Getting Priced Out

[Beastmaster]

17 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Not cheeseburgers, I know, but still a shift from toys to movies.

Or it could end up like that World of Warcraft movie that even the hardcore fans didn’t see or want or need. Even less so the bigger crowd not invested into the Warcraft universe. 
Superhero movies actually have a long history. Took decades and some serious development in storytelling and CGI to really lift off. Nothing that could be replicated in a heartbeat, and with a very real danger of flopping completely. The investors know that, too.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Beastmaster

[zilberfrid]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I'm not trying to go back and forth over this, but it's important to the point:

There's no "sense" about it. Literally, the rules *cannot* be part of the physical model, and thus changes to the rules *cannot* charge the models. To put it another way-

You buy a box of Mortek Guard. You open it. Inside you find 34 strips of paper with rules written on them, but no plastic. Can you build the unit of ten models?

Now you buy an old box of Empire Hangunners. You open it. Inside you find plastic and metal parts, but no rules. Can you build the unit of ten models?

No matter what ever happens for the rest of time, you will have 10 handgun need and zero Guard.

Even if you find 9 versions of handgunner rules for Warhammer over 20 years of buying old army books, White Dwarf magazines, and digital downloads, the physical models will never, ever change. It is interesting to note that the models can be used, with no physical alteration, in multiple GW games and even in games by other companies or those of you own invention. Heck, use them as wedding cake toppers if you want!

Point is, rules changes do not - cannot - change the physical models.

GW sells a whole ecosystem.

It sells rules, models, paints terrain and a gaming location.

The combination makes it work. If you take away rules, models or gaming location, they lose their edge. This means that say, a box of Dwarf Thunderers would just be on even ground with other vendors, and I don't think they'd do well in that comparison.

There's a reason the models that no longer have rules are not sold anymore (at least for AoS).

GW seems to price an army roughly to the same price, regardless of the price to produce. Whether or not an army has a good start collecting box does change this a bit. They price heroes at the price of 30 Warlord historicals, which they only can do because you need it in the game. Heroes are sometimes quite elaborate sculpts, but that would make them worth, say, 3 infantry models. Not 10 of their own.

[Beastmaster]

Ever tried to sell floppy disks in 2020?

Physically, they are still the same as they were in the 80s. But if no one owns a device that can read them, they are completely worthless. 
Same with models: I own an Aleguzzler that I got explicitly to use in my Mawtribes army. Now GW says that’s not possible any longer. For AoS gaming purposes, that model lost its worth completely for me. Just like a floppy disk I cannot use. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by Beastmaster

[Greybeard86]

Yes, rules won’t alter the physical model like dinner with  a chaos god would.  But that’s besides the point, which was that GW loves to play with the rules and that affects the “value” some people get from the model (those who play). 

From vastly changing the power levels of models (nerfs and buffs), to outright removing them from “official” play (yellow warhammer fantasy models). 

Rules are part of what GW uses, together with fluff, to sell you such pricey models. Because if you couldn’t use it in a Warhammer battle and it wasn’t whatever thing GW came up with (the super duper daemon or hero) you sure as heck wouldn’t pay as much for it.

[Greybeard86]

47 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

GW sells a whole ecosystem.

It sells rules, models, paints terrain and a gaming location.

The combination makes it work. If you take away rules, models or gaming location, they lose their edge. This means that say, a box of Dwarf Thunderers would just be on even ground with other vendors, and I don't think they'd do well in that comparison.

There's a reason the models that no longer have rules are not sold anymore (at least for AoS).

GW seems to price an army roughly to the same price, regardless of the price to produce. Whether or not an army has a good start collecting box does change this a bit. They price heroes at the price of 30 Warlord historicals, which they only can do because you need it in the game. Heroes are sometimes quite elaborate sculpts, but that would make them worth, say, 3 infantry models. Not 10 of their own.

Exactly! GW understood, from early on, that what they build around the model is as important or more than the model itself at determining its value.

if they can trick you into paying more for something because of a story they wrote about it, or some powerful rules, then they will. That’s how they manage such high profits, they are a hype train company. It is quite an achievement to sell you 6 giants at hundreds of dollars and for players to say it is “fair” because it is the cost of another army (one with dozens of miniatures). It is no longer mainly about he physical model, it is mostly  about the hype (sure, model quality will matter but it is secondary for many).

now, being the corporate behemoth that it is, owned by investment funds, GW milks this really hard.  

[stratigo]

16 hours ago, Kramer said:

A lot of statues weren’t fine until recently. They were wrong all the time but people didn’t know. Or phrased differently they were accepted in previously held morality by society.

and in the same manner we do things as a society now, that will be viewed as wrong later.  

morality changes, that’s natural. 
removing statues instead of using them to teach why their morality is now viewed as wrong is not the best solution imo. It creates a wrong sense that things and people are right and wrong. That it’s fully black or white. that doesn’t work. Also dismissively calling one side of the argument something doesn’t help either. 

Actually most of the not fine statues were put up because they were not fine and were a useful tool in reminding a downtrodden minority how the majority viewed them and their place in the world. The vast majority of those civil war generals were raised in opposition civil rights. The shouldn't be at street corners, campuses, and in front of government buildings. People remember why they were actually placed there and the equivocation of "but but history" is mostly nonsense.

 

The morality that changed was "oh, maybe black people should have equal rights and not be abused". Sadly, for some, still a controversial statement.

On 10/22/2020 at 4:14 AM, Saxon said:

The lore of 40k has more or less been consistent in its xenophobia from the start. It's tiresome that all of a sudden its bad to show good guys as problematically xenophobic. Hence my reference to statues. Fine until recently and now they're offensive. Please. 

The problem being that the Imperium was never supposed to be the good guys. They were a satire on how fascist the original game writers thought thatcherite england was. 

 

So, uh, yeah, being problematically xenophobic was one of the ways to show the imperium was bad that people have started to take as good. Which is bad.

 

Just like how statues that were raised to glorify slavers (the vast majority of confederate generals and politician statues) as a tool to scare black people was bad when they did it.

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, stratigo said:

Actually most of the not fine statues were put up because they were not fine and were a useful tool in reminding a downtrodden minority how the majority viewed them and their place in the world. The vast majority of those civil war generals were raised in opposition civil rights. The shouldn't be at street corners, campuses, and in front of government buildings. People remember why they were actually placed there and the equivocation of "but but history" is mostly nonsense.

 

The morality that changed was "oh, maybe black people should have equal rights and not be abused". Sadly, for some, still a controversial statement.

The problem being that the Imperium was never supposed to be the good guys. They were a satire on how fascist the original game writers thought thatcherite england was. 

 

So, uh, yeah, being problematically xenophobic was one of the ways to show the imperium was bad that people have started to take as good. Which is bad.

 

Just like how statues that were raised to glorify slavers (the vast majority of confederate generals and politician statues) as a tool to scare black people was bad when they did it.

Yeh im not going to wade into anything related to the disaster that is the USA. Nothing beneficial comes from discussing such a polarising and chaotic country.

Its game lore and it's meant to be dark and confronting. The imperium is authoritarian and xenophobic because its the only way it survives. Getting upset by people seeing this in a way different to your own is the most concerning thing. 

[Greybeard86]

24 minutes ago, stratigo said:

So, uh, yeah, being problematically xenophobic was one of the ways to show the imperium was bad that people have started to take as good. Which is bad.

The original premise of the the fluff around the game was that there were no "good" guys, and that everything was utterly ridiculous.

Now, I read recent novels were marines were "buff bros with a heart" and the emperor a "benevolent but misunderstood father figure".  To me, it is clear that the original setting was drinking from a form of counterculture to the things you mention (in England, in particular). The current setting is probably a combination of "fanzine" of those who took it "too seriously" but also don't really drink from current political events (like the old fluff guys did) and "marketing engineered" stuff.

[Beastmaster]

2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Yeh im not going to wade into anything related to the disaster that is the USA. Nothing beneficial comes from discussing such a polarising and chaotic country.

Its game lore and it's meant to be dark and confronting. The imperium is authoritarian and xenophobic because its the only way it survives. Getting upset by people seeing this in a way different to your own is the most concerning thing. 

I do find it upsetting that more and more people in real life think being xenophobic and hoping for a well-meaning dictator is a completely unproblematic, even, considering the circumstances, necessary way of seeing things. Those are the people who don’t get the satire that 40k tries to be imo.

[Greybeard86]

13 minutes ago, Saxon said:

The imperium is authoritarian and xenophobic because its the only way it survives.

That's the modern reading and likely what triggers some people. See, when we are in desperate times we need strong figures and to care for our own only; sounds familiar?

In old times the imperium was authoritarian and xenophobic because it was a freaking mess. It was a barely functioning imperium, extremely ineffective at almost everything (mentioned mostly in terms of vastness and inopperancy) and overly influenced by fanatical super soldiers in dehumanizing armor that followed blindly some rotting corpse on a chair.

4 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

I do find it upsetting that more and more people in real life think being xenophobic and hoping for a well-meaning dictator is a completely unproblematic, even, considering the circumstances, necessary way of seeing things. Those are the people who don’t get the satire that 40k tries to be imo.

*Tried to be. I do think corporate GW has abandoned any ambition to make social commentary. The fact that they are "justifying" a xenophobic genocidal dictatorship as "necessary to survive" is more a matter of trying to create some "good guys" out of the 40k mess than anything, IMO.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Greybeard86

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, Beastmaster said:

I do find it upsetting that more and more people in real life think being xenophobic and hoping for a well-meaning dictator is a completely unproblematic, even, considering the circumstances, necessary way of seeing things. Those are the people who don’t get the satire that 40k tries to be imo.

The word dictator has been thrown around a lot in my country due to harsh restrictions to control Covid-19. 

Politics in general seems to be a race to the bottom worldwide. 

I find it sad that some people cannot separate a game and real life. When I actually used to play 40k as a teenager it was so much simpler.....

[Saxon]

3 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

That's the modern reading and likely what triggers some people.

This is the crux of my entire argument.......

[Greybeard86]

16 minutes ago, Saxon said:

 The imperium is authoritarian and xenophobic because its the only way it survives.

 

2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

This is the crux of my entire argument.......

Yes, but you see how you did reference that reading? Because this is modern GW canon:

"The imperium is besieged from all fronts and needs strong men (yes, mostly men) and to be xenophobic because otherwise it would perish; also, kids respect fatherly figures because they are ultimately doing what's best for humanity (the emperor our savior)"

It is not random that people, including yourself, read it this way; it is GW's doing via the "newer" publications.

In the past, it was more like:

"The imperium is a freaking fascist mess, xenophobic because of fanaticism, ignorance, and greed. It is lead by riot-police-like fanatic / hooligans who workship a megalomaniac old man rotting in a chair"

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, Greybeard86 said:

 

Yes, but you see how you did reference that reading? Because this is modern GW canon:

"The imperium is besieged from all fronts and needs strong men (yes, mostly men) and to be xenophobic because otherwise it would perish; also, kids respect fatherly figures because they are ultimately doing what's best for humanity (the emperor our savior)"

It is not random that people, including yourself, read it this way; it is GW's doing via the "newer" publications.

In the past, it was more like:

"The imperium is a freaking fascist mess, xenophobic because of fanaticism, ignorance, and greed. It is lead by riot-police-like fanatic / hooligans who workship a megalomaniac old man rotting in a chair"

Is it not easier for them to do it this way? Consistent even? 

I have also derailed this thread and I apologise haha. 

[Greybeard86]

5 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Is it not easier for them to do it this way? Consistent even? 

I have also derailed this thread and I apologise haha. 

I think the thread is already doing cross-country, no worries (at least on my end).

It is certainly easier in current times, IMO, to sell the story about "heroes" and "villains". I bet the market they were selling to in the 80s was pretty different and the "counterculture" approach was both closer to the original writers and the other "geeks".

The problem is that their "sugar coating" of the empire, which is inherently an authoritarian xenophobic thing, is in line with the current political debates / issues far too much for its own good.

"Culture" may attempt to distance itself from the rest of society (in the case of GW, they likely just care about selling and "good" vs "bad" sells more now) but it going to fail. If you write stories about "good" fascist regimes, you are contributing to a narrative whether you want it or not. "In bad times, we need strong men and xenophobia" is certainly one side of the political debate.

Funny how it is radically opposed to the original spirit of 40k. Can I get a LoL?

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, Greybeard86 said:

I think the thread is already doing cross-country, no worries (at least on my end).

It is certainly easier in current times, IMO, to sell the story about "heroes" and "villains". I bet the market they were selling to in the 80s was pretty different and the "counterculture" approach was both closer to the original writers and the other "geeks".

The problem is that their "sugar coating" of the empire, which is inherently an authoritarian xenophobic thing, is in line with the current political debates / issues far too much for its own good.

"Culture" may attempt to distance itself from the rest of society (in the case of GW, they likely just care about selling and "good" vs "bad" sells more now) but it going to fail. If you write stories about "good" fascist regimes, you are contributing to a narrative whether you want it or not. "In bad times, we need strong men and xenophobia" is certainly one side of the political debate.

Funny how it is radically opposed to the original spirit of 40k. Can I get a LoL?

You're not wrong. I had a good laugh at the Imperium being created as a p*ss take. 

I would resent anything GW related becoming even remotely political. It was bad enough seeing social media blow up and demand GW become socially involved in the wake of their inclusively statement. Thats a road that leads only to trouble. 

[lare2]

Some great tips and tricks in this thread on how to afford the hobby we love. For me, Warhammer is simultaneously both a relatively cheap/expensive hobby. What I mean is that you can play the game on the cheap through great start collecting deals plus free rules, or you can go hell for leather with a full on 2k matched play, I'm meta all the way, wahay kinda game. Some models are really cheap through boxsets and others (e.g. megabigboys) are expensive. 

In order to finance my love for the hobby, I set aside a pot of cash per month. Once it's gone, it's gone. If I do want something expensive then I need to save up monthly and resist the temptation to buy something else. I have the finances to go out and buy a meta list army in one go - but where's the fun in that?  I love striving slowly towards my perfect collection. One day I will own every Death model going (not you FEC) and I'm gonna enjoy the many years it'll take me. 

[Greybeard86]

4 minutes ago, Saxon said:

You're not wrong. I had a good laugh at the Imperium being created as a p*ss take. 

I would resent anything GW related becoming even remotely political. It was bad enough seeing social media blow up and demand GW become socially involved in the wake of their inclusively statement. Thats a road that leads only to trouble. 

You would have resented 80's GW then

I would have preferred for GW to avoid attempting to justify the "imperium" and just stick to the "everything sucks" theme. Or at least have more diversity in the interpretations in black library (and other "lore producing" media), not this general line of "justifying" the regime.

As long as they keep producing books about how a "xenpophobic militaristic regime under the direction of strong men" is the only hope for humanity, they will get some complaints from those who view it as endorsing a certain political banner. But generally speaking most GW costumers seem pretty unconcerned with these issues in the franchise, I would say.

I am starting to read more about the AoS universe and it seems that here they stuck to a more traditional "good vs evil", right?

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

9 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I would resent anything GW related becoming even remotely political.

I'm sorry, but how is setting up the Imperium as a satire of fascism not already political? Not to mention stuff like the original characterization of ork stormboyz, where they are portrayed as idiots for acting like militaristic skinhead punks.

That's not even getting into the matter of stuff that I suspect you would view as political I would want to argue should not be viewed as such, like female representation in the model range.

[RuneBrush]

16 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

Here I will disagree. Quite frankly, the model has a value that includes the physical object, and GW's support, which also means rules.

14 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:

The thing is though, that a units rules are at least partially factored into the price gw charge, and so you can’t really just ignore the rules when talking about pricing.

Going to have to agree with @Sleboda here.  GW is a miniatures company as it's primary industry and it's never made any secret about it.  The miniatures come first and the rules are written second.  We as hobbyists decide how we wish to use those rules, what version, customisations etc.  You could feasibly use citadel miniatures on a chess board - it wouldn't change how much we paid for that miniature.  This is also backed up by random one off characters that have no special rules being priced the same as other characters (looking at you Bladeghest birthday miniature and Catachan lady).

What I do think is worth saying though that this does highlight that our own approach to our hobby will determine our personal view of what's value for money and what isn't.  If you're primarily a player/gamer, then the rules are going to play a key role in determining what miniatures you wish to pick up.  If you're not then the rules play less of a role and you're more likely to buy something that might not be cost effective from a gaming perspective.

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I'm sorry, but how is setting up the Imperium as a satire of fascism not already political? Not to mention stuff like the original characterization of ork stormboyz, where they are portrayed as idiots for acting like militaristic skinhead punks.

That's not even getting into the matter of stuff that I suspect you would view as political I would want to argue should not be viewed as such, like female representation in the model range.

Its not explicitly political. It wasnt until about 5 years ago I realised the imperium was satire. 

I support female models and female options. Probably my favourite recent models are the Sisters of battle ( or whatever GW calls them for IP reasons these days). Would be nice if they made alternative sprues for most factions as well as doing more work to encourage different skin tones on their boxes

[Saxon]

10 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I'm sorry, but how is setting up the Imperium as a satire of fascism not already political? Not to mention stuff like the original characterization of ork stormboyz, where they are portrayed as idiots for acting like militaristic skinhead punks.

That's not even getting into the matter of stuff that I suspect you would view as political I would want to argue should not be viewed as such, like female representation in the model range.

Funnily enough my last idea for an army was a chaos army of marauders using females as shield maiden's as a Viking theme. There was a lack of available alternative heads that weren't extortionate expensive. 

[Mcthew]

23 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

You would have resented 80's GW then

I would have preferred for GW to avoid attempting to justify the "imperium" and just stick to the "everything sucks" theme. Or at least have more diversity in the interpretations in black library (and other "lore producing" media), not this general line of "justifying" the regime.

As long as they keep producing books about how a "xenpophobic militaristic regime under the direction of strong men" is the only hope for humanity, they will get some complaints from those who view it as endorsing a certain political banner. But generally speaking most GW costumers seem pretty unconcerned with these issues in the franchise, I would say.

I am starting to read more about the AoS universe and it seems that here they stuck to a more traditional "good vs evil", right?

Agree. AoS is less problematic, but recently the lore has attempted to show more grey than good vs evil. Chaos, for example, are no longer championed by inhuman monsters, but wayward heroes that buckled under the weight of pure horror. FEC are a tragedy really, as are most mortals in this Greek-God play that is AoS. Which is why there is so much narrative scope in this universe. And fewer problems.

WH40k faces the same problems as 2000AD did with Judge Dredd. The main character is a facist. Its a police state and good people are the ones who die, often horribly.  To sugar-coat that is to lie to your readership because you're afraid they won't get the satire. GW have got cold feet in the way 2000AD did not. Now the message is too mixed.

And this is the root of why Warhammer will never be anything more than a tabletop hobby. It is based on the principle of never ending war and what practically facilitates that. That provides a never ending possibility for gaming, but is quite dramatically dull for the mainstream, and politically problematic.

And its why films, shows and books like LotR, Alien and Battlestar Galactica succeed. Its not the battles that really captivate, but the humanity between the death, misery and awe, things we can relate to better.

Honestly, there's not much anyone can relate to in WH40k beyond the hobby. But then... what a hobby!

Edited October 23, 2020 by Mcthew

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

3 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Its not explicitly political. It wasnt until about 5 years ago I realised the imperium was satire.

I think a lot of people would view this as a problem, because it should probably not be ambiguous whether or not the Imperium is a) fascist and b) that this is bad.

The Imperium, especially Space Marines, are frequently cast as heroic or aspirational by GW. They are decidedly not the villains of 40k. And because they are not the villain faction, I think it's extra important that their fascist elements are clearly presented as bad. Especially at the moment where fascism is gaining ground again around the world.

It's not that people can't accept having factions that do bad things in GW games. Nobody complains about having chaos or Nagash around. Not even really Deepkin or Daughters of Khaine, who are nominally the good guys. It's more about not being careful enough about not presenting these bad things as aspirational. I have seen enough people honestly defending the fascist and xenophobic aspects of the Imperium as good online that I believe it is necessary to more clearly denounce them.

[RuneBrush]

+++ MOD HAT +++

It appears my screen didn't refresh properly before I posted.  Please can we avoid any political discussions on TGA.  We've done very well over the past 15 pages, but currently teetering on that slippery slope.