Starting Warhammer- Dispelling the Myths

[Capn Gus BloodbeRD]

I don't see that the 'myth' has been busted at all.

As others have pointed out, you've limited it to 2 very specific games. I don't know of anybody who got into WH because it's cheaper/has fewer models than 40K (especially as there are more 40K 2nd hand models on the market).

If those things are a concern then people look at other games - Malifaux, Infinity, WM.

Those games ARE cheaper to get into (and I'm talking about playing a game with a fairly typical points level - ie getting it to, say, the match equivalent of a 1500 point 40K army). Even just the 'starter size' armies are cheaper with fewer models

If you're attempting to address this concern around 40K, then you need to look at it's competition. Not another GW product which you already know has comparable costs and army sizes.

[Ben_S]

I don't see that the 'myth' has been busted at all.

I think you missed the point; the focus here isn't 40k but Fantasy. Fantasy is not more expensive than 40k, therefore this cannot explain why 40k is more popular. (Though I'd venture that the mistaken impression - or myth - that 40k is cheaper/needs fewer models might explain the difference between them.)

Of course there are skirmish games cheaper than either, but it's no surprise to say that Blood Bowl or Mordheim is cheaper than either Fantasy or 40k...

[MMM]

Well in some areas Warmachine and Hordes and other non-GW games are more popular than 40k or WHFB, so they should also be considered.

And if the trend in the tabletop hobby is playing skirmish games and not mass combat systems (I don´t know, it´s just a guess), than one should consider those games as well.

[Psychosplodge]

He has said he only plays 40k/WHF so why would he compare anything else? It's outside his realm of experience.
There's nothing stopping anyone making their own comparisons...

[Ben_S]

There are lots of other comparisons that *could* be made, but I don't see any reason why one *should* be rather than another.

If you look at the recent thread on barriers to entry:
[url]http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?40068-Wargames-Barrier-to-Entry[/url]

You find comments like "Here in my neck of the woods 40k is where it's at and I just cannot get anyone in my group to even look at another system ... WFB is too great an investment in time and money for me to really look at. The vast amount of models I read about needed to play a game is a huge turn off for me." (Deadlift, comment #5)

We also know from recent discussion of the state of WFB that it makes up only about 20-25% of GW profit (IIRC). Though there are regional variations, 40k is overwhelmingly more popular, so it's worth asking why this is. One commonly given answer is the high model count/entry cost of WFB (see again the comment quoted above). The OP's point is that this is something of a myth or, at least, exaggeration. The similar costs of the two suggest that the greater popularity of 40k cannot be explained simply by cost, but must be due to something else.

[Deadlift]

I think the 500 pts comparison is not quite right personally, I don't ever see 500pt games or lists talked about anywhere in WFB. It's always 2000pts minimum I see. Where as 40k, you can get a decent game of kill team for 200pts. Sure armie like Ogres and Chaos can have really low model counts that's true, but there's no denying a big game of WFB is like watching a huge game of Tetris. Not for me I'm afraid. Now X-Wing, that's got me interested.

[spaceman91]

There are lots of other comparisons that *could* be made, but I don't see any reason why one *should* be rather than another.

If you look at the recent thread on barriers to entry:
[url]http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?40068-Wargames-Barrier-to-Entry[/url]

You find comments like "Here in my neck of the woods 40k is where it's at and I just cannot get anyone in my group to even look at another system ... WFB is too great an investment in time and money for me to really look at. The vast amount of models I read about needed to play a game is a huge turn off for me." (Deadlift, comment #5)

We also know from recent discussion of the state of WFB that it makes up only about 20-25% of GW profit (IIRC). Though there are regional variations, 40k is overwhelmingly more popular, so it's worth asking why this is. One commonly given answer is the high model count/entry cost of WFB (see again the comment quoted above). The OP's point is that this is something of a myth or, at least, exaggeration. The similar costs of the two suggest that the greater popularity of 40k cannot be explained simply by cost, but must be due to something else.

I may sound like an idiot typing this but here we go. I find 40k easier to play. I find the models better in 40k. Does this mean I hate fantasy? No. Quite the opposite. They each hold a place in my heart for different reasons. Fantasy has (IMO) more to it. You can do so much more in fantasy in terms of character creation and lists. I still haven't met some one with the same dwarf lord as me but I have seen tons of sm captains just like mine. The main reason I think it struggles though is that sci fi is better for the kids. The thought of laser guns and big tanks just does something to kids(I can't blame them). I think the fantasy is for the older person in general. That's not to say kids don't play fantasy and vice versa
I'll shut up now. Sorry for rambling.

[GrauGeist]

WFB that it makes up only about 20-25% of GW profit (IIRC).

I doubt that very much. From what I see, WFB might be 20-25% of GW revenue and less than 5% of GWs net profit.

WFB has development cost similar to 40k, but that low revenue is a killer.

[Psychosplodge]

Weren't the figures Ben_S is quoting quoted in another thread by Big Red, referencing documents released in the CHS trial?

[Wildeybeast]

Haha, seriously?

A box of 10 State troops is AUS$41 and has 60 points of models in it (100 points if you take all the upgrades, but that includes giving your halberders shields and having a Sergeant/musician/standard bearer). You'd need 2 boxes to make a unit of 20, so we'll call it AUS$82 for 20 guys including a command squad and shields, for a total of 170 points. Although in reality you don't give your state troops shields because that's an awful decision (buy more troops with the points instead), so it's AUS$82 for 150 points of models.

A box of 10 Space marines is AUS$65 and has 190 points of models in it (if you give them a Missile launcher, Plasmagun, and a Powersword/Meltabombs).

So AUS$82 for 150 points of your 2500 point game is somehow cheaper than AUS$65 for 190 points of your 1500 point game? Someone needs to go back to school

As you may have noticed from the pound sterling signs used, I don't live in Australia so I didn't use Australian prices. Besides,you lot skew the figures since you get the penal tax on GW goods.

Thanks for this. It pretty much confirms my thinking; assuming it scales, then 1,500 points of Fantasy needn't require more models, and certainly not more cost (£/$), than 1,500 points of 40k. I'd always thought that dedicated transports really skew things, since they are generally poor value (£/$) for their points, whereas Fantasy is often cheaper per model, even if you need more models.

I guess it will vary somewhat between armies. I'm building a WoC army, which is probably the most elite Fantasy army so may well skew my perceptions, but if anything I'd say that Empire are a high model count army - less so than Skaven or most O&G builds, but more than any Elves or Dwarfs - and I notice you didn't tool the character up with magic items and so forth.

So, the main (purported) advantage of 40k is that it's a better game at lower point levels. Well, I'd agree to an extent, but not entirely. I think Fantasy works in the 1,000-1,500 range. While 40k might work even below this - at just 500 points for example - I think it's even less balanced at those levels.

Also, I think it's worth adding that the 40k 'meta' is currently evolving much more quickly. Even if you're not a tournament player, but just want to be competitive in pick-up games, you may need to add allies, fortifications, perhaps even superheavies to your army. Even just keeping up with these new rules is an expense (time and money), whereas a Fantasy army that you'd had since the start of 8th edition wouldn't have needed much tinkering in that time, other than perhaps a new unit or two with the new army book (e.g. Demigryphs for your Empire example).

Yeah, you've pretty much summed it up, it is cheaper per model but you usually end up having more of them. 1000-1500 point games work really well, especially if you are looking for a quick game. My group has started squeezing some in on Friday night after work when a couple of hours is all we have. If you want a 2500 point game, then you need a whole afternoon free. @Dead lift, Warhammer does work at 500 points. The rules are exactly the same whether you have 3 units or 30. Now admittedly it is best with more points as you get the complexity of moving all your units and my sample army had no magic (though it could have done), but 500 points is still a good starting point and you won't stay there for long. But if you want to go for swing, then I hope you enjoy it.

If you use "unit fillers" in fantasy it can cut the cost down even more. Something that is not really possible in 40k.

Yep unit fillers a era great idea. I have a skaven mate who regularly bulks out is endless hordes with rat ogres and swarms. Saves on the painting and looks cool. You can also do some fantastic conversions with them and providing you don't take the Mickey then most TO's accept them.

I'll say again, as others have pointed out for me, this isn't an exercise in showing that Warhammer or GW is cheaper or better than other game systems, simply that it doesn't require more models or have to cost more and that those things are not the barrier to entry that some claim them to be. Certainly not more than 40k, which is the most popular gaming system around.