Jump to content
Liher

The prices are outrageous

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Hidatom said:

Check out "Kings of War" for a great rules set with sub-$200 tournament legal lists. 

It's not a bad rule set although I prefer the historical book over the fantasy one. Plus, you can pit those historical lists against the regular ones too.

The only complaint I have is the focus on some larger regiment sizes (40+) for certain units. Oh, and the pretty lackluster figures. But that's only when comparing a basic dwarf army against Perry Brothers samurai/ashigaru.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little disappointed in the price point for Spearmen/Reanimates. Two trays, 4 cards, $25? $50 for a unit of Spearmen makes core a steal. I'm thinking a second core is looking better and better. I guess you'll be getting some extra dials, but it just doesn't seem like as much as they showed for Archers for the same price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@player1750031. Fair points, but while I agree GW shouldn't be the only or necessarily primary comparison I think it's absolutely fair game.  I bet many people who are either already interested in RWM or could be have played GW games before.  Despite GW becoming blessedly less popular around here they're still usually the first point of comparison for either models, prices, or rules. 

I also think you've missed two important points of comparison.  First, Runewars uses far, far fewer miniatures than the full on mini games like Kings of War.  My current KoW force has over 150 miniatures in it, an alternate list has over 200.  Secondly, Not only does that mean more miniatures need to be purchased in the first place it also means ALoT more work goes into assembling and painting.  Despite being a fan of KoW in general I don't think I'd play if I had to start from scratch again.  There's a reason you see so few fully painted forces out there for these games, it's a ton of work.

the core set for RWM looks like a great value, and very manageable for a new player.  Seems like it should be much easier to  get someone started with the game than other more traditional mini games.

Finally, some of the more budget oriented games/minis out there aren't that good.  Mantic has some nice looking minis, but also some really bad ones. I know full well this can be entirely subjective, but If you gave me an entire army absolutely for free of either their humans, elves, Egyptian undead, or goblins I still wouldn't paint or play with them.  I like much of their older undead range, their ogres (legs are too skinny but otherwise they look great), and much of their orc range.  I like the RWM more, and I'm willing to pay for it. I also I really dislike how much of the mantic stuff is metal too, I don't like playing with metal minis anymore.

@drkpnthr  I agree.  Would have been better to price them like the golem/carrion for 4 trays, even if it only came with one dial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, drkpnthr said:

I'm a little disappointed in the price point for Spearmen/Reanimates. Two trays, 4 cards, $25? $50 for a unit of Spearmen makes core a steal. I'm thinking a second core is looking better and better. I guess you'll be getting some extra dials, but it just doesn't seem like as much as they showed for Archers for the same price.

The price point is the same as the archers and a minimum size unit is two trays for all three units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Orcdruid said:

The price point is the same as the archers and a minimum size unit is two trays for all three units..

but then what is the advantage of fielding a two trays base unit (spearmen/archers/skeletons, etc.) ? They have no reroll option they can't be insanely upgraded. So FFg know that we're gonna pay for cards and reinforcement, not for fielding baits... or yes ? could it be that ? fielding a dispensable two trays unit as a bait for the ennemy or a scouting operation ? Dunno...

Edited by Elrad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Elrad The unit size in the expacs is all about flexibility. You get four trays of the infantry units in the core set. You will need to buy 4 expacs of reanimates but only if you want to run a full formation which most of us won't at least not right off the bat. Even if you do that will be half of your army once upgraded.  On the other hand if you just want to run infantry in a 6 tray formation why buy a $50 expac of 4 trays?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Orcdruid said:

@Elrad The unit size in the expacs is all about flexibility. You get four trays of the infantry units in the core set. You will need to buy 4 expacs of reanimates but only if you want to run a full formation which most of us won't at least not right off the bat. Even if you do that will be half of your army once upgraded.  On the other hand if you just want to run infantry in a 6 tray formation why buy a $50 expac of 4 trays?

 

 

I agree, but my question was deviating from the cost topic and getting to the point of : what is interesting in fielding a two-trays-unit in terms of gameplay. But I can ask it somewhere else to not deviate any further from what is talked here about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4.03.2017 at 5:59 AM, Dosiere said:

@player1750031. Fair points, but while I agree GW shouldn't be the only or necessarily primary comparison I think it's absolutely fair game.  I bet many people who are either already interested in RWM or could be have played GW games before.  Despite GW becoming blessedly less popular around here they're still usually the first point of comparison for either models, prices, or rules. 

I also think you've missed two important points of comparison.  First, Runewars uses far, far fewer miniatures than the full on mini games like Kings of War.  My current KoW force has over 150 miniatures in it, an alternate list has over 200.  Secondly, Not only does that mean more miniatures need to be purchased in the first place it also means ALoT more work goes into assembling and painting.  Despite being a fan of KoW in general I don't think I'd play if I had to start from scratch again.  There's a reason you see so few fully painted forces out there for these games, it's a ton of work.

the core set for RWM looks like a great value, and very manageable for a new player.  Seems like it should be much easier to  get someone started with the game than other more traditional mini games.

Finally, some of the more budget oriented games/minis out there aren't that good.  Mantic has some nice looking minis, but also some really bad ones. I know full well this can be entirely subjective, but If you gave me an entire army absolutely for free of either their humans, elves, Egyptian undead, or goblins I still wouldn't paint or play with them.  I like much of their older undead range, their ogres (legs are too skinny but otherwise they look great), and much of their orc range.  I like the RWM more, and I'm willing to pay for it. I also I really dislike how much of the mantic stuff is metal too, I don't like playing with metal minis anymore.

These are fair and true points. However, I don't see how that's relevant to pricing discussion. Nothing is 100% comparable, you can only compare the specific bits that are somewhat comparable. So I'm comparing PVC China-cast fantasy miniatures with other, similar size and quality PVC China-cast fantasy miniatures. Not RWM rules with KoW rules or metal KoW models with PVC RWM miniatures or RWM model aesthetics with KoW model aesthetics.

That you "need" (this is SERIOUS air-quoting I'm doing here) more of one or the other to personally enjoy one ruleset or other is irrelevant - it does not change what the physical product is in your hands, neither does it change the design, production and S&H costs of getting it into your hands. A miniature is a physical product and should be compared as a physical product, not as an abstract conceptual amalgamation of how they work in a particular game and how many other miniatures you own. Half the time miniatures are not even sold with a particular ruleset behind them, and even if they are, they are often bought with no intention of using them in that particular ruleset - like you playing KoW with non-Mantic models, if I inferred correctly.

I'm comparing miniatures as a physical product. Once you start comparing that physical product in the context of its abstract, arbitrary and ultimately non-essential ruleset, you are no longer comparing like with like and might as well start comparing the price of miniatures with the price of LEGO sets or videogames and the bang-for-buck entertainment value those afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, player1750031 said:

 

I'm comparing miniatures as a physical product. Once you start comparing that physical product in the context of its abstract, arbitrary and ultimately non-essential ruleset, you are no longer comparing like with like and might as well start comparing the price of miniatures with the price of LEGO sets or videogames and the bang-for-buck entertainment value those afford.

Think you're free to do that, but I don't think that's most people's calculation. I think most people are paying for a game experience and will buy what they think is the best value for game experience, not the best value for volume of plastic.

Your value proposition here would go absolutely nowhere in explaining the popularity of collectible and living card games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Elliphino said:

Think you're free to do that, but I don't think that's most people's calculation. I think most people are paying for a game experience and will buy what they think is the best value for game experience, not the best value for volume of plastic.

Your value proposition here would go absolutely nowhere in explaining the popularity of collectible and living card games.

You are absolutely right.

Just like it would go nowhere in comparing prices and popularity of sports cars and large family cars or canned food and McDonalds meals.

I was specifically talking about miniatures and the miniature gamer and collector market though. Unlike gaming cards, miniatures have value and hold value beyond pure collectibility and their role within their parent rules set (again, miniatures might not even have a parent rules set to begin with), even after the game, if any, is discontinued. As evidenced by how sharply secondary market card prices tank when a card game is discontinued. Miniatures for a discontinued miniature game will lose market value as well, but nowhere near as hard as cards will, because you can still buy miniatures for a game that's no longer played (or you personally have no intention of playing), open them up, enjoy putting them together and painting them (like you would a scale model kit) and use them in a variety of different miniature game rulesets. Only thing you can do with a booster pack for a CCG that you don't play or is no longer played is to open it up, smell the ink and put the cards in a binder. You can't buy WoW TCG cards off eBay, enjoy doing origami with them and then shuffle them up into your Netrunner deck. I mean, you might enjoy the origami part, but still, I would be slightly baffled at your choice of origami material.

Hobby game miniatures, like the ones in Runewars, have use and therefore objective value beyond any game they might be associated with. You can buy a miniature just to build and paint for pleasure. You can buy an entire line of miniatures to use in a different game. You can buy a miniature to paint it up as a gift to a significant other. Even if you argue that RWM miniatures are specifically tied to the RWM ruleset and cannot be considered outside it for some reason, whichever other miniature product you compare it with will not, making your comparison flawed. Which means that comparisons that involve considering miniatures as abstract playing pieces in an arbitrary rules construct will be flawed, and therefore the reasonable thing to do would be to only compare that which is comparable and quantifiable, ie. looking at them as a physical product, not assigning them arbitrary values based on their associated rules constructs (again, if any), which are not only abstract in the first place but also make accounting for the large variety of different rulesets and their provisions impossible.

Edited by player1750031

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I see what you are saying and broadly agree with you.  If the miniatures for rune wars were released at their current prices (the x packs in particular) they would be objectively pricey compared to what else is out there, minI for mini.

If I had no intention of playing the game I probably wouldn't be buying them, although I do think they're overall very nice, pvc or not. If my intention was to use them for KoW for example I would be spending roughly double what I otherwise could.

For myself, I am a pretty dedicated hobbyist in that i take pride in my collections and strive to play with fully painted armies whenever possible.  Still, I'm a gamer first and foremost and a big draw of this game is the game itself - the rules, the organized play support, etc...  and my hope is that comparing this game to other similar games out there, not just the minis, it will be a good value to me in comparison.

Anyways, despite its potential low value to a collector I hope it does take off in your area so you can enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2017 at 6:54 PM, player1750031 said:

Whenever a miniature game is discussed on the Internet, invariably there is a cost/expense/price discussion and that discussion invariably ends up in comparisons with Games Workshop pricing.

Which I always found a bit disingenous. Games Workshop consistently has the highest pricepoints in the miniature gaming market, by a mile at that. Saying other manufacturer's are cheap because GW products are pricier is like saying every other companies' smartphones cost pennies because Apple charges a premium for their iPhone.

This particular comparison is further flawed when you take into account the fact that Games Workshop models are not only of an objectively superior casting quality (you might not like the aesthetics, I myself in fact dislike them, but as far as the technical design and casting technology goes, GW is outpacing the competition by at least half a decade) manufactured in-house out of a completely different material than FFG's miniatures manufactured in China. Yes, they're both 'plastic', but that's like saying your stainless steel wristwatch and a gold Rolex are both 'metal' timepieces.

Mantic products have been brought up earlier and I feel they are a much better fitting comparison. A large chunk of Mantic's models are manufactured in 'restic', which is a sort of comparatively soft PVC plastic very similar to the plastic used in FFG games. These are also manufactured in China, I'd say have a similar level of detail and casting quality (which is objectively inferior to GW products) and similar posing and sculpt variety (ie. not much, 2-4 individual poses per unit) and are also of a similar scale compared to the exaggerated GW models. Rank-and-file infantry sets made in restic for their fantasy game are priced at 35$ for 20 figures, including parts to make up the command group. A similar amount of figures purchased from the Runewars brand would be two infantry boxes and a command box, also giving you 20 figures of comparable utility, size, quality and material, but setting you back a whopping 75$, that is, over twice Mantic's price.

Now, it is true that Runewars miniatures come with additional components: trays, dials and cards. However, I am not sure those components would justify such a steep step up in price, especially since you will be getting diminishing returns on those. After the second or third box you'd need to fill out the unit, you'll be swimming in surplus cardboard and after FFG reaches a unit variety beyond what fits in the standard 200pt army, you'll have a lot of surplus trays as well.

TLDR would be: Don't compare RWM with GW, that's not comparing like with like. And comparing like with like, my conclusion is that RWM is indeed a VERY pricy proposition. So pricy in fact, I will probably postpone getting the game and wait to see if it bites in my local area so I have people to play and trade with.

Before I saw the 'expansion' pricing, I was ready to jump in both feet and be the guy setting up the RWM community in my area.

Actually other than a purely one model price vs other model price, most of the discussions here about list comparisons have been FFG products or other miniature games that have lower reasonable entry prices such as Kings of War or Warmahordes.  GW being overpriced is a reason that they don't come into a cost analysis.  But also making the looking solely at 20 figs from game A vs 20 figs from game B cost break down doesn't necessarily work either in a total cost of list/entry breakdown as just the number of models in a box does not reflect the point cost of a box vs the point cost of other boxes in other games.

Also objectively the highest quality miniatures in the market, that may have been true at one time but they no longer can claim that, regardless of the material they using for their casting, even ignoring all the problems with their finecast models when they came out. 

But it does eventually just boil down to the argument for this game being less expensive can be made compared to the hobby as a whole, no one is trying to make an argument that this is a cheap miniature game or even the lowest cost game, it isn't. If the game no longer appeals to you because price over shadows, then that is unfortunate but understandable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2017 at 6:27 AM, player1750031 said:

So I'm comparing PVC China-cast fantasy miniatures with other, similar size and quality PVC China-cast fantasy miniatures.

That is a completely and utterly pointless comparison to make when discussing the cost of a game because people aren't buying models, they're buying playing pieces.  If we were discussing the cost of display items then you might actually have a point, but we're not.  Even then aesthetics is such a major part of it, that the quality of the material and casting methods would only be a factor if you were talking about comparing two similar models such as a ISD from company vs a ISD from company B.

The only meaningful comparison is this game vs other rank and file fantasy games, with a similar model count and the price to play them.  When you start talking about the quality of the model's material and where/how it was made you're no longer talking about the game as a whole and are not discussing the same thing everyone else is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how many esoteric justifications I read, I think anyone who honestly doesn't think RuneWars will be compared to games like AoS and 40k is just kidding themselves. (The comparisons to WHFB and KoW are so obvious as to be not worth mentioning)

You can argue about it until you're blue in the face. It won't change a thing. People are GOING to look at this game and compare it to GW products, no matter how inappropriate you may think it is.

This may even be heresy for the diehard GW fan, but I've come to appreciate FFG's PVC figures over the last year to the point that I often prefer them to GW polystyrene offerings offerings. I don't know if you've seen their recent AoS or 40k offerings, but they strike me as the very definition of "overdesigned". Their materials may be high quality, but their sculpts are, at least in my opinion, just bleh.

FFG is offering me a 6'x4' fantasy wargame with the trademark elegantly compacted ruleset that they are famous for, with fun mechanics and imaginative figures that don't all look as if they're competing for the "most unnecessary detail in the smallest area" award.

Based on the quality of FFG rules alone this would pull me in, and I know it's pulling in a lot of people in locally, both those who play wargames regularly and those who normally favor simpler mechanics.

The contention was that this game is relatively priced high on the scale of wargames, and I throw this notion out the window immediately. RuneWars is firmly in the middle-to-low cost bracket for games of this description, and if you want to talk value for dollar...

VanorDM is right on the money. We aren't discussing figures in a vacuum. We are talking about GAMES, and when it comes to the overall package, GW may have the prettiest components, but their rules are an absolute joke next to almost anything FFG has produced in the last two years. I say this as someone who has been playing 40k for nearly 20 years, and simply cannot justify giving them any more of my money for a fresh library of Codices and asinine supplements.
 

Edited by Tvayumat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, blkdymnd said:

Prices seem really good overall. 8, 28mm at $25 is very industry reasonable.  Basically $3 a model with high quality game components.  I'm perfectly fine with that 

agree.   dont forget high quality rules with those high quality components.

the models may not be as detail oriented in some respects, but the bigger models do have character.  and the rank and file look like, well rank and file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Tvayumat said:

This may even be heresy for the diehard GW fan, but I've come to appreciate FFG's PVC figures over the last year to the point that I often prefer them to GW polystyrene offerings offerings. I don't know if you've seen their recent AoS or 40k offerings, but they strike me as the very definition of "overdesigned". Their materials may be high quality, but their sculpts are, at least in my opinion, just bleh.

But how can you actually play a game if your models don't have 17 buckles sculpted on them and backpacks with backpack packs.  What self respecting wargamer would ever field an army where every little soldier doesn't have a minimum of 6 pouches of some sort?  All jokes aside @Tvayumat and @VanorDM you make good points as always.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jek said:

But how can you actually play a game if your models don't have 17 buckles sculpted on them and backpacks with backpack packs.  What self respecting wargamer would ever field an army where every little soldier doesn't have a minimum of 6 pouches of some sort?  All jokes aside @Tvayumat and @VanorDM you make good points as always.

 

Or a skeleton, riding a skeletal horse, and the skeletal horse is full of skeletons.

Because reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Tvayumat said:

Or a skeleton, riding a skeletal horse, and the skeletal horse is full of skeletons.

Because reasons.

What if we put 17 buckles on the skeleton riding the skeletal horse full of skeletons and we give each skeleton in said skeletal horse a back pack and give the skeletal horse 8 saddle bags full of bones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<sarcasm> When are they going to finally make the ultimate wargame simulation: WarBits? I want to walk into my LGS, throw a wad of crumpled bills on the counter, and have them lug one of those big plastic buckets that legos come in out from under the counter, and open it up to find a pile of random arms and legs and belt buckles and backpacks and swords and heads that I have to assemble like the mother of all 3D jigsaw puzzles. And whatever Frankenstein I craft, there are rules for how he performs in combat based off a massive chart of weapons and upgrades I have to compile like computer code just to get my army point total. When oh WHEN! will we be so blessed? <end sarcasm>

As much as I love modding and painting WH and other minis, these minis have a great value of just being ready to go out of the box. You can play them painted if you can, unpainted if you don't. I for one would love to see people selling painted armies the way we do with GW so that someone take it to tournaments if they don't feel like painting them, why not? I can see this game as one people will point new players to and say 'get into that first' the same way XWing is. In the latest Secret Cabal of Gaming Podcast, they were talking about how GW is basically tiering their games into AoS as an entry level game, then have WH 40k as a mid-complexity game, and WH 30k as a high complexity game. FFG is fleshing out their own system to get people in, targeting a way to draw people into each system, and building a social network around it. Creating a tiering to get people more and more into games is never a bad model if each level is fun for and of itself.  If this takes off, I'm sure we will something like Descent 3.0 that allows you to incorporate Runewars minis (and of course, as more models get added you can sub Descent models for Runewars as long as they have a Runewars card).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, drkpnthr said:

As much as I love modding and painting WH and other minis, these minis have a great value of just being ready to go out of the box.

Actually, if I remember correctly, FFG staff has stated that these will require some assembly, in the same vein as some of the larger Imperial Assault figures. An arm here and a head there, nothing major like a 'real' model kit, but you still might want to have some superglue handy.

Edited by player1750031

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...