physics, a big, healthy gaming community will have a lot of momentum to it. Momentum (p) is equal to its mass (m) times its velocity (v). There are a lot of types of friction that will sap the velocity out of a gaming community: lack of time, lack of playing space, lack of interest to stock the game by the store owner, etc. A lot of players will only see the momentum in terms of velocity - the number of games played in the meta over a period of time. I'm coming at things from the mass side of the equation - if you have enough mass (number of players) then there is enough inertia to maintain the momentum, and the velocity will be less likely to be reduced. Part of the problem is that the mass (number of players) will not stay constant, it will decrease as the velocity decreases. (I'm dipping into Einstein here now.) So, you have to make efforts to keep the mass high by continuously adding players to maintain the mass. Keep the mass high and the player-driven efforts will attend to keeping the velocity high. You also have to have enough players to keep PP in business. Yes, theoretically, people could keep playing Warmachine / Hordes after PP were to go out of business, but we all know that's crap. Nobody wants to play a game that is no longer supported or updated. I used to play an *excellent* wargame called "Babylon 5 Wars" by Agents of Gaming years ago. Say what you will about the TV show, the game had a great rules system for playing a starship combat game that had real depth to it while still being relatively simple. The community effectively evaporated after Agents of Gaming went out of business. While I couldn't give a damn about the owners of PP, I do want the business to be successful so that my hobby is maintained. As a casual gamer I have no problem with the idea of people being "serious fun gamers" and playing Warmachine / Hordes only in a competitive way using the Steam Roller tournament format. (In all honesty, I hope they have a great time.) But, for some reason, the "serious fun gamers" can't seem to accept, sometimes even intolerant of the idea, that people may not want to play the game competitively. That one-way direction of tolerance, and the awful behavior that comes with it, can drive away potential new players. I will stand up against competitive gaming only thinking, because once it is accepted I believe that we will lose players over time and the game will collapse. Think I'm being silly? Go try to strike up a game of "Star Fleet Battles" at your FLGS. The thing that confuses me is that the purpose of this thread was to have a fun community list building with a condition of the most expensive. I don't understand why you're so against this thread, merely because you don't agree with it. Why do we have to censor out thread fir the purpose of optimal marketing to new players.
|
|
|
Post by droopingpuppy on Nov 28, 2017 17:15:43 GMT
Well, what about two 75 point lists instead of just one? The rules says that it needs to be steamroller legal, so what about to make a pair of lists? Then you need to make two lists that shares no models, so you can't simply spam the most expensive model per points. conflictchamber.com/#c1201be69G9GawdHdH6i8J8J9R9S9R9Sa3a3iQCygnar Army - 75 / 75 points (Stryker 3) Lord General Coleman Stryker [+28] - Ironclad [12] - Ironclad [12] - Minuteman [9] Gobber Tinker [2] Gobber Tinker [2] Alexia Ciannor & the Risen [10] Sea Dog Deck Gun [3] Sea Dog Deck Gun [3] Sword Knights (max) [13] - Sword Knight Officer & Standard [4] Sword Knights (max) [13] - Sword Knight Officer & Standard [4] Trencher Cannon Crew [6] Trencher Cannon Crew [6] Trencher Chain Gun Crew [4] 54.99+(34.99)×2+23.99+(69.99)×2+(21.99)×2+(32.99)×2+19.99+(17.99)×2+64.99+(21.99)×2= 563.84 USD conflictchamber.com/#c1201b8Z9F9JdLfiafafafaqaraqariBCygnar Army - 75 / 75 points (Darius 1) Captain E. Dominic Darius [+29] - Hammersmith [12] - Thunderhead [20] Raluk Moorclaw, the Ironmonger [4] Sergeant Nicolas Verendrye [4] Field Mechaniks (max) [5] Field Mechaniks (max) [5] Field Mechaniks (max) [5] Precursor Knights (max) [15] - Precursor Knight Officer & Standard Bearer [4] Precursor Knights (max) [15] - Precursor Knight Officer & Standard Bearer [4] Steelhead Halberdiers (max) [11] 44.99+59.99+24.99+(69.99)x2+(19.99)x2+54.99+17.99+15.99 = 398.9 USD 568.84+398.9= 962.74 USD.
|
|