Some eye-opening math on points and prices

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

So. I was talking with some friends over on Discord, and Krieg happened to come up. It was mentioned that Krieg was the most expensive army in the game... so I got to work on figuring out if it indeed was, and how other armies compare. I did all the math and figured out just how cheap or expensive all our favorite armies are. I took 14 different armies, plus both Tacticals and Intercessors for Astartes, and plugged them all into this little spreadsheet. I divided the MSRP (in USD) by model count (I ignored the support platform for the Guardians, which might change things) and then divided the MSRP/model by the points/model to get the MSRP per point. I tried to use basic units and models wherever possible. I'm not very good at writing, so I'm just gonna shut up and show you the data now.

 

So, as expected, the more elite armies are right at the top, especially the Lord of War factions, and the GEQs are the absolute worst for your money. The particularly eye-opening things for me were Knights being beaten out by Marines, the Warhound and Custodes, and Tacticals beating out Intercessors. Thoughts, lads?

 

Edit: I added 15 more datapoints, including the Drukhari Troops, the Lesser Daemons, the T'au Fire Warriors, the Necron Immortals, Grey Knights Terminators, Rubric Marines, the Knight Rampager and the Legiones Astartes plastics if used as Loyalist or Traitor armies in 40k.

Edited April 29, 2020 by Zephaniah Adriyen

[Panzer]

Well that's not exactly news. At least not for me. An explanation could be that it's to be expected that there are less people wanting to play horde armies because it requires to build and paint so many more models so having them cost more money equals things out a bit while pretty much every 40k player has at least one loyalist Marine army so the models don't have to cost a lot money to earn GW a lot.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Panzer

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

There are possibly (just spitballing here) some material concerns for them too. For a full army, you need a lot more guard, nids, etc, then you do for Marines, Custodes, etc. More models means more mold use, and I have no clue how durable plastic injection molds are, but I imagine the more you use them, the more you wear them out. Just pure speculation, of course, I don't really have any insight worth mentioning, and its likely the material considerations are the same as you stated--produce more for hordes, therefore they cost more.

Not very surprising, but good to see the numbers. 

I wonder if it's worth taking a look at GBP price-to-point ratios and comparing, for markup purposes.

 

For my own amusement, Quick Maths for Necron Warriors, arguably the hordiest option of the army (counting scarabs, as they are also very horde-ish and are in the box anyway): 

ppm for warriors is 11, ppm scarabs is 13 ppm. Avg. ppm in the box is 11.4 . Price of the box (pretax) is 36.25, per model is 2.41 . Ratio of MSRP/model:ppm is 0.21USD/points--better than even Custodes, I realize, though that likely has to do with the fact that you get 15 models in a box, which is far and away more than any other one on the list--even gaunts come 10 to a box.

[GrinNfool]

I don't think GW prices anything around number of models, I think they just throw out a number and go ya sure, people will pay that.  Of course elite armies will be cheaper per point because every model is so many freaking points.  As far as guard you also aren't expected to build a list of pure guardsmen, you get some help in the form of russes, or tank commanders bringing that ratio down a bit.  A punisher tank commander breaks out to ~.29 per point.  That number also fluctuates wildly based on upgrades etc, Guardsmen box could be guard could be vets, buy a plasma or 3 etc, points will start to come more in line probably, just because of the way you are evaluating them.  I mean I think kabalite warriors come in at a dollar per point based on this,  Really I think it just comes down to what GW thinks they can get away with charging, and to some minor degree how much plastic goes into them, but the markup on the plastic is so drastic don't think even that is THAT big of a deal.

[KhorneHunter57x]

Personally, I wouldn't consider a Titan, DKoK, or any other Forge World product in the same comparison as mainstream GW. Note that the age of a kit also makes a difference in price, with the older ones tending to be cheaper - likely because GW has already recovered the cost of that mold, so it makes more sense for them to keep making miniatures from it as long as they can instead of paying to replace it unnecessarily. Plastic injection molds are relatively expensive, especially at the quality that GW produces.

 

Since the cost of new molds for a new kit needs to be recovered for the mold to be worth it, this is also probably why Space Marines are relatively cheaper and newer than the other ranges. The mold and plastic for Space Marine LT #27 costs the same as that of a Phoenix Lord, but the Space Marine will sell more, thereby guaranteeing that GW recovers the cost of the mold much more quickly.

 

I doubt that the points cost of a model/unit plays much part in the price of the kit.

 

More models means more mold use, and I have no clue how durable plastic injection molds are, but I imagine the more you use them, the more you wear them out. Just pure speculation, of course, I don't really have any insight worth mentioning, and its likely the material considerations are the same as you stated--produce more for hordes, therefore they cost more.

I have a tiny bit of insight (I took a class on this sort of thing a while back), and yes, the molds do wear out. The crispness and quality of the product goes down, and the mold halves can become misaligned, causing the halves of the product to shift slightly along the seam. Edited April 29, 2020 by KhorneHunter57x

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

Personally, I wouldn't consider a Titan, DKoK, or any other Forge World product in the same comparison as mainstream GW. Note that the age of a kit also makes a difference in price, with the older ones tending to be cheaper - likely because GW has already recovered the cost of that mold, so it makes more sense for them to keep making miniatures from it as long as they can instead of paying to replace it unnecessarily. Plastic injection molds are relatively expensive, especially at the quality that GW produces.

 

Since the cost of new molds for a new kit needs to be recovered for the mold to be worth it, this is also probably why Space Marines are relatively cheaper and newer than the other ranges. The mold and plastic for Space Marine LT #27 costs the same as that of a Phoenix Lord, but the Space Marine will sell more, thereby guaranteeing that GW recovers the cost of the mold much more quickly.

 

I doubt that the points cost of a model/unit plays much part in the price of the kit.

The idea wasn't to isolate why the kits are the price they are, more to figure what armies or kits are the best for your money - which the Custodes clearly are, by this metric. It wasn't designed to figure out why GW prices things the way they price them, it was more to examine GW's prices by a universal metric and compare to figure out what the cheapest and most expensive armies (out of the sample I chose) are. For this purpose, I'd say Forge World products are most definitely valid for analysis.

[KhorneHunter57x]

The idea wasn't to isolate why the kits are the price they are, more to figure what armies or kits are the best for your money - which the Custodes clearly are, by this metric. It wasn't designed to figure out why GW prices things the way they price them, it was more to examine GW's prices by a universal metric and compare to figure out what the cheapest and most expensive armies (out of the sample I chose) are. For this purpose, I'd say Forge World products are most definitely valid for analysis.

Fair enough. I guess my initial intent was "here's why a Tactical Marine at 12ppm is cheaper than a Harlequin at 11ppm", but I suppose I went off in a different direction.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

 

The idea wasn't to isolate why the kits are the price they are, more to figure what armies or kits are the best for your money - which the Custodes clearly are, by this metric. It wasn't designed to figure out why GW prices things the way they price them, it was more to examine GW's prices by a universal metric and compare to figure out what the cheapest and most expensive armies (out of the sample I chose) are. For this purpose, I'd say Forge World products are most definitely valid for analysis.

Fair enough. I guess my initial intent was "here's why a Tactical Marine at 12ppm is cheaper than a Harlequin at 11ppm", but I suppose I went off in a different direction.

 

And that different direction was entirely correct, and everything you said was correct. It simply wasn't the point of this little analysis.

[Xenith]

I don't think GW prices anything around number of models, I think they just throw out a number and go ya sure, people will pay that.

That's literally the exact opposite of what they do.

 

GW prices models according to the "Goblin Index" where the number of copies of a model you want/need in an army had an effect on the price. That's why 20 goblins used to cost the same as 12 chaos warriors, or one character.

 

This got messed up in the great 8th ed fantasy price gouge, but you can still clearly see it in the multipart plastic characters who cost c.£22.50 (you will likely only buy one identical character), while the same number of sprues as a chapter upgrade kit costs c.£7.50 as you'll maybe buy one of those per other unit in your army.

[Vermintide]

Auspex Tactics did a decent video on this subject recently. He does the maths in real money (GBP) too for those interested in UK pricing in comparison to US- The results are pretty similar though unsurprisingly.

 

https://youtu.be/lp8__0NQLAE

 

He also does some analysis of things like the Start Collecting kits to see if that affects the results at all, considering the some armies have pretty generous SC boxes that cover a good 500 points, where others barely scrape over 100.

 

Purely in my own findings, Necrons have been a very cheap army to collect, thanks to having a great SC box and the Forgebane set. My whole army is basically just 2 Forgebanes halves (eBay) and a SC box, so it can't have cost me more than £150 for the whole thing. That said, it's hardly given me the most competitive army, and it's only reasonable if you actually like those models.

 

So it goes to show, 40k kiiiind of is pay to win ;)

[GreenScorpion]

Interesting numbers, but for a more adequate picture it would make sense to have more units and a comparison between most expensive loadout vs basic model points cost, as I am certain a squad with heavy weapons will have a lower cost per point, if the box is still the same.

The thing with statistics is that it works better with more data ;)

[Halandaar]

The problem with using the "Troops" unit of any given faction to decide how cost/points efficient it is, is simply that for most armies, that unit makes up a fairly small proportion of the force on the board. I mean, which kit is more relevant to the cost efficiency of an Eldar army, Guardians, or Hemlocks?

 

On top of that (mentioned above), weapon options make a huge difference. The Tactical kit costs you the same whether you build it as 10 guys with Bolters, or if you take a Power Fist, Combi-Plasma, Plasma Gun and Missile Launcher, or even better, if you build as 2 squads of five with even more special and heavy weapons in play.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

Right - someone gonna do the calculations for that? I understand that statistics work better with more data. Y'all gonna gather some of that data?

[N1SB]

Brother Zephaniah, I'll tell you what, I hadn't considered things like the plastic Mk III and Mk IV kit, and I'm busy with a special project right now but I'm thinking, "Hey, if the new Fabius Biles rules with his Fabulous Marines is interesting, or I really delve into a Possessed Bomb specialist detachment...I'll probably use those Mk III and Mk IV to convert because I love me some vintage armour."  And I didn't expect Orks to be that good in your bucks-per-point ROI ratio, I would assume them to be lower down on your table, and that would have been my mistake.  But I also understand that your MSRP/points ratio shouldn't be treated as an end-all-be-all accurate measurement, it's just like a weighted indicator, a rough touchstone for my purchase decision making process.

 

You done good.  You did some of the legwork for me, and I'll do my own due diligence for my own needs, as is right and proper.

 

Right - someone gonna do the calculations for that? I understand that statistics work better with more data. Y'all gonna gather some of that data?

 

Welcome to my hell, Brother.  I'm actually really glad we reached this point, because what I'm about to say relates to this topic, but also beyond.

 

Sensitivity Analysis is actually a thing in, y'know, work (not to be confused with Sensitivity Training or anything of that sort).  That's when you cover different ranges of possibilities.  Just by way of example to Brother Scorpion's point (and there is no onus on you to do this, this is just for illustrative purposes), you have what you already got up there, then a separate entry for each of those Troops with all the upgrades they can bring.  Like those Tactical Marines will take both a Special and Heavy Weapon while Daemons take their Icons and wotnot.  Then there's complications because how do you spread those extra wargear points out across the unit, but they have different unit sizes, do you also max out their respective unit sizes, like you divide the Special and Heavy Weapon across 10 Marines while the Daemons' upgrades are spread over 30?  Then...after all that extra work...will it even change anything?  What you did was create a rankings list from the cheapest to most expensive faction, and points-costly units probably have points-costly wargear.  Anyway, just sharing something I didn't learn in my own life until 5 years after I could've started using it, so telling you now.

 

(In fact, I reckon...I haven't done the legwork, but Theoretical...I reckon something like Deathwatch will probably have the greatest variation in such an exercise.  It's because they have absolutely the most bells & whistles in terms of upgrades they could take, to the point it'll be like comparing apples to orangutans, but it is what it is.)

 

But...that's a very minor thing, what I was going to tell you that relates to this topic and beyond was this:

 

1 day you'll present information beyond these hundred(s) dollar 40k projects.  It'll be for hundreds of thousands, millions, hundreds of millions of dollars.  Don't be in the habit of shrugging off questions or questioners, because on one shoulder will sit your employers and shareholders and customers, while on the other will rest the lives of workers and their jobs and their families.  It's a heavy load, the heaviest, which is why when you get hit with a question, you don't shrug, you dig in.

 

I know we're just talking toy soldiers, but habit is something that takes a lifetime to form, so it's never too early to get started.  Warhammer teaches great life skills.  Also...

 

Spending the same amount of money as you would on Warhammer figures, by volume you receive magnitudes more product if you buy Legos instead, which are also made of a higher quality, more durable plastic.

 

I found it interesting when I looked them up that both Lego and GW has actually about the same gross margin (not to be confused with net profit margin), a whopping 70%.  I don't think that's coincidence.  In any case, that's not to say 40k isn't expensive, but I am saying Lego is just as expensive.  Seriously, I bought a Lego thing recently and I was like "omg that's how much they cost now!?"  Legos used to be a cheap toy!

 

But Brother Mammoth, that's not dismissing any of your points.  I don't know if GW is inefficient with its casting process or whatever, or they have to use softer plastics because of the detail in their minis or what have you.  I think you're right though, having stepped on a Lego piece, those things have the apparent density of a diamond.

[Bryan Blaire]

Some of the Lego resilience is due to the shape and internal structure, it’s not all from the plastic used. If it had the same shape as a GW figure, it could snap in a very similar fashion.

[Panzer]

Not to mention that models as durable as Lego wouldn't exactly help with the modeling aspect of the hobby. Resin is already bad enough as is.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Plus, we're discussing 40k here, not "what is the best monetary value you can get on any plastic toys". 

[Xenith]

Plus, we're discussing 40k here, not "what is the best monetary value you can get on any plastic toys".

But the topic is literally about which plastic toys are the best value?

 

One thing I missed in an initial skim is that a warhound titan seems one of the most cost efficient ways to get a 2000pt army, which I never expected.

 

Interesting comment from n1sb.

 

Seeing as GW has already kind of accounted for variation in model loadouts using the Power Level system, one could plot cost by power level of a unit to account for the variation, no?

Edited May 2, 2020 by Xenith

[GreenScorpion]

Right - someone gonna do the calculations for that? I understand that statistics work better with more data. Y'all gonna gather some of that data?

Obviously it doesn't have to be you collecting the data, what I said was more in the sense of "don't look too much into it" as while some of the observations might certainly be valid as you scale up an analysis, some might end up being wrong in the end.

 

If we dig too deep down as N1SB referred correctly, I am sure this would be master thesis level material :D (I have certainly seen more wasteful thesis while I was at the university), as the variability is quite large on many of the kits.

 

Just to say that the faction with the unit with the most efficient cost/points ratio will not necessarily be the best faction in that ratio, if you see it as a whole and the reverse might be true as well.

I didn't meant to diminish your analysis in any way and if that was what it seemed, I am sorry for that.

[Zephaniah Adriyen]

 

Right - someone gonna do the calculations for that? I understand that statistics work better with more data. Y'all gonna gather some of that data?

Obviously it doesn't have to be you collecting the data, what I said was more in the sense of "don't look too much into it" as while some of the observations might certainly be valid as you scale up an analysis, some might end up being wrong in the end.

 

If we dig too deep down as N1SB referred correctly, I am sure this would be master thesis level material (I have certainly seen more wasteful thesis while I was at the university), as the variability is quite large on many of the kits.

 

Just to say that the faction with the unit with the most efficient cost/points ratio will not necessarily be the best faction in that ratio, if you see it as a whole and the reverse might be true as well.

I didn't meant to diminish your analysis in any way and if that was what it seemed, I am sorry for that.

 

I was genuinely asking that other people contribute if interested. I've laid some of the groundwork by doing a bunch of basic units, and if other people are interested, this is not that time-consuming of a thing to assist with.

[CaptainMarsh]

The Custodes math gets even more bonkers when you realize you can make a Shield-Captain and a Vexillus out of the same box as a Custodian Guard.