Jump to content

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

But again, it's subjective. Your proposed all-Gravis box is of limited appeal to me because I don't need more Aggressors or Inceptors or Redemptors. Same for the Tacticus one because I don't need Intercessors or Bladeguard.

Something that you might view as a weird combination of units might be the perfect set of things I'm looking to add to my collection, whereas a "themed" box is no use to me if I only want one of the kits in it.

 

That’s fine it’s a great deal because you won’t be spending money on it, but if you want to build a phobos army the Phobos box will be a much better army than any of the boxes I’ve seen released since 2020.

the eclectic boxes may lure more people to buy them, but they’re likely a worse value for most of those purchasers.

 

in the end the entire concept of value is subjective.

10 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

in the end the entire concept of value is subjective.

So you admit that your original premise was flawed and that this entire thread was created as just another 'GW bad' whine? 

13 minutes ago, Arbedark said:

So you admit that your original premise was flawed and that this entire thread was created as just another 'GW bad' whine? 

I don’t think it’s fair to say the whole discussion is flawed. It’s been established throughout the thread that whilst they do offer some boxes with a very significant saving, it is by no means consistent and many of the boxes are either a very strange mix of units or the savings are not particularly great, especially if the box contains over-inflated character units. 
 

It’d be fairer to say that they do know how to do bargain boxes but they don’t do it consistently.

3 hours ago, MARK0SIAN said:

It’d be fairer to say that they do know how to do bargain boxes but they don’t do it consistently.

I would go further and say they know how to do bargain boxes but we as customers do always agree what constitutes good value (and that is OK).

Apart from anything else, I have a finite budget (as do most of us I suspect). If every box GW dropped as a "must have", I would be either disappointed or broke (or probably both).

9 hours ago, Arbedark said:

So you admit that your original premise was flawed and that this entire thread was created as just another 'GW bad' whine? 

I admit that I created a thread because I saw other companies providing better deals.

just like B&P’s new Bermuda sloop will be $32 for a ship that can hold roughly a dozen 28mm scale models.

GW is just generally ripping people off.

29 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I admit that I created a thread because I saw other companies providing better deals.

just like B&P’s new Bermuda sloop will be $32 for a ship that can hold roughly a dozen 28mm scale models.

GW is just generally ripping people off.

This you? 

20 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

in the end the entire concept of value is subjective.

You have zero self-awareness, and you're moving the goalposts rather than acknowledge that you are wrong. You've gone from complaining about 'bargain boxes' to general pricing as your original premise has been proven false. 

When someone else points out the greater discounts offered by some GW boxes it's 'subjective', but you act like your view of the value offered by bundle boxes or individual products offered by GW is empirically objective. 

As an aside, I, and many others, are very happy to pay for GW models instead of (IMO) inferior alternatives. If you're not, then don't.

I maintain my view that this is, yet another, attempt at a 'GW bad' whine thread, not a serious attempt at fostering constructive discussion in the community. 

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I admit that I created a thread because I saw other companies providing better deals.

just like B&P’s new Bermuda sloop will be $32 for a ship that can hold roughly a dozen 28mm scale models.

GW is just generally ripping people off.

Bringing the conversation back to deal boxes. I think the main issue is, comparing apples and oranges. Two different companies, making two different games. This would also extend to other companies making other kinds of games. 

I think if you were trying to compare, Team Yankee to Flames of War, it would be better since they are both WW2-esque models at the same scale. But comparing 40K or AoS to Flames of War isn't really a good comparison. 

Now does GW do a lot of "Bargain Boxes"? Not really. But then again, they don't have a lot of competition in their market sector. 3d printing might give them a run for the money in the future, but right now, for 28 mm sci-fi wargames, GW is kind of it for most people.

Now, is it a ripoff? That is subjective. If you feel like you are not getting enough value for your money, then yes. However, I still buy model kits on the regular and I feel like I get quite a bit for my money. And since I have a resin printer at home, and I print out my own conversion bits, I actually feel like I have been able to a lot more with each kit. But YMMV

I found out some new information after creating this post.

the ships in the box referenced are a new Bermuda sloop rather than just sloop.

theyre $39 each but larger at 11”x8”than their resin predecessors. So they are larger than baneblades, and you do get two for less than a baneblade.

 

so the starter box isn’t nearly as good a deal as it first seemed, but it’s clear that buying their kits individually is cheaper than buying GW kits individually 

8 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

so the starter box isn’t nearly as good a deal as it first seemed

And that's the end of that chapter. With sound presentation of evidence that GW boxes offer much greater reductions in rrp than was claimed, and ensuing changing of goalposts [and more importantly, discussion of non-40k models, or non-40k compatible models], time to wrap this one up! 

gallery_26_548_17394.gif

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.