Land Speeder Storm [40k]
smcdaniel1
--
Sir Scott "Base and jaded... " McDaniel
Playa
Hey,
On Jun 19, 9:58 pm, "smcdaniel1" <smcdani...@cox.net> wrote:
> Am I just getting jaded or is that a decent pricepoint
Could go either way. What's the msrp?
A GW search produces no articles, products or events.
Mechanically, it's equivalent to a Hasegawa 1:72 Jeep.
(Rat Patrol in Spaaace!)
So, if it's more than, say, US$15 retail, yeah. You're jaded.
Hobby shops regularly sell the Hasegawa Jeep for ten bucks.
Playa
smcdaniel1
"Playa" <JohnPau...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e12a925c-2124-4aea...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Hey,
It's 30 bucks (American) but comes with 6 scouts. Two are the driver and
gunner, but if you did it right the gunner could be a part of the scout
squad, once landed, giving you a five man squad. Heck a regular land speeder
is $30, and a squad of five scouts is $20. It just seems to be a pretty good
deal to me.
These days...
Playa
Hey,
On Jun 20, 12:38 am, "smcdaniel1" <smcdani...@cox.net> wrote:
> It's 30 bucks (American) but comes with 6 scouts.
Jeep = 60 parts, including 8 figures in 4 different standing poses,
detailed interior, drivetrain details and leaf spring suspension.
Note: Figs are scale models, not typical Citadel caricatures.
> a regular land speeder is $30
Which merely indicates a price - not a value - of $30.
> It just seems to be a pretty good deal to me.
http://www.hobbylinc.com/htm/hsg/hsg31101.htm
"Includes 37mm gun and cargo trailer with toolbox and 3 jerry cans."
> These days
Fanboy <> English translation: "For GW."
It'll take more than that to get GW prices in line with Citadel
values.
Pla - GW bashing cynic with 25000pt investment - ya
Moramarth
<http://www.hobbylinc.com/htm/tam/tam32552.htm>
Although it doesn't say so , this kit also includes a detailed Jeep,
but in 1:48 scale, pretty much compatible with GW "heroic" 28mms, and
much closer than a 1:72 scale jeep, which is about the size of a GW
figure rather than a GW vehicle.
Regards,
> Pla - GW bashing cynic with 25000pt investment - ya
Moramarth
smcdaniel1
Hey,
On Jun 20, 12:38 am, "smcdaniel1" <smcdani...@cox.net> wrote:
> It's 30 bucks (American) but comes with 6 scouts.
Jeep = 60 parts, including 8 figures in 4 different standing poses,
detailed interior, drivetrain details and leaf spring suspension.
Note: Figs are scale models, not typical Citadel caricatures.
Cool. But I don't want a jeep.
> a regular land speeder is $30
Which merely indicates a price - not a value - of $30.
Wasn't talking value. I was talking pricepoint
> It just seems to be a pretty good deal to me.
http://www.hobbylinc.com/htm/hsg/hsg31101.htm
"Includes 37mm gun and cargo trailer with toolbox and 3 jerry cans."
Nice. I don't want a jeep. Do they make a Kia model too?
> These days
Fanboy <> English translation: "For GW."
It'll take more than that to get GW prices in line with Citadel
values.
Ha! I got one for ya: Playa<> Hata
Seamus
<snip>
I believe that what our jilted companion is saying is that, for the price
we pay for Citadel miniatures, the tanks should all have torsion bar or
hydropneumatic suspension; each track-link should be a separate piece and
the modeling aspect of the hobby should overall be much more of a pain in
the ass than it is now. :)
But I agree, the models are far overpriced in comparison to a decent model-
kit.
"smcdaniel1" <smcda...@cox.net> wrote:
> Cool. But I don't want a jeep.
Not really the point. The point was that a jeep (the closest real-world
equivalent to a landspeeder) costs x, compared to the landspeeder, and is
overall much higher quality than the Citadel model.
If you'd been talking about tanks, he would've used an M1A1, Challenger or
some WW2 model as an example.
__
I'm a pseudomasochist. Pretend to spank me.
- bash.org
M Roberts
news:Xns9C308908...@85.214.105.209...
>
> "smcdaniel1" <smcda...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Cool. But I don't want a jeep.
>
> Not really the point.
Err, it kind of really is completely the point. If he doesn't want a jeep,
it doesn't matter how much cheaper/more expensive the jeep is, or how much
better/worse as a kit it is. Just as the price of beans doesn't make a
difference either.
> The point was that a jeep (the closest real-world
> equivalent to a landspeeder) costs x, compared to the landspeeder, and is
> overall much higher quality than the Citadel model.
And if played with, like GW models are designed for, will last nowhere
neither as long, because I bet it's a lot more fragile.
Cheers, Martyn
--
Seamus
>> Not really the point.
>
> Err, it kind of really is completely the point.
No, it wasn't.
> If he doesn't want a jeep, it doesn't matter how much cheaper/more
> expensive the jeep is, or how much better/worse as a kit it is. Just as
> the price of beans doesn't make a difference either.
The jeep was an example. Sure the point that Scott made was more like
"but I'm not playing Axis & Allies", but that isn't the argument.
The original argument is that Citadel "models" are less detailed and more
expensive than an actual model of similar size.
My comment is that, while I agree that Citadel models are grossly
overpriced, I'm not keen on putting together a suspension system every
time I build a rhino.
> And if played with, like GW models are designed for, will last nowhere
> neither as long, because I bet it's a lot more fragile.
This, I don't have enough experience with.
__
<wisner> I walked past a protest on Market Street yesterday evening.
<wisner> I didn't burst out laughing, but I really had to work for it.
<wisner> It was JEWISH LESBIANS FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
<wisner> There was singing.
- bash.org
smcdaniel1
> "M Roberts" <unk...@thisaddress.com> wrote in
>>> Not really the point.
>>
>> Err, it kind of really is completely the point.
>
> No, it wasn't.
>
Yes it was.
I don't care if a Thermo-jet carb is cheaper than the 9mm fuel injector if
I'm driving a fuel injected car.
Playa
Hey,
On Jun 20, 5:13 pm, "smcdaniel1" <smcdani...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Seamus" <eatabulletsa...@yourface.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9C30A60F...@85.214.105.209...
>
> > "M Roberts" <unkn...@thisaddress.com> wrote in
> >>> Not really the point.
>
> >> Err, it kind of really is completely the point.
>
> > No, it wasn't.
>
> Yes it was.
No, it wasn't.
You made the OP claim that a GW pricepoint was somehow "decent".
And, as I do whenever I see this apologist nonsense, I called
Shenanigans:
Anyone who thinks a Citadel Speeder is *worth* US$30 has a Kool-Aid
moustache.
Furthermore, to claim that it's "decent" means the Kool-Aid was most
likely a mixer.
Look me in the monitor, and tell me I'm wrong.
Pla - They see me rollin - ya
pbo...@aol.com
>
> On Jun 20, 12:38 am, "smcdaniel1" <smcdani...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > It's 30 bucks (American) but comes with 6 scouts.
>
> Jeep = 60 parts, including 8 figures in 4 different standing poses,
> detailed interior, drivetrain details and leaf spring suspension.
>
> Note: Figs are scale models, not typical Citadel caricatures.
Which rather underlies the flaw in the whole comparison; it's apples
and oranges. Both are models, both are made of plastic, both are
likely about the same size. And that's about as far as you can
sensibly draw a comparison. A Hasbro Transformer toy (or whatever) is
undoubtedly more expensive, relatively speaking, and less detailed
than a hobbyist's scale model as well - it's also targeted at a
different market and with a different purpose. It's a key selling
point of GW kits, for instance, that they're simple to put together so
that they can be used as playing pieces - a very different requirement
from a scale model jeep aimed at people who enjoy spending hours
constructing highly-detailed kits that they use as desktop ornaments.
On a minor practical point, of course, scale model manufacturers also
have the luxury of working from real-world military equipment which
naturally comes with all the necessary detail, while real Land
Speeders are in somewhat shorter supply.
None of that justifies GW pricing, to be sure, but since when is it a
newsflash that GW models are overpriced? You either like them enough
and have the spare income to pay for them anyway, or you don't.
Pointing out that other manufacturers' models work out cheaper is not
a novelty.
Phil
smcdaniel1
Hey,
No, it wasn't.
You're wrong. I am right. End of story.
For me $30 is a decent price.
BTW Jeeps suck syrupy cum dripping ass and I would never go near one.
Oh, and don't forget I love you Playa. Just, this time: you're wrong.
Playa
Hey,
On Jun 21, 3:28 pm, "smcdaniel1" <smcdani...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Playa" <JohnPaulPont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:50397393-8b21-4080...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> Look me in the monitor, and tell me I'm wrong.
>
> You're wrong.
Well, that's sorted, then.
Playa
Playa
Hey,
On Jun 21, 6:14 am, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
> it's apples
> and oranges. Both are models, both are made of plastic, both are
> likely about the same size. And that's about as far as you can
> sensibly draw a comparison.
I would question that rather trite analogy:
Both products are virtually identical in material and workmanship.
Yet, counterintuitively, the shoddier result is invariably the more
costly.
> It's a key selling
> point of GW kits, for instance, that they're simple to put together so
> that they can be used as playing pieces
Snap-fits are exactly the sort of "playing pieces" you describe.
They're also among the least expensive kits in every scale.
This cause/ effect is, in fact, my "key point".
> scale model manufacturers also
> have the luxury of working from real-world military equipment
And how, I wonder, was this "luxury" denied to Citadel?
It seems they *chose* to produce underdetailed snap-fits - fine.
Then choosing to price them as superdetailed masterworks? Nix.
> since when is it a
> newsflash that GW models are overpriced?
Um, the "newsflash" was a "decent" price.
I just flagged it as wishful thinking.
Scott's cleared it all up, though.
Playa
Myrmidon
@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, JohnPau...@gmail.com says...
inadvertently offer a better value than their typical offerings, even if
they didn't intend to do so. The IG weapons teams being an example
where one can make 3 teams with some extra IG bodies at far less than
the cost of 3 standard heavy weapons team boxed sets. For a more
extreme example, see the old space hulk boxed sets. The set of 10
plastic termies was worth the cost of the boxed set alone, throw in the
stealers, not to mention the card tiles and rules, and you had yourself
a good bargain if you were looking for Marines and Nids.
I don't think Scott was way out of the ball park for asking considering
the price of a Scout Squad *plus* the cost of a speeder. Still, is it a
good value per your typical model kit? Probably not. Is it 'generous'
per GW standards - probably so. After all, they didn't mold the scouts
out of uranium and then charge extra for that 'friendly after-glow'.
Myr
--
"I'm already impoverished from buying wargames minis,
and I'm too knackered for riotous living..."
-- Moramarth
RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org
Or...
Myrmidon
>
> Sir Scott "Base and jaded... " McDaniel
Based on your hair, I'd have said lead-guitar with vocals. But
then I knew RTM back in the day - and "He's with the band".
Myr :)
--
I'll have you know that I am equivalent to *at least twice* my
bodyweight in Snotlings.
-- Brad Hann
RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org
Moramarth
> Hey,
>
> On Jun 21, 6:14 am, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > it's apples
> > and oranges. Both are models, both are made of plastic, both are
> > likely about the same size. And that's about as far as you can
> > sensibly draw a comparison.
>
There appear to be two related issues for consideration – the
perennial one of GW pricing vs. value for money, and the quality of GW
models vs. those available to scale modellers.
It has been suggested that scale models are unsuitable for wargaming
because of fragility, but this ignores the fact most historical gaming
in the WW2 period grew up using such models. However, models of the
1960s era were less detailed and finely moulded than more modern
items. Where they are still available (e.g. Airfix) their prices tend
to be about half that of state-of-the-art superdetailed items.
However, manufacturers are addressing this – Italaeri has a range
intended to cover both bases, including full detail parts but also
more robust items (e.g. for suspensions) as alternatives to
“ruggedise” the model for gaming use. Other manufacturers are
offering simplified “quick assembly” kits (interestingly, Airfix
themselves did at one point produce very basic “bendy polythene”
equivalents of some of their models at one point) specifically for
gamers. Nonetheless, very simple resin models are available even more
cheaply from cottage industry firms. It’s worth mentioning GW
products have a qualitative advantage over other manufactures who have
tried to introduce ranges similar to 40K, such as Airfix’s “Robogear”.
Note also although GW include vastly overscale sword blades, spears,
(and heads to match the hands that hold them) in their WH and 40K
ranges, these and many other items are not immune to damage. The
recent explosion of hard plastic historical figures are proportioned
similarly to LotR range figures (scarcely surprising in the case of
Perry Miniatures and Warrior with their GW connections, but also true
for Wargames Factory and others) and I have reservations of how well
their spears and pikes will stand up to protracted usage.
On the issue of “comparing apples and oranges”, although no-one
produces exact equivalents for most GW products some valid comparisons
can be made with scale models for value for money. However, as I
tried to indicate in a previous post on this thread choosing an
equivalent is difficult. The most commonly used model scales are
still 1:76/1:72, but GW figures have grown a long way from these. A
typical 1:76/1:72 figure stands about 20mm high at the shoulder, but
is much less bulky than the GW “Heroic” 28mm scale figures. A 40K
tank commander standing upright with feet slightly apart is 26mm high
at the shoulder, a similarly posed Tamiya Panzer commander is 30mm
high at the shoulder, similar in bulk to a GW figure but with much
smaller head and hands, more in keeping with LotR range figures. It’s
worth noting most scale modellers regard Tamiya figures, both 1:35 and
1:48, as being undersized. I would argue for valid comparisons, 1:48
scale should be used.
I have endeavoured to use the Hobbylinc site for $ values, although I
am unfamiliar with it, and it doesn’t seem to be as user-friendly as
those I usually use (Hannants, SBX, etc.,). Tamiya kit 32530 German
infantry on manoeuvres contains 15 figures and cost me £6.99 in the
UK, Hobbylinc has it for $14.50 discounted to $10.99. Tamiya kit
32547 German tank crew maintenance from which the Panzer Commander I
measured comes contains only 9 figures and costs $17.60 discounted to
$12.29, but contains a large amount of diorama accessories- shells,
crates, table, ladder, and toolboxes – even an anvil.
My “Renegade Guard” 40K force (if it ever gets off the ground) will
use the Kreig/Baran “Ragnarok” tank from E40K “Swordwind” modified to
substitute directly for the Leman Russ and its variants. These I
propose to convert from 1:48 Hobby Boss KV2 kits (or the captured
German version, PxKpfw 754(r) ) which has almost the same footprint on
the table as a Leman Russ and has a similar height to the turret
top. Hobbylinc has the Hobby Boss KV2 for $25.99 discounted to
$15.99, but in the UK I managed to pick up half-a-dozen PxKpfw 754(r)s
for the price of a couple of Leman Russes (3 are intended to mount a
Medusa howitzer in an enclosed casemate, with the leftover turrets
employed to give the 3 Ragnaroks some of the Leman Russ armament
variants). Hobbylinc doesn’t list the 1:48 Tamiya KV2 (as far as I
can find) but has the KV1 (same tank, smaller turret) for $39.00
discounted to $28.69. But the bigger the model, the more bang you get
for your buck. A 1:72 KV1 from Trumpeter is way too small to use, but
still costs $19.95 discounted to $10.79, while the Trumpeter 1:35 KV2
(way too big) costs $32.95 discounted to $23.89. I’m considering a
1:35 ISU152 as a superheavy.
Regards,
Moramarth
>
> Playa
smcdaniel1
"Myrmidon" <im...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.24a8b6a26...@news.motzarella.org...
> In article <xkX_l.32$Zc7...@newsfe22.iad>, smcda...@cox.net says...
>>
>> Sir Scott "Base and jaded... " McDaniel
>
> Based on your hair, I'd have said lead-guitar with vocals. But
> then I knew RTM back in the day - and "He's with the band".
>
Heh. Check out my facebook page...It's definitely bass.
BTW one band I was in back in the day, that was exactly how I was credited:
Bass and jaded.
pbo...@aol.com
> On 22 June, 02:43, Playa <JohnPaulPont...@gmail.com> wrote:> Hey,
>
> > On Jun 21, 6:14 am, "pbow...@aol.com" <pbow...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > it's apples
> > > and oranges. Both are models, both are made of plastic, both are
> > > likely about the same size. And that's about as far as you can
> > > sensibly draw a comparison.
>
> OK, if I can again interject …
>
> There appear to be two related issues for consideration – the
> perennial one of GW pricing vs. value for money, and the quality of GW
> models vs. those available to scale modellers.
Rather, what I'm saying is that there's no sense comparing the quality
of models designed for two entirely different markets. GW models
aren't designed to compete with scale models and aren't intended to be
the same quality - not because scale models are too fragile for
gaming, but because they're designed for people who want highly
detailed scale models. What GW does very well is to combine a
relatively high level of detail with the ease of assembly that's more
important for an audience that wants to get its figures into play on a
wargames table at the earliest opportunity - as you point out, other
manufacturers have tried simplified kits that tend to lack much
detail.
Phil
Playa
Hey,
On Jun 21, 10:28 pm, Myrmidon <im...@home.com> wrote:
> In article <2bb011f2-ebd4-4c1e-b61a-37ae2ca9bb17
> a better value
Again, this makes sense only if followed by "for GW".
For anyone else, such "value" would be of no consideration.
Example: Choosing a 1/35th Hanomag from among those available:
http://www.hobbyplace.com/images/tamiya/armor/tam35020.jpg
Their scale makes those infantry figs a bit oversize for 40k.
But, I'll be giving them away if Hanos end up my Cult Gun Trucks.
So, counting included infantry figs would never even come into it.
Fwiw, I can get two of those Hanos for the price of one Speeder.
> The set of 10
> plastic termies was worth the cost of the boxed set alone, throw in the
> stealers, not to mention the card tiles and rules, and you had yourself
> a good bargain if you were looking for Marines and Nids
Um, people did not buy SH for the figs:
* There *were* no Nid players when Space Hulk came out.
* The included Termi models were a bloody travesty.
* Early 90's dealers got 30-fig boxes for US$15.
> considering the price of a Scout Squad *plus* the cost of a speeder
Ah, would that all sales were for whatever price we cared to set!
Unfortunately, the market itself sets all values - and prices.
And, when more than the market will bear, those prices fall.
Well, unless someone obstinately maintains inflated prices.
Doing so will typically cause sales to fall off a cliff:
A 70% drop in sales might cause a lesser company to reduce prices.
Unless, say, they *wanted* to artificially inflate their "value".
If, for instance, they wanted to look appealing to investors ...
Still, I won't tell others not to pay if that's what they want to do.
But, neither will I suggest any of their junk is a "decent value".
Note: Having built a Speeder, I can safely use the term "junk".
Tell ya what: let GW/FW cut prices 50% across the board.
Then let Neal etc, discount 20% off of these new retail prices.
Then I may refer to Citadel *values* as, well, "not indecent". ;- )
Playa
smcdaniel1
>
>
> Hey,
>
> On Jun 21, 10:28 pm, Myrmidon <im...@home.com> wrote:
>> In article <2bb011f2-ebd4-4c1e-b61a-37ae2ca9bb17
>> a better value
>
> Again, this makes sense only if followed by "for GW"
For GW. Happy?
>
>> The set of 10
>> plastic termies was worth the cost of the boxed set alone, throw in the
>> stealers, not to mention the card tiles and rules, and you had yourself
>> a good bargain if you were looking for Marines and Nids
>
> Um, people did not buy SH for the figs:
I did. They worked perfectly well as game pieces.
>
> * There *were* no Nid players when Space Hulk came out.
> * The included Termi models were a bloody travesty.
> * Early 90's dealers got 30-fig boxes for US$15.
I'm an "Early Adopter"...
>
> Still, I won't tell others not to pay if that's what they want to do.
> But, neither will I suggest any of their junk is a "decent value".
Value is in the eye of the beholder. Anyone want to buy some Tulips?
> Note: Having built a Speeder, I can safely use the term "junk".
>
On this we are in full agreement. My first speeder (from the 3rd edition
boxed set) still has a rubber band around it to hold it together...
Hug and Kisses!
Playa
Hey,
On Jun 23, 8:29 pm, "smcdaniel1" <smcdani...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Playa" <JohnPaulPont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Um, people did not buy SH for the figs:
>
> I did. They worked perfectly well as game pieces.
Really? Which game?
> Value is in the eye of the beholder.
Yes if, by "beholder", you mean "market dynamics".
> Hug and Kisses
" ... for GW". ;- )
Playa
smcdaniel1
Hey,
On Jun 23, 8:29 pm, "smcdaniel1" <smcdani...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Playa" <JohnPaulPont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > Um, people did not buy SH for the figs:
>>
>> I did. They worked perfectly well as game pieces.
>Really? Which game?
40k. I used the stealers two weeks ago with my tyranid army in a 4000 point
game. I constantly use my termies from SH when I play my son as well. Even
though I have a ton of other Termies, I find the old one piece ones hold up
very well when used by an eight year old. Except for the antennae.
Also my daughter is building a hybrid army using the plastic hybrids for
"Genestealer".
Myrmidon
e0c939...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, JohnPau...@gmail.com
says...
>
>
> Hey,
>
> On Jun 21, 10:28 pm, Myrmidon <im...@home.com> wrote:
> > In article <2bb011f2-ebd4-4c1e-b61a-37ae2ca9bb17
> > a better value
>
> Again, this makes sense only if followed by "for GW".
I'm going to go out on a very short limb here and go with the idea
that since this *IS* a news group devoted to GW games and products - he
didn't have to club anyone else over the head with the incredibly
freaking obvious. Apparently only you failed to pick up on the clear
implication and context of his question.
> For anyone else, such "value" would be of no consideration.
Your own repeated protests to this thread give a clear indication
to the contrary.
> Example: Choosing a 1/35th Hanomag from among those available:
>
> http://www.hobbyplace.com/images/tamiya/armor/tam35020.jpg
>
> Their scale makes those infantry figs a bit oversize for 40k.
> But, I'll be giving them away if Hanos end up my Cult Gun Trucks.
> So, counting included infantry figs would never even come into it.
>
No shit, of course they wouldn't come into consideration in your
example - they're not 40K scaled figures. On the other hand, the
speeder in question comes with 6 scout figures - which amazingly happen
to not only be 40K scaled, but might in fact be usable in game as a unit
of 'scouts'. Thus being an added value for the money considering, that
five man squads can cost $20 or more, and a typical transport vehicle
can cost $35 or more. Meanwhile the model in question includes both
vehicle and possibly a 5 or 6 man squad as well.
> Fwiw, I can get two of those Hanos for the price of one Speeder.
>
FWIW, buyers have the potential to get a vehicle and an additional
unit of properly scaled minis to boot. Your attempts to dismiss that
don't change the facts of the matter.
> > The set of 10
> > plastic termies was worth the cost of the boxed set alone, throw in the
> > stealers, not to mention the card tiles and rules, and you had yourself
> > a good bargain if you were looking for Marines and Nids
>
> Um, people did not buy SH for the figs:
>
It's amazing how you can maintain an authoritative voice while
speaking out of your ass...
> * There *were* no Nid players when Space Hulk came out.
You know, for someone who's jumping Scott's ass about not
specifying 'for GW' - you seem to have no problem trying to jump to
false conclusions by putting words in my mouth. I neither used the
words 'when Space Hulk came out' (I.e. 1st Edition) nor did I specify
'1st Edition Space Hulk'. There were 2 (TWO - as in more than one, less
than three) editions of Space Hulk at the time I'm speaking of. And
point of fact - there were plenty of people playing 2nd Ed 40K with
Tyranid Armys when 2nd Edition Space Hulk was in it full production -
including me. You're the only one here trying to specify 1st and only
1st Ed. Space Hulk. So much for that straw-man argument bullshit...
> * The included Termi models were a bloody travesty.
Hey, for someone who's repeatedly been a dick to Scott for the
mere omission of the words 'for GW', I'm sure you won't mind me rubbing
your nose in the fact that you didn't specify 'in the first edition of
Space Hulk' in your blanket statement. I'd whole heartedly agree that
the first edition '1 piece' terminators were indeed butt-ugly. That is
NOT however the plastic terminators I'm speaking of. The 2nd Ed Space
Hulk multi-part plastic terminators once painted are indistinguishable
from the metal terminators that persisted from 2nd Edition through 4th
Edition 40K - and they look just fine on the table top side by side with
the metal minis as they've been doing for roughly 15 years. I've had
more than one young player look surprised when they pick up my termies
and realize that they're not all metal. Many of them they didn't even
know that there ever were plastic termies in that style.
> * Early 90's dealers got 30-fig boxes for US$15.
>
Three fails in one sentence - Wow, that's a person record for you
in this thread.
Fail #1 - Try the late 80's for the price you're quoting. By the early
90's the 30 count boxed sets had already increased in price. (As did the
vehicle kits.) Not to mention that the 30 count plastic sets largely
vanished by the time 2nd Ed 40K rolled around.
Fail #2 - You're talking about the old Mark 6 beakies - I'm not. Try
sticking with the topic since you were so eager to try and cram it down
Scott's throat. I'm talking about 2nd Ed Space Hulk termies (your
attempts to stick solely with 1st Ed Hulk not withstanding), which have
crisper lines and much better detailing than the Beakies. Apparently
your memory is failing you - so if you'd like, I can post some side by
side shots of the Termies vs the Beakies for everyone to see.
Fail #3 - Point in fact - when 10 metal termies for 2nd Ed 40K cost $50
U.S., savvy players could easily pick up 10 plastic termies (which look
identical to their metal counterparts) for $50, *ALONG WITH* 20 plastic
Genestealers (the EXACT SAME plastic models that were used in 2nd, 3rd,
and 4th Edition 40K Nid armys) as well as cardstock board pieces,
counters, dice, and a full mini-game rules set. IN OTHER WORDS - a much
better value for the money when it came to GW products. WHICH IS
EXACTLY WHAT SCOTT WAS ASKING ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE!
> > considering the price of a Scout Squad *plus* the cost of a speeder
>
> Ah, would that all sales were for whatever price we cared to set!
>
In other words you didn't have any real argument to support your rant.
So you what, thought you'd baffle him with your bullshit in stead?
> Unfortunately, the market itself sets all values - and prices.
> And, when more than the market will bear, those prices fall.
> Well, unless someone obstinately maintains inflated prices.
>
> Doing so will typically cause sales to fall off a cliff:
>
> http://yfrog.com/07gwpricesj
>
> A 70% drop in sales might cause a lesser company to reduce prices.
> Unless, say, they *wanted* to artificially inflate their "value".
> If, for instance, they wanted to look appealing to investors ...
>
That would work great - if all the investors in the world were
idiots who only looked at the retail prices of a company's current
goods, rather than say looking at the company's profitability as well as
its current and projected health.
> Still, I won't tell others not to pay if that's what they want to do.
> But, neither will I suggest any of their junk is a "decent value".
> Note: Having built a Speeder, I can safely use the term "junk".
>
And yet another non-specific statement that's utter bullshit upon
even the simplest of scrutiny. Yes, it's safe to say that most players
with the older kit would generally agree that the old speeders simply
sucked. I've got one I had to use a bench vise to hold the body
together while the glue dried due to how badly warped the parts were.
That said, the speeders from GW's re-tooled molds are just fine.
They're no more difficult or fiddly to assemble than other model
manufacturer's kits of similar complexity. So, taking a look at your
'old speeder = junk, therefore new speeder MUST = junk' argument, it's
safe to conclude that your argument fails the 'Not true of necessity'
test, and it may very well fail the 'not true in reality' test as well.
So unless you've already built one of these kits, or have talked to a
number of other gamers who have already built this kit (which would be a
neat trick with a model that isn't in retail distribution yet) this is
YET ANOTHER example of you talking out your ass without support.
> Tell ya what: let GW/FW cut prices 50% across the board.
> Then let Neal etc, discount 20% off of these new retail prices.
> Then I may refer to Citadel *values* as, well, "not indecent". ;- )
>
You know, I wouldn't frankly care if you were talking smack to
some noob-slobbing fanboy fucktard that thinks GW can do no wrong. If
you need some fine examples of that ilk, I'll be glad to point you to
certain elements of the Dakka forums for example now that the
'official' GW forums have closed. But that's NOT who you're talking to
here. Scott's a long time reg who's anything but a GW apologist. He
asked a straight forward question that was obvious to I'd dare say most
RGMW members, and here you are jumping his ass and spouting bullshit to
back up your unfounded temper tantrum.
Myrmidon
--
Oh, shut up and take your shooting like a man.
-- Kurt
RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org
Playa
Hey,
On Jun 27, 8:44 am, Myrmidon <im...@home.com> wrote:
> In article <923c8048-3ed9-4d99-af26-
> e0c939330...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, JohnPaulPont...@gmail.com
> says...
> > On Jun 21, 10:28 pm, Myrmidon <im...@home.com> wrote:
> > > In article <2bb011f2-ebd4-4c1e-b61a-37ae2ca9bb17
> > > a better value
>
> > Again, this makes sense only if followed by "for GW".
>
> since this *IS* a news group devoted to GW games and products - he
> didn't have to club anyone else over the head with the incredibly
> freaking obvious.
LOL! Deep, calming breath, Myr.
You may be mistaking banter for flames.
I find only one point to be irksome at all -
A suggested PRICE does not set an item's VALUE.
Ergo, it's impossible to characterize value based on price.
Misinterpreting or sidestepping this core idea prompted my posts.
> the
> speeder in question comes with 6 scout figures - which amazingly happen
> to not only be 40K scaled, but might in fact be usable in game
This, er, "argument" is based on a false premise:
"Only Citadel and Forge World are good enough for 40k".
People make this assumption based on corporate propaganda:
GW wants to showcase their merch at their little photo shoots.
To me, this is *completely* understandable. BUT -
If you're not at a GW photo-op (aka tournament), they're overpriced.
> buyers have the potential to get a vehicle and an additional
> unit of properly scaled minis to boot
Properly scaled Citadels? Heh. Good one. X- D
> You're the only one here trying to specify 1st and only
> 1st Ed. Space Hulk
Oh, please - I used that example because SH included 30 infantry
figs.
By the time SH2 came around, 30-fig inf boxes were *long* gone.
Iow, there was no direct box-o-figs basis for comparison.
> > Ah, would that all sales were for whatever price we cared to set!
>
> In other words you didn't have any real argument to support your rant
[sigh] The argument is simply that "Value =/= price". So saying,
"Vehicle + Infantry is better value than Vehicle + nuttin",
is relevant in a vacuum of *those items only*.
The Cult Limo Hanomag was a reference to the Dark Ages of WD.
Remember GW employees actually *promoting* non-GW models?
Purest heresy in the grim darkness of Six Sigma MBAs!
> That would work great - if all the investors in the world were
> idiots
Kirby only needed four. From his FY2008 preamble:
"We have had a better year. Not as good as we would like, not as good
as it will be, but better nevertheless. The better year is due, of
course, to our new chief executive, Mark Wells."
RDF* to English Translation:
"67.9% of GW's equity is BORROWED from four hedge funds - Nomad
(23.8%), Phoenix (18.1%), Investec (15.0%) and Schroder (11.0%) - and
they gave my job to Mark."
I've no doubt AT ALL that -
* Paper assets included X million GBP in "inventory"
* Tommy's SS MBA bean counters set that "value"
* Under a Reality Distortion Field*
Predatory lenders view such legal fictions as "collateral".
> Scott's a long time reg who's anything but a GW apologist
I can't help but feel that you might have inferred something from
this.
> He asked a straight forward question that was obvious
Right. Whether a GW RETAIL PRICE was an exceptional VALUE.
I can't have been the only poster who thought that this was
hilarious!
> here you are jumping his ass and spouting bullshit to
> back up your unfounded temper tantrum
Oh, how you do go on. Peace, Brother!
We were only dancing.
Playa
* RDF (tm) Team Obama
Seamus
>> since this *IS* a news group devoted to GW games and products - he
>> didn't have to club anyone else over the head with the incredibly
>> freaking obvious.
>
> LOL! Deep, calming breath, Myr.
Pot, meet kettle.
> You may be mistaking banter for flames.
> I find only one point to be irksome at all -
While price != value, you've taken this whole thing off the deep end when
you broke out the "GW apologist" term. GG on jumping that Megalodon.
> <snip>
FFS, man. Show me on the Carnifex where Rick touched you!
__
____________________________
| \
| S * M * A * B ! |
| |
| This message delivered by |
| |
| The Shit Me A Brick Group |
|____________________________/
Playa
Hey,
On Jun 29, 1:28 am, Seamus <eatabulletsa...@yourface.net> wrote:
> Playa <JohnPaulPont...@gmail.com> wrote in news:
> > Deep, calming breath, Myr.
>
> Pot, meet kettle.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
> GG on jumping that Megalodon.
Is this a Fonzie ref? Note: I don't frequent 4chan.
Okay. [shrug] Maybe it's me, after all.
Help me understand where I went wrong -
Scott: Am I jaded or is that a decent price?
Playa: Similar models are worth fifteen bucks.
S: It's thirty.
P: Then, yes. You're jaded. Better models are cheaper.
S: I don't want better models.
Others: Scott, that's not the point.
S: I don't care.
P: Claiming GW prices are decent is apologist nonsense.
S: You're wrong.
P: Okay.
Here is where I thought discussion had ended, but no -
Myr: GW accidentally gives good value sometimes.
P: Only subjectively "good" by GW's insane value system.
S: Anyone can set a value.
P: No, anyone can set a price. Value is market-driven.
Myr: You're being mean to my friend. Ad hominems away!
P: No, I'm not being mean; I'm just sticking to my principles.
Seamus: No! Cookware and extinct sharks! Non sequiturs away!
So, now regs are telling me (I think) that I've done something wrong.
Can someone please show me where that line of taboo was crossed?
The whole exchange looked pretty tame to me - by RGMW standards.
I actually thought the discussion was over until the pile-ons
started.
All I've said is that none of GW's merch is a good value, accidentally
or otherwise.
I've got an insanely huge 40k army, so I'm as big a fanboy as anyone
here.
But, I would NEVER suggest that my purchasing decisions were
rational.
Much less "reasonable".
Pla - think of the children - ya
Craig Little
On Jun 29, 1:28 am, Seamus <eatabulletsa...@yourface.net> wrote:
> Playa <JohnPaulPont...@gmail.com> wrote in news:
<snip>
FFS, let it go, man.
smcdaniel1
"Playa" <JohnPau...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8670021e-d1ca-44e2...@r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Hey,
C'mon Play, you've done nothing wrong. You shared you opinion. We like that.
At least you didn't lie (I WAS A NAVY SEAL) or step away from your
principles (Prinipals)?). Nobody thinks ill of you. As a matter of fact; I'm
kinda horny now...
Phone sex?
smcdaniel1
"Playa" <JohnPau...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8670021e-d1ca-44e2...@r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Hey,
On Jun 29, 1:28 am, Seamus <eatabulletsa...@yourface.net> wrote:
> Playa <JohnPaulPont...@gmail.com> wrote in news:
>> > Deep, calming breath, Myr.
>
>> Pot, meet kettle.
>I don't think that means what you think it means.
>> GG on jumping that Megalodon.
>Is this a Fonzie ref? Note: I don't frequent 4chan.
>Okay. [shrug] Maybe it's me, after all.
>Help me understand where I went wrong -
>Scott: Am I jaded or is that a decent price?
>Playa: Similar models are worth fifteen bucks.
>S: It's thirty.
>P: Then, yes. You're jaded. Better models are cheaper.
>S: I don't want better models.
>Others: Scott, that's not the point.
>S: I don't care.
>P: Claiming GW prices are decent is apologist nonsense.
>S: You're wrong.
>P: Okay.
BTW: Excellent synopsis. Had me laughing my pants off...If I was wearing
pants.
Myrmidon
Over share! OVER SHARE!!!
Myr
--
So far, the closest to homosexuality warhammer has made me is playing
Wood Elves for a number of years. But I was in college then.
- Snot Monster
RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org
smcdaniel1
Playa
Hey,
On Jun 29, 8:02 pm, "smcdaniel1" <smcdani...@cox.net> wrote:
> you've done nothing wrong
That's a relief. Just for a minute there, I had this weird chill -
Regs? Insisting I be more sensitive to your FEELINGS?
Whew! I no longer expect Rod Serling's ghost . . .
Pla - big meanie-head - ya