GW and pricing, there's a problem.

[Halandaar]

As for the prices themselves, the inflation argument might have some legs if it wasn’t for the old kits. Older kits which were designed years (sometimes decades) ago and have long since recouped their development/set up costs are still going up in price. The profit margin on some of those old kits must now be insane but they still keep putting them up. Inflation doesn’t hold as a justification for the year on year price increases.

 

You won't find any argument from me on that. I suppose I should have made the point earlier that I view the persistent creep in the launch prices of new kits and the outright increases to the prices of older kits to be two different things that I have two different opinions on.

 

I don't object to a 2021 Primaris Gladiator costing more than an equivalent-sized new kit (for example, Stormraven Gunship) did in 2011, because new design and production costs have been incurred on that Gladiator, at a higher rate, which go some way towards justifying that creep in price.

 

What I do object to is the fact that the same Stormraven Gunship from the above example now costs £65, which is nearly 60% more than it cost when it released. That is absolutely outrageous.

[Bung]

It's also worth pointing out that GW do have a game in their "stable" that can be played at its fullest most meta chasing level for £20 a month. The "core box" for each season is £50 and there are 6 Warbands at £25 each, plus typically 2 "non-warband" expansions a season at around £15, putting your total annual "subscription" at £230 RRP.

 

To my mind Warhammer Underworlds is by far their best "Competitive" game, it has a varied, constantly changing "landscape" with each season and each warband release, the models are fantastic, it's a far tighter rule system which is great for tournaments.

 

For me 40k is a "beer and pretzels" hanging out with mates game, there's no need to chase the meta on it. If a new unit takes my fancy I'll grab it but that will be most based on aesthetic and fluff appeal.

 

Their biggest failure to my mind has been that they haven't pushed Kill Teams or even the smaller 40k game sizes as the preferred tournament format.

 

Rik

I had Shadespire and it was an OK Game to get people into miniatures and painting.

 

But for veteran gamers the lack of customisation options are a draw back.

 

My personal dislike for the game is a) fantasy setting. I am a sci fi need and i want Lasers and Space Ships and b ) a release scedule that reminds me of collectible card games like Magic. Just add up everything for a season every year to have all the cards to play on the top in tourneys.

Sorry, thats something im not going to support in a miniatures game.

 

Die Fantasy there are good other options of games to use your old Warhammer Fantasy or AoS etc. miniatures without buying new stuff every month.

Edited May 25, 2021 by Bung

[Rik Lightstar]

 

It's also worth pointing out that GW do have a game in their "stable" that can be played at its fullest most meta chasing level for £20 a month. The "core box" for each season is £50 and there are 6 Warbands at £25 each, plus typically 2 "non-warband" expansions a season at around £15, putting your total annual "subscription" at £230 RRP.

 

To my mind Warhammer Underworlds is by far their best "Competitive" game, it has a varied, constantly changing "landscape" with each season and each warband release, the models are fantastic, it's a far tighter rule system which is great for tournaments.

 

For me 40k is a "beer and pretzels" hanging out with mates game, there's no need to chase the meta on it. If a new unit takes my fancy I'll grab it but that will be most based on aesthetic and fluff appeal.

 

Their biggest failure to my mind has been that they haven't pushed Kill Teams or even the smaller 40k game sizes as the preferred tournament format.

 

Rik

I had Shadespire and it was an OK Game to get people into miniatures and painting.

 

But for veteran gamers the lack of customisation options are a draw back.

 

My personal dislike for the game is a) fantasy setting. I am a sci fi need and i want Lasers and Space Ships and b ) a release scedule that reminds me of collectible card games like Magic. Just add up everything for a season every year to have all the cards to play on the top in tourneys.

Sorry, thats something im not going to support in a miniatures game.

 

Die Fantasy there are good other options of games to use your old Warhammer Fantasy or AoS etc. miniatures without buying new stuff every month.

 

 

It is a fantasy setting, and if that's not your thing that's fine.

 

It has come a long way since Season 1, with far more depth to the play. "List customisation" is done through Warband choice and deck builds with a LOT of options on both sides.

 

For me, the Comparisons to Magic as a competitive game are some way off, M:tG is "blind buy" and needing duplicates of strong cards to make an effective deck. Where as the Underworlds stuff is set cards in each expansion.

 

As I said, total cost per year is approximately £250 RRP (so £200 from an FLGS) and gives you all of the options. 40k is often going to cost you that for Chapter Approved, a "Recent Codex", 2 HQs and 3 Troops before you even consider adding a vehicle.

 

 

I love 40k and am thoroughly enjoying building my current White Scars army and already have plans for an Astra Militarum (they'll always be Guard to me) army* to follow it up. But I can't see 40k as a genuine competitive game. Once you're in that mindset it's a lot easier to not worry about the cost of individual units as you just wait for them to pop up on ebay or arrive in a "Start Collecting" or "Battle Box".

 

Rik

[Marshal Reinhard]

 

As for the prices themselves, the inflation argument might have some legs if it wasn’t for the old kits. Older kits which were designed years (sometimes decades) ago and have long since recouped their development/set up costs are still going up in price. The profit margin on some of those old kits must now be insane but they still keep putting them up. Inflation doesn’t hold as a justification for the year on year price increases.

 

You won't find any argument from me on that. I suppose I should have made the point earlier that I view the persistent creep in the launch prices of new kits and the outright increases to the prices of older kits to be two different things that I have two different opinions on.

 

I don't object to a 2021 Primaris Gladiator costing more than an equivalent-sized new kit (for example, Stormraven Gunship) did in 2011, because new design and production costs have been incurred on that Gladiator, at a higher rate, which go some way towards justifying that creep in price.

 

What I do object to is the fact that the same Stormraven Gunship from the above example now costs £65, which is nearly 60% more than it cost when it released. That is absolutely outrageous.

 

Quite so. 

I'd say the only thing that can be done about this though, goes back tos your earlier advice to vote with your wallet and simply not buy older kits that have been marked up too much.

[Dr. Clock]

 

 

As for the prices themselves, the inflation argument might have some legs if it wasn’t for the old kits. Older kits which were designed years (sometimes decades) ago and have long since recouped their development/set up costs are still going up in price. The profit margin on some of those old kits must now be insane but they still keep putting them up. Inflation doesn’t hold as a justification for the year on year price increases.

 

...

 

I don't object to a 2021 Primaris Gladiator costing more than an equivalent-sized new kit (for example, Stormraven Gunship) did in 2011, because new design and production costs have been incurred on that Gladiator, at a higher rate, which go some way towards justifying that creep in price.

 

What I do object to is the fact that the same Stormraven Gunship from the above example now costs £65, which is nearly 60% more than it cost when it released. That is absolutely outrageous.

 

Quite so. 

 

I'd say the only thing that can be done about this though, goes back tos your earlier advice to vote with your wallet and simply not buy older kits that have been marked up too much.

 

And that's the rub, innit? Keeping each kit 'indexed' to the state of the global market at time of release is just as arbitrary as current benchmarking, but in the end will have the effect of harming new releases because 'older stuff is cheaper'. It is always better to sell 2 units than 3 for the same price even if your 'development cost' on the latter has been amortized.

 

The market for used product is where you can get older stuff for cheap, because other vendors have already just eaten the loss. But new in-wrap from the producer... expect things to cost about the same when the materials are all the same.

 

Remember that simply maintaining an item as part of the line is not zero-cost. Sure, alot of it is opportunity cost (because every time you print something you are not printing something else), but diversity of offerings only ever increases storage and inventory cost, to say nothing of rules complexity. So over time yes, having 2 lines of space marines that are 'essentially comparable' actually does need more than double the amount of attention on the 'game' side, which is strangely both a driver and barrier to sales, depending on the seasons. For instance, look at how sales have probably moved past 'new hotness' ATVs to ancient attack bikes based on a couple of points of 'value' in competitions.

 

Basically: maintaining the 20-30 year back catalogue is pretty much just as expensive as putting out the new hotness, and potentially more! I understand that it would be great to be buying warp spiders for 15 bucks a unit, but that's not how industrial production and logistics works in a global market, my dude... At a certain point you just start paying for being old, instead of new.

 

This is also how 'online only' items are even available; they can't make enough return on them even to think of offering them to independent retailers, and the demand isn't going to shoot up so dramatically that offering them for 5-10 bucks less will actually make you more money, it'll just increase turnover.

 

It is interesting that we expect the prices for game pieces to reflect in some sense the 'game value' to a decimel place, when in fact the market is more like 'one art' than '100 points'... And I think it's mostly because of these floating values around the models make us value them far differently based on 'efficiency' and 'value', but mixed up with other weird things like 'aesthetics'.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Marshal Reinhard]

 

 

 

As for the prices themselves, the inflation argument might have some legs if it wasn’t for the old kits. Older kits which were designed years (sometimes decades) ago and have long since recouped their development/set up costs are still going up in price. The profit margin on some of those old kits must now be insane but they still keep putting them up. Inflation doesn’t hold as a justification for the year on year price increases.

 

...

 

I don't object to a 2021 Primaris Gladiator costing more than an equivalent-sized new kit (for example, Stormraven Gunship) did in 2011, because new design and production costs have been incurred on that Gladiator, at a higher rate, which go some way towards justifying that creep in price.

 

What I do object to is the fact that the same Stormraven Gunship from the above example now costs £65, which is nearly 60% more than it cost when it released. That is absolutely outrageous.

 

Quite so. 

 

I'd say the only thing that can be done about this though, goes back tos your earlier advice to vote with your wallet and simply not buy older kits that have been marked up too much.

 

And that's the rub, innit? Keeping each kit 'indexed' to the state of the global market at time of release is just as arbitrary as current benchmarking, but in the end will have the effect of harming new releases because 'older stuff is cheaper'. It is always better to sell 2 units than 3 for the same price even if your 'development cost' on the latter has been amortized.

 

The market for used product is where you can get older stuff for cheap, because other vendors have already just eaten the loss. But new in-wrap from the producer... expect things to cost about the same when the materials are all the same.

 

Remember that simply maintaining an item as part of the line is not zero-cost. Sure, alot of it is opportunity cost (because every time you print something you are not printing something else), but diversity of offerings only ever increases storage and inventory cost, to say nothing of rules complexity. So over time yes, having 2 lines of space marines that are 'essentially comparable' actually does need more than double the amount of attention on the 'game' side, which is strangely both a driver and barrier to sales, depending on the seasons. For instance, look at how sales have probably moved past 'new hotness' ATVs to ancient attack bikes based on a couple of points of 'value' in competitions.

 

Basically: maintaining the 20-30 year back catalogue is pretty much just as expensive as putting out the new hotness, and potentially more! I understand that it would be great to be buying warp spiders for 15 bucks a unit, but that's not how industrial production and logistics works in a global market, my dude... At a certain point you just start paying for being old, instead of new.

 

This is also how 'online only' items are even available; they can't make enough return on them even to think of offering them to independent retailers, and the demand isn't going to shoot up so dramatically that offering them for 5-10 bucks less will actually make you more money, it'll just increase turnover.

 

It is interesting that we expect the prices for game pieces to reflect in some sense the 'game value' to a decimel place, when in fact the market is more like 'one art' than '100 points'... And I think it's mostly because of these floating values around the models make us value them far differently based on 'efficiency' and 'value', but mixed up with other weird things like 'aesthetics'.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

 

The answer for GW is to of course renew all kits. No old kits, no kits for cheap right? 

 

In a perfect world perhaps...

[Bung]

 

 

 

It's also worth pointing out that GW do have a game in their "stable" that can be played at its fullest most meta chasing level for £20 a month. The "core box" for each season is £50 and there are 6 Warbands at £25 each, plus typically 2 "non-warband" expansions a season at around £15, putting your total annual "subscription" at £230 RRP.

 

To my mind Warhammer Underworlds is by far their best "Competitive" game, it has a varied, constantly changing "landscape" with each season and each warband release, the models are fantastic, it's a far tighter rule system which is great for tournaments.

 

For me 40k is a "beer and pretzels" hanging out with mates game, there's no need to chase the meta on it. If a new unit takes my fancy I'll grab it but that will be most based on aesthetic and fluff appeal.

 

Their biggest failure to my mind has been that they haven't pushed Kill Teams or even the smaller 40k game sizes as the preferred tournament format.

 

Rik

I had Shadespire and it was an OK Game to get people into miniatures and painting.

 

But for veteran gamers the lack of customisation options are a draw back.

 

My personal dislike for the game is a) fantasy setting. I am a sci fi need and i want Lasers and Space Ships and b ) a release scedule that reminds me of collectible card games like Magic. Just add up everything for a season every year to have all the cards to play on the top in tourneys.

Sorry, thats something im not going to support in a miniatures game.

 

Die Fantasy there are good other options of games to use your old Warhammer Fantasy or AoS etc. miniatures without buying new stuff every month.

It is a fantasy setting, and if that's not your thing that's fine.

 

It has come a long way since Season 1, with far more depth to the play. "List customisation" is done through Warband choice and deck builds with a LOT of options on both sides.

 

For me, the Comparisons to Magic as a competitive game are some way off, M:tG is "blind buy" and needing duplicates of strong cards to make an effective deck. Where as the Underworlds stuff is set cards in each expansion.

 

As I said, total cost per year is approximately £250 RRP (so £200 from an FLGS) and gives you all of the options. 40k is often going to cost you that for Chapter Approved, a "Recent Codex", 2 HQs and 3 Troops before you even consider adding a vehicle.

 

 

I love 40k and am thoroughly enjoying building my current White Scars army and already have plans for an Astra Militarum (they'll always be Guard to me) army* to follow it up. But I can't see 40k as a genuine competitive game. Once you're in that mindset it's a lot easier to not worry about the cost of individual units as you just wait for them to pop up on ebay or arrive in a "Start Collecting" or "Battle Box".

 

Rik

I think i didnt explain myself Well enough.

Magic has the Thing you can only use cards of the Last 2 years in a normal tourney, which forces you to buy new cards if you want to play at this events.

Some goes with Underworlds.

If i want to play at events i need the new stuff of the year.

 

If you dont Go to Events its fine.

 

The other point is i like to convert my models and feets sculpted on bases are a turn of for me.

 

On the other Side i invested alot to start 30k.

[Noserenda]

Underworlds is a fun diversion but there isnt enough model wargame to keep my attention full time, the CCG element is a fairly major turn off too tbh, having to buy everything to stay competitive even if you have no interest in that warband is just bad and unfortunately for GW Xwing already burned my group out on that little tactic.

[LameBeard]

So this is a more interesting direction for the conversation: competition. In a competitive market, actions of the competition should bring price discipline and get margins down. Clearly wargaming and fantasy/sci-fi models are not a perfectly competitive market, but the landscape has been transformed since I was a kid.

 

A huge range, just a single magazine might include (say) Frostgrave, Guildball, Beyond the Gates of Antares, Dust, X-wing, Star Wars Legion, Game of Thrones sitting next to GW.

 

Now I like the Warhammer settings, because I got to know them as a kid, but if I were starting again today, maybe I’d choose a different one. If they bring out the Bad Batch for Star Wars Legion my son is definitely going to want to switch! I’d be interested in fraters’ views on the relative cost of non-GW competition.

 

Full disclosure: I personally refrain from most GW single-box kits because I don’t see the value. I will occasionally buy bigger bundles or keep looking on eBay for cheap. That restricts my choice, but so be it. I also have a few GW shares. I do not and have never worked for them nor a competitor.

Edited May 25, 2021 by LameBeard

[Noserenda]

The problem with competition is none of them are even remotely in GW's league numbers and mini quality wise and tbh the successful companies are not trying to compete that way, which is probably a good idea as GW has such a huge head start in tech and experience.

Warlord are a great example of taking a lot of GW's ideas and applying them to historicals and its really paid off for them it seems. Mantic did a similar thing but in more direct competition with GW but their awful kickstarters hurt so most of our group swore off them, i think their Warhammer replacement is doing alright though? Xwing started strong but spiralled into a mess with some savage power creep that made obscure pirate ships rulers of the roost. Legion is a sci fi historicals game with a few of xwings problems evident that put our group off.

But aww man, imagine a clone/storm/rebel trooper multipart plastic kit packed with extras, id have a platoon of those before the landlord sent the heavies round for rent lol

[Rik Lightstar]

Star Wars Legion is VERY similarly priced tbh

 

Galactic Republic RRPs for comparison (minis are a bit smaller than guardsmen for a standard human):

 

Phase 1 Clone Trooper box £24.99 for 7

Phase 2 Clone Trooper box £34.99 for 7

AT-RT Walker £29.99

Sabre Tank £59.99

Heroes £12.99

 

Or Warmachine Cygnar:

 

Trenchers (Guard equivalent) £48.95 for 12

Stormblade Infantry (Grey Knight equivalent) £43.95 for 9

Light - Heavy Warjacks (Centurion to Redemptor size) £12.95 - £33.95

 

 

Just for a little context really, in both cases I'd say that stylistic choices aside the sculpt and production qualities are lower for both ranges.

 

Rik

[Ficinus]

The biggest miniature price disparity I'm aware of is between historical minis (where there is direct competition) and GW. Perry Miniatures and Victrix make some absolutely gorgeous plastic kits for far cheaper than GW (40 figures for £20 is pretty normal for Perry kits). But they are competing against each other to some extent and with Warlord and Fireforge and a bunch of others I can't think of off the top of my head. Perry also seems to be a much smaller company and releases kits on a schedule that would be unacceptable for modern GW (I'm not as up on Victrix).

[Rik Lightstar]

I left historical miniatures out of comparisons because they seem to occupy a pretty different space.

 

You can't claim any kind of ownership of designs for historical miniatures as they're reproductions of things that have existed. All of the concepts are completely open to any company that wants to make them.

 

Also, you're not locked into a particular ruleset with your miniatures. A Napoleonic army for example could be used with any rules that relate to the right time period and scale. But a Space Marine will only ever really work in 40k.

 

Rik

[Ficinus]

Yeah, I mean, it's certainly a very different realm of gaming than fantasy/sci-fi.  I just wanted to point out that miniature price disparities can be more extreme, but in a different realm of the tabletop gaming world.

[MegaVolt87]

I left historical miniatures out of comparisons because they seem to occupy a pretty different space.

 

You can't claim any kind of ownership of designs for historical miniatures as they're reproductions of things that have existed. All of the concepts are completely open to any company that wants to make them.

 

Also, you're not locked into a particular ruleset with your miniatures. A Napoleonic army for example could be used with any rules that relate to the right time period and scale. But a Space Marine will only ever really work in 40k.

 

Rik

 

This is true, however as always the fact GW games are so prevalent its more likely to have more varied and regular game meetups. For me, value historicals are cool, but don't mean much if I hardly get to play or the closest/ viable groups have a few too many sour apples so to speak. The GW hobby is also an experience as much as we hate to say it with a wide community network than others in the wargaming space. Pricing isn't always about the actual product itself. 

[Ayatollah_of_Rock_n_Rolla]

 

You can't claim any kind of ownership of designs for historical miniatures as they're reproductions of things that have existed. All of the concepts are completely open to any company that wants to make them.

 

 

Rik

Yes and no. Intelectual rights to the designs were a bit of an issue in the modelling community and in the recent years a number of companies, especially when it comes to aircraft models, begun acquiring "licenses" for historical planes, e.g. here you can see newer edition of Tamiya's P-51 - the small blue square in the upper left corner on the box art is information that it's an official Boeing lincense. I don't know how uptight big industry is about it nor whether any legal action was ever taken, but such precautions are significant in their own right.

[Valkyrion]

Weirdly, I'm more in favour of HQ models being upwards of £25 a pop because you're only buying one of any given model, usually, and once you've bought it there is no reason to buy a new one unless either a) you like the new sculpt, or b) it's fundamentally different to its predecessor. (e,g the move to primaris, or it's on a bike, or it has a jump pack etc)

 

For example, in my close to 30 years of playing all different flavours of space marines, I had the Terminator Chaplain and the 'come at me bro' power fist chaplain and that's it, until Indomitus. I never bought an interrogator, wolf priest, blood angel or any other flavour of chaplain because I didn't need to, but also because I didn't want to. So paying £15 then for the terminator chaplain when a full box of terminators was only £20 was fine.

 

It's different for everyone - I'll think nothing of spending £40 on a nice bottle of gin even though Gordons is only £15 at the local offy, but I don't want my beer to be a fiver a pint, and I think GW with the Heavy intercessor prices are moving inexorably towards craft beer prices than wetherspoons, and it's a mistake for this box. 

[Dark Shepherd]

A huge advantage GW have for market dominance is their physical stores, we cant go into a Disney store for painting lessons or let kids build and play there for a Sunday

[Rik Lightstar]

What could be interesting (and possibly more likely) to see them do would be going to "direct only bundles", they're unlikely to ever go as far as a 3-for-2 offer, but something along those lines seems possible.

 

I'm thinking something like "buy 3 troops and get a free elite/hq (of equal or lesser value)" would be a good way to get people back on their webstore from independents which is where they make their best margins. 

 

They've started on this route with the recent paint deal they offered "get your 10th paint free" although that may have been an in store only.

 

Rik

[Halandaar]

they're unlikely to ever go as far as a 3-for-2 offer, but something along those lines seems possible.

 

Funnily enough they used to do 3-for-2 offers in stores back in the mists of time, although that was so far back Aspect Warriors came 3 to a blister pack for 5 quid. 

 

I'm thinking something like "buy 3 troops and get a free elite/hq (of equal or lesser value)" would be a good way to get people back on their webstore from independents which is where they make their best margins. 

 

They've started on this route with the recent paint deal they offered "get your 10th paint free" although that may have been an in store only.

 

The issue with that 10th Paint Free offer is that it's still worse than just buying 10 paints from a retailer that sells them at a discounted price. It's a nice bonus for people who shop at their local GW store anyway, but is it actually swaying people who usually shop at independents? I don't think so.

 

With regard to a hypothetical "buy three boxes get one clampack free", that would certainly be interesting, depending on the specifics of how it was done. But i think GW views that sort of bulk-buying incentive as being covered by Combat Patrol boxes, which do more or less work out as you getting one of the included kits for free (and in some cases, more than one). They can still claim to be offering a good value way in, but they can control more closely what the contents are.

 

They also do tend to offer incentives to get you to shop direct on big releases, such as exclusive badges, art prints and so on alongside big box sets, and plenty of people go to their local GW regularly to buy stuff at full price just to collect those monthly coins. But the only thing that would sway me back to shopping direct would be to offer comparable value to independents, even if that's done via way of offers rather than straight price reductions.

[sarabando]

the combat patrol boxes might be good value but lets be honest the price point is getting to a point where its not really "entry level" any more. its been a hot minute since i got "pocket money" so i cant comment on how much kids are carrying these days but i doubt many of them have close to £100

[LameBeard]

I really don’t see why they don’t do a regular deal like 4-for-3 or something along the lines of a “choose your own combat patrol”. I know people here like to post “they need to shift those useless reivers, LOL” but I really don’t think that’s the issue - why should they care what they shift as long as they are shifting? They control production so I just don’t buy it they care whether they sell new or old kits.

[Dark Shepherd]

I really don’t see why they don’t do a regular deal like 4-for-3 or something along the lines of a “choose your own combat patrol”. I know people here like to post “they need to shift those useless reivers, LOL” but I really don’t think that’s the issue - why should they care what they shift as long as they are shifting? They control production so I just don’t buy it they care whether they sell new or old kits.

Instead of doing those bizarro deals of one repulsor for 50 or 3 for 150...if they did an actual discount on buying them direct even if its a deliver to store only offer

[sarabando]

 

I really don’t see why they don’t do a regular deal like 4-for-3 or something along the lines of a “choose your own combat patrol”. I know people here like to post “they need to shift those useless reivers, LOL” but I really don’t think that’s the issue - why should they care what they shift as long as they are shifting? They control production so I just don’t buy it they care whether they sell new or old kits.

Instead of doing those bizarro deals of one repulsor for 50 or 3 for 150...if they did an actual discount on buying them direct even if its a deliver to store only offer

 

it would have to be a better deal than what we can get through 3rd parties though.  however when FW did their dreadnought special offer i know loads of people who ended up buying 3 + dreads and arms just because it was cheap at the time. its a supply and demand thing GWs/FWs supply can not cope with the demand.

[Valkyrion]

Each full faction could (should?) have a direct only bundle option for 35%-50% off retail that constitutes a full army for every kind of detachment available for that faction.

 

So you have Combat Patrol box, Battalion box, Brigade box, Outrider, Vanguard, Spearhead, and/or Super Heavy detachment each with good savings for every faction.

 

If the brigade box is £500 or more it doesn't matter, it would sell if the savings were obvious and better than third party. I work in retail and the amount of people who come in for a new kettle  and leave with a new kettle and toaster because they are £30 each or £50 for the pair is incredibly high. They think they've got a deal, and they have, but they've enjoyed their shopping experience because what should be a chore (not having a kettle for a brew) has turned into a treat (new set for the counter top). 

 

It's not without precedent - you could buy a full battle company for £250-300 (i think) 15 years ago. An equivalent all primaris force would cost around £800 at retail, around £650 third party. If GW were to sell 6 troops, 2 fast, 2 heavy, 1 captain, 1 elite and 9 transports, all primaris, for £500-600 it would fly out.

That's not like for like on model count - you'd push it over £1000 doing that - just like for like on FOC slots.