Privateer Press Doing It Right

[eldargal]

I know, I'm just trying to illustrate that 'relative prices' is a load of bollocks. GW models are cheaper per model, but they are wargames, not skirmishes. So you need more. But you need more for historical wargaming too and I don't see PP players hanging out on Napoleonic wargaming boards telling people to stop being corporate tools and buy PP.

A proper comparison would be Necromunda, both skirmishes. Using the PP starter set, 5.8usd per model, using GWs gang kits, 4usd per model. Rules are free on the GW website.

[scadugenga]

Actually, Necromunda's not a good analog either. Necro (like Mordheim, which would be a better comparison) you have maybe 10-12 minis a side.

A 35 point WM/H game typically has 25-30, including warjacks.

But all that aside--I agree the partisanship PP vs GW thing is getting out of hand--on both sides.

PP has shown themselves to be more consumer/player oriented than GW--but as it has been pointed out ad-nauseam, one company is privately held, while the other is a public corporation, and their size is nowhere near in the same ballpark. Maybe people will let that die. (Doubtful, unfortunately.)

My initial pricing point was not intended to be a comparison to GW starter boxes, but the relative worth you get for the PP box vs. the PP products sold individually.

[eldargal]

So Necromunda is cheaper, because you need fewer models! Hehe.

The really stupid thing about the partisanship is that I spoke to a member of Privateer Press and he said a lot of the staff play GW games still.

[Kovnik Obama]

I know, I'm just trying to illustrate that 'relative prices' is a load of bollocks. GW models are cheaper per model, but they are wargames, not skirmishes. So you need more. But you need more for historical wargaming too and I don't see PP players hanging out on Napoleonic wargaming boards telling people to stop being corporate tools and buy PP.

No, it's cheaper. You insert a subjective categorization (wargames/skirmish) in order to justify your stance. Weither models or not are cheaper is relatively unimportent, since the hobby has a whole is definetly cheaper. I have spent 150$ on my battlegroup in the last 2 years, have played (and won, but its irrelevant) local tourneys. Now how would that be possible with anything GW produces (since I have never seen a local Necro tourney, and anyways, the game itself is not designed to be tourney friendly).

On top of things, you could enter a MM tourney with both battlegroups in the Starter box, and be VERY competitive (both Sorscha and Kreoss are incredibly competitive casters, and the jacks they come with are pretty freaking good on top of things).

And yes, lots of PP staffers play 40K, since that game was the only one available for so long. Doesn't mean that they didn't produce a better game in just about every objective value one could agree on (so excluding subjective values like model appearances).

[Verilance]

It doesn't hide the fact though, that if I wanted to play a game where the loss of one model would lose me the game I would play chess (or perhaps Shogi)

some people like it and that is fine and good but there is nothing in any of the ranges of Privateer Press that remotely interests me

[scadugenga]

No, it's cheaper. You insert a subjective categorization (wargames/skirmish) in order to justify your stance. Weither models or not are cheaper is relatively unimportent, since the hobby has a whole is definetly cheaper. I have spent 150$ on my battlegroup in the last 2 years, have played (and won, but its irrelevant) local tourneys. Now how would that be possible with anything GW produces (since I have never seen a local Necro tourney, and anyways, the game itself is not designed to be tourney friendly).

On top of things, you could enter a MM tourney with both battlegroups in the Starter box, and be VERY competitive (both Sorscha and Kreoss are incredibly competitive casters, and the jacks they come with are pretty freaking good on top of things).

And yes, lots of PP staffers play 40K, since that game was the only one available for so long. Doesn't mean that they didn't produce a better game in just about every objective value one could agree on (so excluding subjective values like model appearances).

Dude....give up the hate! Let's focus on the topic, and not turn this into another GW vs PP thread.

It doesn't hide the fact though, that if I wanted to play a game where the loss of one model would lose me the game I would play chess (or perhaps Shogi)

some people like it and that is fine and good but there is nothing in any of the ranges of Privateer Press that remotely interests me

Then don't post in a PP forum/thread? I'm sure that we won't miss your input on a game you don't want to play.

[Verilance]

I honestly do wish I liked it more having seen it recently in my local shop, it is why I came to this thread thinking the price might be a factor in me trying it out.

the models are interesting but the rules slow the interest down for me, however I appreciate your comment especially after seeing may PP fans complain about other games in their threads

[Kovnik Obama]

It doesn't hide the fact though, that if I wanted to play a game where the loss of one model would lose me the game I would play chess (or perhaps Shogi)

Why? A victory condition shouldn't be limited to one particular game. It's also pretty accurate to represent the loss of the most powerful member of a force as being fatal for its army. I prefer to have my heroes matter in my wargames.

Also, you can play scenario if you don't want to play Caster Kill.

Dude....give up the hate! Let's focus on the topic, and not turn this into another GW vs PP thread.

It's not hate. It's frustration produced by facing defective argumentation. Too many people resort to subjectivity sophisms on these forums (saying things like '' we can't compare two rulesets since ITS SUBJECTIIIIIIIIIIIVE ''... Once you decide on an objective value (like rule clarity, player automony, game support) then YES, it becomes possible to compare, and evaluate objectively one game agaisnt another.

the models are interesting but the rules slow the interest down for me, however I appreciate your comment especially after seeing may PP fans complain about other games in their threads

What rules?

[scadugenga]

I honestly do wish I liked it more having seen it recently in my local shop, it is why I came to this thread thinking the price might be a factor in me trying it out.

the models are interesting but the rules slow the interest down for me, however I appreciate your comment especially after seeing may PP fans complain about other games in their threads

There's nothing wrong with removing the caster kill as a scenario win option in any game that has an alternate victory condition.

Sure, it's a house rule, but if it makes the game more fun for you, then go for it!

[Kovnik Obama]

You could also do 2 casters game. Having a caster die is still pretty harsh, but at least you don't necessarily lose all the jacks.

Also, having such a coercitive victory condition does an awful lot of good for the game itself, in that it requires TACTICAL INSIGHT not only netlisting copypasta skills.

Let's think about a fluffy exemple. Maneus Calgar and 20 Ultramarines are on a stroll by a nice summer day. They tumble upon a warband of Orks building a Teleporta, which isn't nice because they didn't bother to buy a permit for building, only one for landscaping. Maneus and the 20 marines, like the big tough guys they are, charge in, wipe the floor, stairs and ceiling with Ork faces, and then proceed to destroy the said Teleporta.

But Oh! they missed a grot, who, in all his nervousness, picks up a gun and shoot and get REALLY lucky, BOOM, HEADSHOT!!!No more Calgar.

So, who won? The objective of the UM was completed, but they lost the most epic commander they have in a relatively unimportant skirmish. Were I a SM, I would count that as a lost.