Sons of behemat are unsustainable

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, Slayerofmen said:

Barring having to pay an extra 100 dollars after the exchange rate from UK to aud to buy a mega giant my position is less about the price and more and the book feeling lacklustre, AoS has too many examples already of books coming out with what id argue is bare minimum for them. It should have hit with more unit choices

How fun is AoS in Australia. Stupid Covid prevented me from throwing my clothes away and stocking up on cheap plastic crack when i was in the UK in March 😆

[123lac]

You gotta do conversions I guess and it looks like a pretty great kit for doing conversions.

Tbh I think the only thing that's unsustainable about the kit is the price.

[Kasper]

On 10/24/2020 at 2:04 PM, Icegoat said:

This army as a collector is not a sustainable army it is not an army you collect it is an army you buy once and that's it. 

The entire range is built of 2 kits that In itself is disastrous but that each kit cost so many in game points is a tragedy. I collect maggotkin and cities of sigmar. This means every month I realistically can buy a box of a new unit and add it in to one of my forces. I have what 50 plaguebearers, 50 chaos warriors 30 blighkings, a giant, maggots riders, chaos knights, beats of nurgle plague drones the list is endless and so are the possibilities of what to build and buy next and the combinations used .

Well if I was a mega gargant collector  what do i add? What new creature what new unit fits into my army? None. I can have what max 9 small giants. Now sold in boxes of 2 or I can have 3 mega gargant max. Now maybe their are some crazy people who will build 3 each of each variant of mega gargant but really? 

Sob is not about collecting and building it's the first of what are going to be many I believe gw releases one and done they got your 400 quid goodbye armies. I will be very interested to see how many years it's going to be until the next sons of behemat release. I think we will be waiting for a long while. How many people in 40k run pure knight lists and how many use them in conjunction with an imperium force? Sons of behemat have even less options than imperial knights in their book and far fewer kits.

I kinda get what you mean. Once you have bought 9 Mancrushers, 3 Mega-Gargants (and magnetized them) and maybe a Bonegrinder, there is little incentive to buy additional models since there is never a situation where you could use more. I dont think the kits are "disastrous" though, both kits offer lots of bits and a little greenstuffing on the Mancrushers goes a long way to make a very unique force with different poses/models.

Even for an army like Ironjawz with only 3 battleline units and 4 hero units, you can dwell deep into Gore-Gruntas and go all out with like 21 in a force, or go double Maw-Krusha, or go a lot of Brutes, or tons of Ardboyz etc etc. You can pretty much always branch out and buy loads more models for your army.

I dont think this means it is a "fire and forget" army from GWs POV. They have an interest in keeping the army supported because some people will buy into it down the line once they got tired of their 200 model horde army and want to just move around with a few big models instead.

Im pretty sure there were multiple reasons why they dialed back the whole "oh white dwarf article is no longer legal" - It now gives them a way to re-introduce/update exsisting armies. I wouldnt be surprised if they added a different Tribe or batallion etc. down the line for the army.

Edited October 26, 2020 by Kasper

[dekay]

The more I think of the faction, the more I'm inclined to agree.

Typically, you're starting new army with smaller games, like 1000 pts. In SoB, and that's kinda ridiculous, it means you're buying one mega gargant box and 2 boxes of mancrushers. That's literally your only option, and 100% of customisability (what tribe you'll be playing) can be done with magnets.

So let's develop your new army further, to 2000 pts. You buy third box of mancrushers (you have one extra anyway, so might as well make it 6) and add a second mega gargant. Or you buy two mega gargants instead. Again, your only options.

Now, that you have your 2000 points, you might want to buy something for alternate builds. Depending on your previous choice you buy... huh. Third mega gargant or third box of mancrushers? And it fou REALLY want all the options, you might buy 2 more boxes of mancrushers to be ale to play 1+9. 

Yeah all those are horribly expensive and it won't be in any way cheaper than a regular army, but it's downright weird how little decision making is involved when buying these.... (i mean, yeah, you COULD buy 9 mega gargants to have 3 of each type if you're allergic to magnets, but if you don't like converting, is this really an army for you? 3 identical monsters as a centerpiece don't look too good....)

To add to this, the faction has no allies, so you have zero incentive to develop the force in any other direction.

And comparing SoB to Imperial Knights is kind of wrong mostly because Knights have always had a very long list of allies. Knights supported by Guard were radically different to play than knights with AdMech and both were different to pure knights. Using a gargant as mercenary is kind of similar but it robs him of most of his special rules AND costs extra 50 pts in form of a command point (and, most important difference, it gives you no incentive to buy more gargants, as you're limited to 1 anyway!). And ever since knights got their 8th edition codex (and before that we're talkingo of dark times of mini-factions from the previous era which was rightly left behind) they have more than twice the number of SoB units. Not even counting forgeworld!

Edited October 26, 2020 by dekay

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

I think the Sons of Behemat are a textbook example of a situation where game designers are being efficient with their resources and people see it as them being "lazy" or "not caring" or something.

Making models is costly, time consuming and difficult. Writing rules is comparatively cheap, quick and easy. Imagine you are part of GW and it was just decided that a new Mega-Gargant kit will be made. There is no gargant faction currently, so they are going to be a mercenary model. But you could spin them out into a minimally functional faction by just writing a battletome and incorporating the existing giant kit into it alongside the new kit. I'm fairly confident that's the actual choice that was on the table: Do we make a faction for the Mega Gargants or are they just going to be mercenaries? Not: Do we make one new kit for our planned Sons of Behemat faction or more?

People hate this kind of thing for some reason, and I personally find it puzzling. We saw the same kind of reaction to Cities of Sigmar, where people were angry that there were no new models. I don't believe new models were ever on the table. The choice was probably: Do we write rules to support these old model ranges or let them fade into obscurity over the next few editions?

It's the same principle as people complaining about "clone" characters in fighting games. You could make a new character for the game and it would take three months. Or you could make a clone character (a character based on another existing character with minimal variations) in one month. So if a clone character is made, that does not take a way a "slot" from a new character.

There is a lot to criticize about Sons of Behemat. But the fact that the army came out with the minimum amount of models that could possibly sustain it is not one of those things. At least if there is a faction, there is the possibility of expansion. If there were just the new Mega Gargants and no faction rules, I would not place very high odds on more giant kits being made to expand a faction that would not even exist.

[Greybeard86]

4 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I think the Sons of Behemat are a textbook example of a situation where game designers are being efficient with their resources and people see it as them being "lazy" or "not caring" or something.

[...]

There is a lot to criticize about Sons of Behemat. But the fact that the army came out with the minimum amount of models that could possibly sustain it is not one of those things. At least if there is a faction, there is the possibility of expansion. If there were just the new Mega Gargants and no faction rules, I would not place very high odds on more giant kits being made to expand a faction that would not even exist.

I see what you are saying.

The criticism seems to come from a fan that is used to the "old" style of releases. GW had some factions and, over the years, they constantly filled them with new options. Whereas for AoS it seems to be more like you say, minimal working armies that may or may not get new releases; certainly, besides stormcast, other factions have (at best) spaced out releases.

I guess that, while in WHFB (or 40k), the expectation was that you would have a few large collections, whereas in AoS people may have several armies and expand to new ones instead of adding to their standing ones.

[Kasper]

On 10/25/2020 at 6:38 AM, Sleboda said:

This is absolutely, in my opinion, the coolest thing about the army. I've watched some battle reports, and I really like the speed and ease of the games.

Having played almost 10 games already with my SoB army, it is awesome not having to spend 30 mins in your hero phase alone (hello Seraphon/Tzeentch). Honestly a lot of armies have meaningless ability bloat/abilities that in the grand scheme of things dont impact the game much imo which doesnt necessarily equal to the army requiring "more skill" to pilot. We had a 1 dayer at my club the other day where we were 10 mates playing all kinds of different armies. My games had usually reached turn 5 by the time the other games had gone to turn 2. It was refreshing not playing 3-3½ hours for a game of AoS.

Edited October 26, 2020 by Kasper

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

1 minute ago, Greybeard86 said:

I guess that, while in WHFB (or 40k), the expectation was that you would have a few large collections, whereas in AoS people may have several armies and expand to new ones instead of adding to their standing ones.

This is a good point. I personally don't really know where I stand on this matter. Being able to have one army that you collect of indefinitely seems nice for enfranchised players who already own a lot of stuff. But at the same time, having more armies with narrower ranges lowers the barrier of entry.  I also personally think that it's nice to be able to reach a point where you are just done with an army for the time being, but obviously that's not universal. I think overall, the game would benefit more from lowering the barrier of entry (which is still quite high right now) as much as possible, even if it comes at the cost of "punishing" enfranchised players.

For what it's worth, even though we are probably in the final year of AoS 2.0, I think the game has just recently got to a state of full working order, where every army that is supported has rules. Up until the release of the new Seraphon battletome, I think a lot was still up in the air regarding what factions would eventually be made permanent. So I believe release practices from the time of 2.0 are not necessarily going to be reflective of what will happen in the future. Case in point: Daughters of Khaine is getting a lot of attention right now and is receiving a bunch of new models all at once, as well as probably a rules add-on with Broken Realms. So we will have to see how things develop from here on out.

[Beastmaster]

31 minutes ago, Kasper said:

Having played almost 10 games already with my SoB army, it is awesome not having to spend 30 mins in your hero phase alone (hello Seraphon/Tzeentch). Honestly a lot of armies have meaningless ability bloat/abilities that in the grand scheme of things dont impact the game much imo which doesnt necessarily equal to the army requiring "more skill" to pilot. We had a 1 dayer at my club the other day where we were 10 mates playing all kinds of different armies. My games had usually reached turn 5 by the time the other games had gone to turn 2. It was refreshing not playing 3-3½ hours for a game of AoS.

Maybe skirmish games would be more up your alley?

[Greybeard86]

7 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

This is a good point. I personally don't really know where I stand on this matter. Being able to have one army that you collect of indefinitely seems nice for enfranchised players who already own a lot of stuff. But at the same time, having more armies with narrower ranges lowers the barrier of entry.  I also personally think that it's nice to be able to reach a point where you are just done with an army for the time being, but obviously that's not universal. I think overall, the game would benefit more from lowering the barrier of entry (which is still quite high right now) as much as possible, even if it comes at the cost of "punishing" enfranchised players.

I am not sure it is easier to get started with smaller armies. As a matter of fact, I think it might be harder.

Hear me out:

An army with several alternative options represents just that, options; at the end of the day you are limited by points. Another army without as many options just limits your choices, but the cost of entry is the same (you need X units to fill your 1000/2000 points).

However, there are some elements within a large army you can recycle. For example, in an army with a large collection of models you can re use battelines, or certain key heroes, and just change whatever special units you want to bring. You cannot do that easily cross armies, specially in (semi) competitive play.

So, in fact, if you just want to vary the playstyle, having to go across armies is actually more expensive than just moving to a different set of options within a book with more options.

You may argue that staying within an army and varying units provides less of a different experience than going across armies. Very true, but with armies with larger collection of units, this is a choice. With narrower armies, if you want to vary playstyle you are sort of forced into buying a whole new army; precisely that is what has a big fixed costs (rebuy all generals, rebuy books, rebuy perhaps paints for a different scheme, and so on).

TL/DR: It is more costly to vary playstyles if you need to switch armies, there us no such a thing as a "barrier of entry" for broader armies.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

6 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

I am not sure it is easier to get started with smaller armies. As a matter of fact, I think it might be harder.

I think you might be underestimating how overwhelmed people get by large numbers of choices when they try to get into the game. Some people love getting deep into rules and figuring out their builds (I'm one of them!) but a lot of people just want a clear starting point. Not to mention all those people who just buy a bunch of models and then feel bad because they don't have a working army after six months of painting and building. Look at the thread about collecting several armies: A lot of people just buy one of everything when they build an army and honestly, for how many armies with big model ranges is that actually a good approach gameplay-wise?

I have to admit, I don't really see how you can reuse more models if you want to try a new playstyle in a larger range compared to a smaller one. If an army only has one unconditional battleline choice, that will surely be usable in any build. It's not like recent small armies are so specialized that there is only one possible playstyle for them and you have to buy a completely new army if you want to switch it up. At least for both OBR and Lumineth that's not the case.

I also believe that a lot of playstyle variety can be achieved with rules, regardless of model options.  If you are bored of grinding down your opponent in Mortis Pretorians you can just switch to Stalliarch Lords and go fast for a change. I think if battalions and subfactions are implemented well they give a lot of playstyle variety without having to change models.

To reiterate, I see the barrier to entry for large factions in two places, mainly: Figuring out what's good/what you want to buy and eventual feel bads when you make bad choices. In a smaller range, it's easier to communicate what you need to get started and to make sure that most/all choices are workable.

[Kasper]

48 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

Maybe skirmish games would be more up your alley?

Nah Im good. I like AoS a lot and dont enjoy Warcry or other similar games. I just dont think having tons of ability bloat creates a good game. AoS is won in the movement phase anyways. SoB is awesome and a good break from playing Seraphon/Tzeentch.

[dekay]

1 hour ago, Greybeard86 said:

The criticism seems to come from a fan that is used to the "old" style of releases. GW had some factions and, over the years, they constantly filled them with new options. Whereas for AoS it seems to be more like you say, minimal working armies that may or may not get new releases; certainly, besides stormcast, other factions have (at best) spaced out releases.

There's one more thing in play here:

Many of us remember the days of 7th edition 40k when they were flooding the game with mini factions (tempestus, skitarii, genestealer cults, cult mechanicus, talons of the emperor, knights), we have since learned that it was because of the ridiculous marketing strategy involving white dwarf release schedule, and it was widely regarded as a bad idea. AoS has of course fallen victim to this strategy too (early battletomes for bonesplitterz, beastclaw raiders and so on) but, the thing is, both 40k and AoS have since moved away from this strategy.

The factions have been either combined into bigger books (warclans, mechanicus etc) or developed with second wave of releases (genestealers, custodes, knights) or at the very least, in case of AoS, with new characters, underworlds models and endless spells (in case of factions with kinda reasonable number of units, such as flesheaters or fyreslayers).

And here, out of nowhere, we get SoB, entirely in line of the previous design philosphy that many consider a failure. So here we are, looking at their 4 unit-2 kit army list asking 'where's the other half?' Because everything else that was comparatively compact in the past has since grown.

EDIT, additional reflection:

Look at Lumineth. Folks call Lumineth unfinished and lacking their Tyrionic half, and it's a faction of 10 units, endless spells and now underworlds warbands too. almost 3 times the choice of SoB. Compare it to say, Bonereapers, another faction that came out of nowhere that, despite borrowing only 4 warscrolls from the earlier Legions of Nagash still feels very much complete.

Edited October 26, 2020 by dekay

[Greybeard86]

2 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I think you might be underestimating how overwhelmed people get by large numbers of choices when they try to get into the game. [...]

To reiterate, I see the barrier to entry for large factions in two places, mainly: Figuring out what's good/what you want to buy and eventual feel bads when you make bad choices. In a smaller range, it's easier to communicate what you need to get started and to make sure that most/all choices are workable.

I thought we were talking about monetary cost.

After your post, I see the "fixed entry costs" as being in two categories:

• Money:  I think we agree that buying some different units for an army is cheaper than buying a new army.
• Time / mental effort: Need to figure out how to play the new army.

Then, there is the "need" / "desire" to change playstyle interacting with this.

• If you have small armies with few choices, it is "mental effort" is "low(er)", but the monetary cost of switching playstyles is "high(er)".
• If you have armies with many choices, the reverse is true.

Personally, I think that "money" trumps the mental effort, as one is a "true" cost and the other is part of the hobby (making lists). The fact that there are "bad" choices in large ranges has more to do with GW having bad internal balance, though. But that's a different topic.

Quote

I have to admit, I don't really see how you can reuse more models if you want to try a new playstyle in a larger range compared to a smaller one.

If you want to try a new playstyle, it is easier to do so staying within an army if that army has more choices. I think that's self explanatory? So if you have a "narrow" army and you branch out to another army for a different playstyle, you certainly pay a big fixed cost.

[Greybeard86]

5 minutes ago, dekay said:

AoS have since moved away from this strategy.

[...]

And here, out of nowhere, we get SoB, entirely in line of the previous design philosphy that many consider a failure. So here we are, looking at their 4 unit-2kit army list asking 'where's the other half?' Because everything else that was comparatively compact in the past has since grown.

That was my comment.

Although, as dwarf fan, I'd argue that fyreslayers have a pretty limited range (literally 2 sculpts for things that aren't heroes?). Specially coming from the wealth of options (granted, some bad) of the proud oldhammer dwarves.

[dekay]

1 minute ago, Greybeard86 said:

That was my comment.

Although, as dwarf fan, I'd argue that fyreslayers have a pretty limited range (literally 2 sculpts for things that aren't heroes?). Specially coming from the wealth of options (granted, some bad) of the proud oldhammer dwarves.

Oh, yeah, I agree with you, just elaborating on the point.

And as for fyreslayers, that's entirely true! They have quite a small amount of choice, both kit and warscroll wise. And still, their army has 3 units and 11 heroes, + underworlds warband, terrain and spells. And ally options. And Kharadron battletome allowing for building a mixed army. And yet, there are still justified complaints that it's not enough, so I don't really get how can anyone be surprised people are complaining about choice in SoB ; )

[Greybeard86]

15 minutes ago, dekay said:

Oh, yeah, I agree with you, just elaborating on the point.

And as for fyreslayers, that's entirely true! They have quite a small amount of choice, both kit and warscroll wise. And still, their army has 3 units and 11 heroes, + underworlds warband, terrain and spells. And ally options. And Kharadron battletome allowing for building a mixed army. And yet, there are still justified complaints that it's not enough, so I don't really get how can anyone be surprised people are complaining about choice in SoB ; )

I do honestly appreciate the "recent history lesson", in case my "like" wasn't explicit enough.

Personally, I think that they somehow managed to cripple ally options via the specific synergies they allow within faction. For example, I was looking at fyreslayers to have something "competitive" besides my collection of oldhammer. What allies can one meaningfully bring there? Seems pretty limited, most competitive lists are pretty closed in points.

I think that was the design intent, to be honest, to include a bunch of "smaller" armies and have people paint a bunch of those, as opposed to the massive collections of old.  You are telling me that is changing? I also think we may have different expectations.

Discounting heroes, I'd say lumineth are fairly limited. Archers, spears, cavalry, hammers; one version of each; then some centerpieces. I mean, compare that to the old "high elves". One might argue this is on release, and that they will keep expanding. But I thought that hasn't been the case for a lot of factions in AoS. You are telling me otherwise?

[Icegoat]

2 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

I do honestly appreciate the "recent history lesson", in case my "like" wasn't explicit enough.

Personally, I think that they somehow managed to cripple ally options via the specific synergies they allow within faction. For example, I was looking at fyreslayers to have something "competitive" besides my collection of oldhammer. What allies can one meaningfully bring there? Seems pretty limited, most competitive lists are pretty closed in points.

I think that was the design intent, to be honest, to include a bunch of "smaller" armies and have people paint a bunch of those, as opposed to the massive collections of old.  You are telling me that is changing? I also think we may have different expectations.

Discounting heroes, I'd say lumineth are fairly limited. Archers, spears, cavalry, hammers; one version of each; then some centerpieces. I mean, compare that to the old "high elves". One might argue this is on release, and that they will keep expanding. But I thought that hasn't been the case for a lot of factions in AoS. You are telling me otherwise?

And this is the problem realistically people who bought into ironjawz and fyreslayers at the start years ago probably thought oh only a few units at the moment but I can ally in my old dwarves or my old goblin wolf riders if needed. And I'm sure more units will be coming and the army will be expanded. 4 years later fyreslayers gained 5 new sculpts and some endless spells and a pizza oven, ironjawz 7 new sculpts all just redos of existing units.  All very small no new units and theyve now lost the options for old allies as the grand alliances are basically dead and the models no longer in production.

SoB comes along with 1!! New kit and rehashes an old one from 15 years ago and that's an army. Well as I've said earlier in the thread. I dont think these updates and new sculpts are going to be as forthcoming as the much vaunted imperial knights. Every new Aos faction is limited it seems and SoB have taken that too the true extreme. 

[Kadeton]

One thing that stands out in this thread is the people saying how cool it is to have a low-model faction that plays fast. Honestly, have you all not seen Beastclaw Raiders on the table? They've been doing this for ages! (And just quietly, they're really good at it - better than the Gargants, in my opinion.)

[The Red King]

On 10/25/2020 at 6:16 AM, Greybeard86 said:

Absolutely. GW does monitor sales and I am sure they make very calculated decisions when it comes to that. Whinning about prices will not get any attention if the rest buy enough; there isn't much else to say about it.

If you do not like the current "high prices", the only solutions are things that diminish GW's market dominance, since that is the main reason for the price levels. As an individual consumer, this means being careful with your budget. But we can do a bit more than that, though. We can be more accepting of 3rd party sculpts in tournaments, for example.

I'm not saying you endorse their thinking but honestly the triple A gaming industries discovery that whales are better for the short term profit (which is all they care about these days) than actually fleshing anything out is incredibly distressing to me and I worry it will leak into other industries. 

Luckily I dont think warhammer has the player base for micro transactions yet but you can bet if they thought they did they would be catering to the whales first and everyone else never.

[Kaleb Daark]

On 10/25/2020 at 2:56 PM, Gaz Taylor said:

Okay my thoughts on this....

Firstly, I’m not a massive fan of the cost of the mega gargants but they do look an impressive kit and I think they would be fun to assemble and paint. Also the army has the attractive option of not having lots of models, so you can have more fun with each one. 
 

Secondly, I have no idea how they play but imagine they are a hard counter for a lot of lists due to how they can just sit on objectives. I suspect ruleswise they are spot on for this but I’ve not played them or seen any games being played yet.

I think the main issue for a lot of people is the cost but as somebody who doesn’t have the time to spend painting an army in one go, I’ve given up trying to buy everything in one go. So for me, buying a mega gargant now and then as a slow pace is just right.

+++ Mod Hat On +++
@Icegoat - very simple reminder. Less of the negative comments please. I know it can be tough with what’s going on in the world but you have been reminded about this before. Continue and you will be banned for good.

This forum is for everybody to enjoy Age of Sigmar and should be an escape from any negativity outside this. Let’s keep it that way

I agree.

 

I'm not a fan of the price and I genuinely think that there's nothing more in the price that GW trying their luck to see if they can push this price point.

If they can, the next imperial knight  / big AoS gribbly etc will hit this price point as well.    If it doesn't then expect a special edition box with the 2 for the price of 1.5 or 1 like the Imperial knight Renegade box to appear to make them shift.

I know there's a lot of hate around price increases, but lets face it, if people keep buying, then prices will keep rising until that peak where even the die hards say, nah.

I love these models but I'm not stumping up 125 large for one, especially not when they're only imperial knight tall, but I dearly want one as I love my Knights, but anything for more than 100  quids and I'd want it warhound titan sized.

As for how they play... well, I don't care how my knights play either, I just like parking big stuff on the table.  It's why I run two war mammoths that get mashed within a couple of turns but ... well, just look at them.

 

I'm ok with the wooden spoon at events, me.

Edited October 26, 2020 by Kaleb Daark

[Popisdead]

On 10/24/2020 at 5:04 AM, Icegoat said:

This army as a collector is not a sustainable army it is not an army you collect it is an army you buy once and that's it. 

The entire range is built of 2 kits that In itself is disastrous but that each kit cost so many in game points is a tragedy. I collect maggotkin and cities of sigmar. This means every month I realistically can buy a box of a new unit and add it in to one of my forces.

Have you considered reading the aging out and complaining,... priced out thread?  I understand there are 16 pages of people complaining they can't keep buying and buying as you suggest here.  

ah,.. the paradoxes of life... or not.  

What if you just,.. didn't buy this army and instead focussed on said hobby projects?

[Grim Beasties]

10 minutes ago, Popisdead said:

Have you considered reading the aging out and complaining,... priced out thread?

I think you have a limited understanding as to what the problem is and you're making assumptions about those who have criticism are very much off. So if you have something to say DM me, don't go throwing shade.

[Saxon]

12 hours ago, Beastmaster said:

Maybe skirmish games would be more up your alley?

Warcry is pretty great for this. Quick games, simple rules. It's a nice change. 

I can't for the life of me justifying $320 AUD for a single model (175 GBP). I see the UK sells the model for 120 GBP which is $220AUD. Thats a $100 markup.

Sorry but that's disgusting. 

[Fairbanks]

So I guess I should mention the price for the new 40K Combat Patrol (500 point) boxes being ~140 USD, 85 Lbs, and Arm+Leg+Back AUS.

That would establish GW's tournament entry cost at around $600 USD minimum (using their prices).

There's some level of blame to be assigned to Online Stores who sell more stock because they offer a 25+% discount, and some of it should also go to the community who refuses to make 1,000 points a serious tournament format.

But no. It's the fault of you sheeple, who continue to buy things for way more than they are worth.