The price of a miniature

[Arlequín]

Where there is a valid reason for setting a 'price', as for example has been demonstrated re: Hasslefree by Artemis Black, I'd go along with that. However with the 'system game' that is Warlord's Bolt Action there would seem to be evidence of at least one 'fast one being pulled' as we say in the UK.  

Warlord sell a 'ruined house' (see here) as part of their range... not only does it 'appear' to be a pre-existing Italeri kit at 1/72 (as opposed to the much larger '28mm' of the BA range), which retails at £14.40 + £2.67 postage in UK, but re-packaged it retails for £16 +£5 postage in UK; that is one expensive cardboard box!  

[OSHIROmodels]

I know of two different bijou game kick starters run by two different people that are charging above the odds for figures, rules etc "because we can". People will buy them as well...

cheers

James

[Captain Blood]

Warlord's postage is ridiculous. I just ordered three decal sheets and three tiny vehicle stowage packs - weight: next to nothing. Postage cost: Five pounds.
Nuts.
True postage cost, probably a pound.
Foundry used to get regularly pilloried for their P+P charges. This is much worse.

[black hat miniatures]

Where there is a valid reason for setting a 'price', as for example has been demonstrated re: Hasslefree by Artemis Black, I'd go along with that. However with the 'system game' that is Warlord's Bolt Action there would seem to be evidence of at least one 'fast one being pulled' as we say in the UK.  

Warlord sell a 'ruined house' (see here) as part of their range... not only does it 'appear' to be a pre-existing Italeri kit at 1/72 (as opposed to the much larger '28mm' of the BA range), which retails at £14.40 + £2.67 postage in UK, but re-packaged it retails for £16 +£5 postage in UK; that is one expensive cardboard box!  

Same as the Italeri Walls they resell at a higher price.  At the end of the day, they are business and you don't have to buy the product from them.

Mike

[Silent Invader]

Warlord sell a 'ruined house' (see here) as part of their range... not only does it 'appear' to be a pre-existing Italeri kit at 1/72 (as opposed to the much larger '28mm' of the BA range), which retails at £14.40 + £2.67 postage in UK, but re-packaged it retails for £16 +£5 postage in UK; that is one expensive cardboard box!  

I raised this in the other thread and I'd bought the Warlord variant. It's therefore worth me emphasising in this thread that I had no issue with the price (I knew what it was before I paid, no one made me do it, the responsibility for my ignorance of a cheaper alternative was my own, etc) BUT I was frustrated and disappointed by the apparent re-scaling as it was only useful to me as parts rather than as a complete building.

TLDR: The price was the expected price and so surprise-free, the scale wasn't the expected scale and so surprise-laden

NB: edited for gibberish

[Hobgoblin]

Interesting thread. A few thoughts:

What's the value of a miniature as a source of entertainment? Hasslefree models are quite expensive, for example, but then how many hours of enjoyment does each provide on the painting table before it's even used in a game? Paying a fiver for several hours of recreation strikes me as quite cheap compared with many alternatives (renting a film, going to the cinema, going to the pub). I think there's a instructive comparison to be made with books. If you buy a book for £8 or £10, you do so because you're expecting to be diverted for several hours - around the time that many would take to paint a "special" miniature. I just bought an early-80s Citadel orc for £4 or so on eBay; it'll provide me with at least two and a half hours of relaxation before it gets deployed in SBH, DR or Mayhem. As a nice Perry sculpt with a blank shield and lots of room for freehand ornamentation, it will provide more entertainment than a current GW orc (for example).

In general, I think there's a correlation between the quality of a miniature, its cost and the entertainment it affords on the painting table. It's by no means a hard-and-fast rule, though: lots of current GW stuff is horribly over-ornate (as well as horribly overpriced), which spoils the painting experience, and some very simple, or even crude, miniatures can be great fun to paint.

On historical vs fantasy/sci fi: Westfalia Chris's comments make a lot of sense. I see the "system" miniatures as an aberration. When I was involved in gaming as a kid, everyone used whatever miniatures they liked, mingling manufacturers freely. My childhood Warhammer orc armies had Citadel, Dixon, Asgard, Ral Partha, Grenadier and god knows what else mixed within the same units. And that was the norm. The second edition of Warhammer even suggested that people could play with 54mm figures (Airfix and the like). If you look at Bryan Ansell's chaos army from the Warhammer Armies book, there are plenty of non-GW miniatures therein. But you look away for a couple of decades ...

On figure quality: I don't think sculpting quality is a strict linear progression by any means. Look at the continuing popularity of Nick Lund's miniatures. Some are very crude. Some are less so, although they're rarely "sophisticated". But a high proportion of them simply look good on the tabletop. Many of his orcs, for example, have a certain sculptural power that makes them effective, even though their tusks betray their putty origins all too readily.

You can also get a sort of highly effective minimalism in miniatures. I'm currently painting some of the old Vendel orcs. They're terrific - though their open hands could be faulted (Vermis ...) - but very simply done. The faces are just superb and brim with character, but they're done in a very simple, deft manner. There's something of the "economy of line" that good artists often employ. A few suggestive strokes can be superior to a huge amount of detail - and especially so when the goblins are only an inch or so high! I think they're some of the best goblins I've seen, yet they're much more reminiscent of simple historical wargaming figures than of other contemporary fantasy equivalents. And they only cost about a quid each.

The Vendel orcs (and dwarfs) are a good example of fantasy done successfully in the historical manner. The EM4 plastic dwarfs are another (I'm less keen on the orcs, though people have done interesting things with them on this forum).

One thing that has clearly bridged the (unnatural!) divide between historicals and fantasy is A Song of Ice and Fire. Look at how people are using Perry, Gripping Beast and Fireforge miniatures to create fantasy armies for games set in Westeros. And that brings me to another point: if you want your fantasy worlds to be gritty and plausible, it's hard to find knights that look better than the Perrys' plastics - and it's certainly hard to find them cheaper than 36 for £20!

[eilif]

You make alot of good points, but this made me chuckle a bit...

On historical vs fantasy/sci fi: Westfalia Chris's comments make a lot of sense. I see the "system" miniatures as an aberration. ..

.... But you look away for a couple of decades ...

I don't deny that there are a good number of non-system fantasy/SciFi options today (that's primarily what I game with), but "System" has been the norm and majority in Sci-Fantasy minis since the mid 80's. If we say that sci-fantasy minis have been present in alarge way in the hobby since the mid/late 70's, then for well over 2/3 of the time that we've had Fantasy/Sci minis, continuing through to today, "System" miniatures have been the norm.

That's a bit more than an aberration.  That's a norm.

[Hobgoblin]

You make alot of good points, but this made me chuckle a bit...

I don't deny that there are a good number of non-system fantasy/SciFi options today (that's primarily what I game with), but "System" has been the norm and majority in Sci-Fantasy minis since the mid 80's. If we say that sci-fantasy minis have been present in alarge way in the hobby since the mid/late 70's, then for well over 2/3 of the time that we've had Fantasy/Sci minis, continuing through to today, "System" miniatures have been the norm.

That's a bit more than an aberration.  That's a norm.

It's quite possible, though to see it as an aberration from a much longer-established norm in wargaming as a whole. And fantasy gaming began some time before specifically fantasty miniatures were available. Plenty of Airfix Romans saw service as orcs ...

Also, let's dissect "system" a bit more. Most fantasy and sci-fi miniatures are bought for use with a specific system, no doubt. The market shares of GW and Privateer Press ensure that. But are most fantasy miniatures used with the system they were designed for (if any)? I doubt it. It's impossible to be sure, of course, but I suspect that, with a few obvious exceptions, most miniatures end up being used in a variety of games. Are most people who buy from Reaper playing Reaper's in-house game (whatever that is)?

Then you have all the historical miniatures that are used in fantasy games. How many Goths have stood in for Rohirrim over the past half-century? How many Saracens for Haradrim? And how many historical men-at-arms end up fighting in the Seven Kingdoms?

When I played Warhammer, everybody I knew had a melange of manufacturers in their armies. If you wanted an orc for Warhammer, and Grenadier made some cheap or interesting ones, you bought them. Did such practices die out? There seem to be lots of non-GW miniatures on ebay that are based (and sold) for use with GW games.

And then there's one very large branch of fantasy wargaming: RPGs. The use of miniatures is widespread, though not universal and often occasional. But there's very little system-specific preference there.

[eilif]

Wow, we've had very different gaming experiences. In the past 20 years of gaming in and next-to 40k, Warhammer and Warmahordes players, I'd say that at least 95% of the figures I've seen on the tables have been from the company that made the game, and of the remaining 5%, at least half are aftermarket figs and parts made specifically to be compatible and used with a specific System.

Durring those years, most of the players I ran into were either unaware or completely uninterested in the alternate sources of models and even other games.  I can't speak to LoTR and other fantasy games because they constitute such a minute slice of of the gaming market round here.

I'm sure there was alot more mixing of games, figs and rules pre-warhammer, but since -about 25 years ago- GW became preeminent in USA SciFi/Fantasy gaming System-adherence has been the norm.  Even the large-ish games that have tried to compete with GW have used the same System mindset and marketing.  Void, Vor, Warzone, Celtos, Chronopia, etc.

As For RPG's that's a whole different ballgame.  There's never really been the expectation in that realm that one will use one company's miniatures.

I do see more folks being open to alternate figure sources and more folks are breaking out of the systems.  I think Mantic and Osprey have had a big part in this.  Still, if you head to your local FLGS and look at the wargames being played, 95% of what you will see is System-compliant gamers.  Even at a massive convention like Adepticon which has thrown it's proxy/alternate model rules wide open the same percentages persist.

[Hobgoblin]

Wow, we've had very different gaming experiences. In the past 20 years of gaming in and next-to 40k, Warhammer and Warmahordes players, I'd say that at least 95% of the figures I've seen on the tables have been from the company that made the game, and of the remaining 5%, at least half are aftermarket figs and parts made specifically to be compatible and used with a specific System.

I am missing those last 20 years, of course! The years of the aberration, if you will ...

But I think we're really saying the same thing. My point is that it used to be the norm in fantasy wargaming that you used whatever miniatures were suitable. And - in the UK at least - that was still the case right the way up to the early 90s. I don't recall ever meeting any Fantasy Warlord players, but those Nick Lund Grenadier orcs were ubiquitous in the late 80s and early 90s (and there seem to be plenty around now - they're still "in print"). I'm pretty sure that most of them were used for Warhammer.

During those years, most of the players I ran into were either unaware or completely uninterested in the alternate sources of models and even other games.  I can't speak to LoTR and other fantasy games because they constitute such a minute slice of of the gaming market round here.

Yes - that's exactly what I mean by the aberration. This trend seems to me to be completely wrong-headed (as I'm sure you agree). I find it rather baffling.

I'm sure there was alot more mixing of games, figs and rules pre-warhammer, but since -about 25 years ago- GW became preeminent in USA SciFi/Fantasy gaming System-adherence has been the norm.  Even the large-ish games that have tried to compete with GW have used the same System mindset and marketing.  Void, Vor, Warzone, Celtos, Chronopia, etc.

I don't think it's "pre-Warhammer" that things were different, but in the later iterations of Warhammer. I mean, just look at what was in Bryan Ansell's own legendary Warhammer army. That army featured in the 3rd edition's Warhammer Armies, while the second edition actually suggested the use of non-Citadel figures. And then there was the official Warhammer poster showing Minifigs and Ral Partha stuff alongside Citadel.

So when did the rot (as I see it) set in? I think it probably comes from 40K, where there were far fewer alternative ranges, more innovative concepts and - increasingly - the "pay to play" idea.

As For RPG's that's a whole different ballgame.  There's never really been the expectation in that realm that one will use one company's miniatures.

Yes. It is very different, but it is part of fantasy wargaming in the broadest sense - and part of the "norm" (including historical wargaming). The assumption that whatever miniatures look the part will do is the natural one, which is why it's the norm in wargaming as a whole.

I do see more folks being open to alternate figure sources and more folks are breaking out of the systems.  I think Mantic and Osprey have had a big part in this.  Still, if you head to your local FLGS and look at the wargames being played, 95% of what you will see is System-compliant gamers.  Even at a massive convention like Adepticon which has thrown it's proxy/alternate model rules wide open the same percentages persist.

Yes, I agree. And it's dispiriting. I don't know if it's so true in wargaming clubs, where historical gaming is more of an influence. There have long been LOTR games, for example, that use historical rules (and Hyborian games too, of course, going back to Tony Bath). And it's very difficult to say what goes on in games played on dining-room tables! Is it fair to say that very many - or even most - fantasy-miniature blogs show a cheerful disregard for "system"?

[eilif]

Yes - that's exactly what I mean by the aberration. This trend seems to me to be completely wrong-headed (as I'm sure you agree). I find it rather baffling.

I don't personally like the system-adherence approach (definitely wrong headed!), but the more time I spend in the hobby the more I understand it.   There is something to be gained in a system where everyone uses the same rules, and the same figures.  It's not as fun, IMHO, but it's almost necessary in a system as complex as 40k (so many rules, codices, etc) that things be as uniform as possible if two strangers are to be able to sit down in a FLGS anywhere in the country, play the game and know immediately what your opponent is putting down as soon as it hits the table. 

I think alot of folks consciously or unconsciously buy into the idea that part of the very high cost of 40k minis is buying into a system with a huge built-in community that virtually guarantees the highest chance of finding a game.  Of course it also helps that 40k and Warmachine are the only two miniatures lines that you're virtually guaranteed to find in any game stores, even those that only dabble in minis.

Warmachine has it's own twist.  One would think that in a smaller-count wargame where there aren't alot of unit variation/options it would be easier to have proxy and alternate models, but there seems to be even less interest in alternate models in that gaming community.  Maybe the high percentage of unpainted models (I typically see well less than 50% painted at the FLGS's I visit) is simply a reflection of less interest in the modeling side of things?

I'd be interested to hear some Warmachine player's opinions.

[CriticalGeek]

Warlord's postage is ridiculous. I just ordered three decal sheets and three tiny vehicle stowage packs - weight: next to nothing. Postage cost: Five pounds.
Nuts.
True postage cost, probably a pound.
Foundry used to get regularly pilloried for their P+P charges. This is much worse.

Just think what it's like for us Yanks.  Thank the Lord that Miniature Market has started carrying Warlord's products.

[Elbows]

I saw a box of six (plastic!) Guild Ball figures today at the local gaming store...$84...prices to even make a GW gamer blush. 

[horridperson]

@elbows

Yeah, those numbers are even uglier in Canabucks but they seem to be selling very well in spite of it ($98 for a second season set  ).  Not to me though.

[Cypher226]

I saw a box of six (plastic!) Guild Ball figures today at the local gaming store...$84...prices to even make a GW gamer blush. 

You sure they were Guild Ball? All the Guild Ball minis I've seen were metal. The ones I've got awaiting paint certainly are, and I've seen pretty much the whole line at shows