Honestly, you can get some solid DLP printers for sub 600$ with .03um or better resolution and you can get an SLA printer DIY kit for $1200 that is top notch for a hobbyist...that said that industry still has issues as well as a high learning curve and health concerns!
I agree with the execution on Tinbots. I'd prefer they just be a one piece pin widget you stick into the base if you want to. In practice, they're the same size as a S1 G: Servant and my Tinbots serve more often in that role.
Would you rather have to go months without sculpts for the models you'll use the most? Shock Army was also unusual in that it had 4 line troops compared to three in most boxes. The Varuna starter is doubling as a Kamau SWC box, and since most sectorials starters seem to be built around you owning the vanilla starter, I'm not bothered by this at all. 3 Fusiliers and an orc in the vanilla starter, all the Kamau wildcard in the Varuna starter.
Hell, there's a spot in the bases that CB uses for a magnet that would fit what should be a Tinbot's size. :P
I see the connection you're drawing between the Proxy Rules and the number of troop profiles in relation to the minis CB can make to represent them. However, I completely disagree that we can't have good Proxy Rules without an incomplete mini range. Increasing the options for WYSIWYG, whether through new minis or arm/weapon pieces, does not have to come with stricter Proxy Rules. If this was true, shouldn't you be opposed to each unrepresented profile that has a mini release? Isn't that one step closer to what you don't want? Where do you draw the line of too many profiles having a mini to represent them? 50%, 70%, 90%? The defense this isn't a perfect world doesn't hold for me either. 40K's choices are their own. I would hope CB has the courage to make their own decisions instead of following 40K's lead. I would never want CB to not work towards providing minis for their profiles because I'm scared of where it might lead. A large part of this hobby is buying mini's that represent profiles I can use to play the game. Suggesting there should always be profiles without representation so we keep more relaxed Proxy Rules is contradictory to that part of the hobby. "It would be bad business to produce every specific model your customers need, and then say 'use whatever'" Why is that bad for business? I currently buy all CB minis I like. I use proxies for profiles not released. I use conversions for existing minis when i like my idea better. A more complete range and relaxed Proxy Rules doesn't change how I spend my money. If instead, someone wants to spend as little as possible, the completeness of CB's mini range will have no impact on their spending. So if CB has 500 sales for every new Morat mini they release, shouldn't that continue as they approach the point of completeness? Or do you think people will avoid buying minis representing unwanted profiles when they have minis with better profiles already available? This already happens now. In the case of minis with bad profiles and no other minis available, is this different? I don't think so. The completionists will still buy them. Those who avoid buying these profiles already do so now. And those who buy for different reasons will do so based on their own criteria.
@Razi thank you for a well thought out and level headed reply. It is refreshing to see a disagreement without unnecessary hyperbole. I see what your saying, and I think the major difference in our viewpoints comes down to our levels of optimism/pessimism. I believe, (and I might be very wrong, I don't actually do this for a living) that the majority of customers have a limited budget. They are only going to buy so many miniatures a month/year, regardless of how many miniatures are offered (even if a shiny new release gets them to splurge, they are likely to dial back on spending in the following months) Offering all models for all available profiles would not likely greatly increase Corvus Belli's income, but would greatly inflate their costs. ie not good for business. However adding additional profiles without the accompanying miniatures is almost cost free, but adds a lot of depth to the game. If ITS records show popular profiles, then that profile might be seriously considered for a model release. Conversely, if all profiles are available, Corvus Belli may come to the conclusion that sales can be increased by requiring WYSIWYG at all their official tournaments. The number of customers that would be turned off by such a policy might result in less money lost than the amount gained by competitive gamers digging a little deeper in their budget. I want all the awesome miniatures, but I also want Corvus Belli to stay in business, so they keep making awesome miniatures and games. If they went the WYSIWYG route, my pessimistic self believes that the level of model production would not increase, but the number of profiles would decrease, and I would get greater resistance from using models I like to replace models I don't. By all means, lets clamor for the profiles we want to see, it will help give Corvus Belli some ideas for future releases. Some posters (not you) seem to pitch a fit if they don't get exactly what they want, when they want it. I personally think that not having every profile available as a model is not necessarily such a bad thing.
You make good points and I agree with you about budget affecting how many minis a single person may buy. Although, how CB decides to handle that seems to be a separate issue from their stance regarding Proxies. I understand your concerns. I wouldn't want CB to take the same path as GW. Lets say you're correct, and CB will make more money by not allowing proxies. That suggests we're already in danger now. CB could decide today to cut all those profiles from the game. I don't think as CB naturally approaches all profiles having representation, we become any more in danger of this. I agree that not having every profile available as a mini isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm content knowing the game is evolving and CB will get to it when they get to it. What would be bad to me, is if CB made a conscious decision to never one day create those minis. Or at the very least, provide us parts to represent them ourselves. Look at the Overdron for example. I don't really expect CB to create two new TAG minis with different poses to represent the HRL or HRMC. But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for additional weapon mounts with the one mini they did make, or sold separately. The notion this situation creates some good, i.e. helping to keep the Proxy Rules more relaxed, is one I don't believe. I mean, you could be correct, I assume you're suggesting CB won't take GWs approach without a better profile to mini representation. So in that sense, it looks like it helps. But it's my pessimistic view that tells me, if CB really wanted to take that approach, they wouldn't let this hurdle stop them.
I think the tinbots are awesome. Granted I have not actually used them in a game. Shouldnt we be seeing previews for March releases by now? The brawlers look likely since we have a painted preview.
Something I'd like to point out as someone who loved making conversions in Warhammer 40K. I couldn't have done certain things without all those extra weapons, arms, and other parts provided in their boxes.
Too true. I wonder how much those bits and bobs added to 40k 'premium pricing'? Probably not as much as they would like us to believe. It is a delicate balance, I am glad my job doesn't depend on getting it right. In the mean time, I will continue to vote with my wallet. I will buy those models that I feel are worth it, and pass on the ones i don't feel are worth it.
Why do people always talk about "premium pricing" for 40k but never for Infinity? Is it just because GW has stuff that goes over TAG prices or something?
The cost of their injection models won't change much. The sprue is so many inches by so many inches, and the pieces take up so much height and so whether you leave unused space on the sprue or not, it won't materially affect the cost of the mold.... which is already thousands. As for design, I suspect that 20 years ago, the sculptor would have shown a sword and an axe and one would have been added to the mold, and now they just find a way to keep both.
People do. The key difference is that you get a functional Infinity army for $200 or less, and that same dollar amount barely scratches the requirements of 40k/AoS.
I wonder if materials and production methods have a lot to do with it, if we look to another Nottingham example with Warlord Games their plastic sprues (produced by Renedra IIRC) are full of optional bits, extra heads, weapons, arms, stowage, etc whilst their in house metals almost never have any options, even though they're designed with the Figure-Head system in mind. Now, Warlord metals are significantly cheaper than CB, but the difference in quality is honestly best described as a "gulf".
Then he's selectively editing. Just because Infinity stuff is commonly discounted doesn't mean that there aren't highly priced items. Off the top of my head, Blackjacks were $39.49 MSRP. One non-TAG model. Compare that to the Cameronian blister at $18.99 MSRP. Are we really going to pretend there's a huge size discrepancy between the two?
One large multi mould pewter model with a high weight in large packaging. That's pretty great value compared to a single plastic Primaris Apothecary which is $34.99 RRP and consists of a single tiny injection moulded sprue which weighs virtually nothing in a small blister pack. It's also hard to compare across companies but I'm willing to bet GW have economies of scale on their side too. Of course, this is cherry picking two models from two very large ranges and not really a good way to compare anything, GW plastic squad boxes can be quite reasonable. If anything I'd say that GW pricing is just wildly inconsistent.
