19 hours ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Some things FFG has done lately are very exciting.

For Runewars, they are starting out with an essentials pack. https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2017/4/10/runewars-miniatures-game-essentials-pack/ Allowing folks that want to play to just buy the essentials for Armada (Damage deck, Man tool, etc.) would be awesome.

For IA, they release an upgrade for IG-88 in the Jawa pack. https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2017/4/4/utinni/ It is exciting to think that they'd add upgrades/ship cards in the future to buff the older ships and squadrons.

Yeah but for Runewars they are expecting how many factions? So for them an essentials pack much like a GW's core rule book is a necessity. What Armada needs is a 390-405 point "starter" out of the box as it only has two factions. As for upgrades in other packs they help as long as you don't need anything other than the core and that expansion to play.

Runewars has 2 currently in the core box, elves announced and a fourth on their advertisement materials. They announced that you would not have to buy the other factions to get all the available upgrades so you could skip the core and buy one army for that game. I know several people that have concentrated on one faction in Armada, but the upgrade availability makes it impossible to stay with just one faction. I prefer Imperial but I have more Rebels due to upgrade cards and a sweet deal on some corvettes.

11 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Yeah but for Runewars they are expecting how many factions? So for them an essentials pack much like a GW's core rule book is a necessity. What Armada needs is a 390-405 point "starter" out of the box as it only has two factions. As for upgrades in other packs they help as long as you don't need anything other than the core and that expansion to play.

A 400pt starter? For 250 bucks?

I think it's a great Idea. The number one reason why people don't get into this is because of the high entry price.

Speaking to my FLGS, lots more people would get the game if it was a cheaper buy in. Also, everyone in my area only buys expansions for a single faction. So yeah, single faction starter kits would likely be a huge boost to the game. Add in something new and exclusive, and many existing players would also buy them too.

22 hours ago, Grey Mage said:

A 400pt starter? For 250 bucks?

I agree there is a soft price cap for starters. Again if you raise the price demand will go down. Sure it is a good idea to keep the core set under $100 but again as I said what is the value out of the box?

The Blood Bowl starter is $100 but it comes with 2 completely playable teams even for a standard game. Now I know, different game here for different component requirements. But you do see what I mean by value proposition. for $100 two people can play a game vs $100 and one person needs to buy more to play a game.

Urgh. I am a Fan of Bloodbowl. I'm also an Ex-GW Employee, who would go back in a heartbeat if I could get a full-time Babysitter for my special needs child.

I hate the comparisons to it. Because it, itself, is an anomaly - not a 'class' of game, somewhat. You can play it out of the box, just as you can play Armada out of the box. Thanks to the Deathzone expansion, neither are the complete game experience. Both are complete game experiences that require additional purchasing...

- Also, if you want to get into "Competition" level Bloodbowl, as Featured by Games Workshop themselves (Yes, they do this...) - then you are required to have the Core set yourself. Even if you're playing a Team not featured in it... Games Workshop themselves dictates that to play in their stores - and that if you are using an unreleased model team, then you are to convert them out of current range models ... You can't use the "Classic" models in their games.

How is that pertinent? Well, if you're not conforming to GW (the Producers) rules for Bloodbowl, then you shouldn't be conforming to FFG's rules (the Producer) for Comparison.

... Play Armada with Proxy Cards that cost you nothing, and Empty-Ship Base Templates you Printed out... That is the same comparison ...

And if nothing else...

Its also further muddied by how much you believe it should cost (not how much it does), in order to receive fully painted models.

... Because in my line of work, that is a very pertinent question.

So don't make the Comparison. Not without all of the information.

Would Armada benefit from a Cheaper Core Set? Probably.

Would Armada benefit from an "Essentials" pack that contains no models and just the bare minimum requirements of tools to play? Probably.

But even then - think of how many people come into here asking: "So, I got the Core Set, where do I go from here?" - if anything, the numbers of people asking that question would only increase if there was an Essentials pack. Only it is: "So I got given the Essentials Pack, and don't have any ships... its going to cost me how much to get a Full Fleet?"

Really - the argument doesn't change at all. Its still going to cost you X amount to get a basic fleet going... The price difference is only going to be marked if you have a fleet that doesn't include any of the Ships or Upgrade Cards found in the Core Set.

Random Rant Over.

You can go about your Business.

@Drasnighta Yes I know it was a bad comparison for game to game, but not so when comparing starters alone. The starter game for Blood Bowl is closer to an actual game of blood bowl than a starter game of Armada.

But I know for the most part Game Workshop practices for their Organized play pales in compassion to FFG's practices (One of the many reason they have surpassed GW in the table top game market). I am by no means are saying that Game Workshop has the better game, but I am giving credit where credit is due and they do have the better starter for new players to get in. I know requiring the new starter just ruins it for many older players so yes even the starter model is not perfect.

There are far better comparisons to make, is what I am saying.

If all you care about is "models", then there are even better ones than Bloodbowl. Look at a bunch of FFG Boardgames, or even just boardgames in general.

If the concept of painted models is what you care about - since the effort you put into Building and Painting is inherent in the Games Workshop "We're a Hobby, not a Game" Package - then the cost is astronomical in time and effort.

If raw Dollar cost to game is what you want... I'm sure Catan will wait. That even has expansions as you move forward, but, y'know, total game in a box right there....

Its a crummy comparison on almost all levels, because it heavily weights either side without the full information being given. Its inherently a weighted comparison, and it borders on an untruth to tell it.

I mean, I fully admit my bias - as an ex-GW employee, I am well aware that there are People who Play Bloodbowl , and there are Bloodbowl Players ...

While I believe there is a magic number for starter sets that sell successfully in the USA, and its around 50 dollars, I understand that in some cases.... its just not doable.

But I saw the original 100 dollar price tag sink Hawk Wargames chances of being a prolific game. Spartan games has a number of problems, but in all cases the older starters in the 50 dollar range sold heavily over the newer 75 dollar ones. Hordes.... X-wing... and so on.

Games Workshop does not, but frankly while their games are not dead the sales of minis are down, and continue to stay down. Videogames and FFG products have made up a phenomenal amount of their income for a while now.

I think Armada would be better off to do a single faction starter in the 50-60 dollar range with 2 small bases or a medium and handful of squadrons. BUT I dont have access to any of their big ol sack of data on costs, sales, or strategy, so it may not be the best move for them. If they are happy with the current sales and the state of the game.... then why fix what aint broke?

15 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Urgh. I am a Fan of Bloodbowl. I'm also an Ex-GW Employee, who would go back in a heartbeat if I could get a full-time Babysitter for my special needs child.

I hate the comparisons to it. Because it, itself, is an anomaly - not a 'class' of game, somewhat. You can play it out of the box, just as you can play Armada out of the box. Thanks to the Deathzone expansion, neither are the complete game experience. Both are complete game experiences that require additional purchasing...

- Also, if you want to get into "Competition" level Bloodbowl, as Featured by Games Workshop themselves (Yes, they do this...) - then you are required to have the Core set yourself. Even if you're playing a Team not featured in it... Games Workshop themselves dictates that to play in their stores - and that if you are using an unreleased model team, then you are to convert them out of current range models ... You can't use the "Classic" models in their games.

How is that pertinent? Well, if you're not conforming to GW (the Producers) rules for Bloodbowl, then you shouldn't be conforming to FFG's rules (the Producer) for Comparison.

... Play Armada with Proxy Cards that cost you nothing, and Empty-Ship Base Templates you Printed out... That is the same comparison ...

And if nothing else...

Its also further muddied by how much you believe it should cost (not how much it does), in order to receive fully painted models.

... Because in my line of work, that is a very pertinent question.

So don't make the Comparison. Not without all of the information.

Would Armada benefit from a Cheaper Core Set? Probably.

Would Armada benefit from an "Essentials" pack that contains no models and just the bare minimum requirements of tools to play? Probably.

But even then - think of how many people come into here asking: "So, I got the Core Set, where do I go from here?" - if anything, the numbers of people asking that question would only increase if there was an Essentials pack. Only it is: "So I got given the Essentials Pack, and don't have any ships... its going to cost me how much to get a Full Fleet?"

Really - the argument doesn't change at all. Its still going to cost you X amount to get a basic fleet going... The price difference is only going to be marked if you have a fleet that doesn't include any of the Ships or Upgrade Cards found in the Core Set.

Random Rant Over.

You can go about your Business.

Lots of new players with a barebones core set asking for advice and eager to play? Sounds like an excellent problem to have!

7 minutes ago, Crabbok said:

Lots of new players with a barebones core set asking for advice and eager to play? Sounds like an excellent problem to have!

I don't entirely disagree.

Most of my disagreeance is because half of the answers given that question are less than stellar and filled with Negativity

I'll chime in on the point of players reeling at the sight of the core set prices. I've tried to introduce the game to multiple friends, and they look at that $100 buy in and just totally drop interest, no matter how much they enjoyed playing the demo with me. A "Faction Starter" with one medium and one small ship, the damage deck, obstacles, measuring devices, and maybe a handful of applicable squadrons would, I feel, be the most beneficial.

Though on the other hand...how many people end up buying in on both factions due to having the other half in the starter to build from?

I could see something like...

VSD + ILC/Raider + 4 TIE Fighters

AF + Neb B/CR90 + 4 Z95s

Probably coming in at the =$70-80 range. I feel like it's really that third digit that makes people say "whoa, that's a lot of money" even $10-20 less could make a huge difference.

7 minutes ago, Alzer said:

I'll chime in on the point of players reeling at the sight of the core set prices. I've tried to introduce the game to multiple friends, and they look at that $100 buy in and just totally drop interest, no matter how much they enjoyed playing the demo with me. A "Faction Starter" with one medium and one small ship, the damage deck, obstacles, measuring devices, and maybe a handful of applicable squadrons would, I feel, be the most beneficial.

Though on the other hand...how many people end up buying in on both factions due to having the other half in the starter to build from?

I could see something like...

VSD + ILC/Raider + 4 TIE Fighters

AF + Neb B/CR90 + 4 Z95s

Probably coming in at the =$70-80 range. I feel like it's really that third digit that makes people say "whoa, that's a lot of money" even $10-20 less could make a huge difference.

I don't understand it thought.

A Fleet currently is going to cost you about $400.

A Fleet with a cutdown Core Set is going to cost you about $350.

Why does the initial buyin make such a difference when the total amount you're ending up spending to play the game proper is the same?

Is it really just that third digit psychological? (Which, considering the retail price of a Core set in Canada is $130+, I still don't understand )

You're either interested and willing to play and invest... Or you're not.... Aren't you?

19 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

I don't understand it thought.

A Fleet currently is going to cost you about $400.

A Fleet with a cutdown Core Set is going to cost you about $350.

Why does the initial buyin make such a difference when the total amount you're ending up spending to play the game proper is the same?

Because when you're buying in, you're not sure how long you're going to play, how often, etc, the lower buy-in is more welcoming, once they're in the door, the accumulating costs come more naturally. It's a strange phenomenon, and doesn't seem to make sense, but it works.

In another example, I work as a martial-arts instructor, and our starting "1st month" program is "X" while the continued monthly cost is "3X". Once you get the interested party in, and having fun, the cost doesn't matter very much, they're hooked, they want more. However, up front, a big number is intimidating. Heck, sometimes you get someone that comes in and buys two years of classes, cash up front, after that first month, when their first step in the door was "I dunno, what's it cost?" and if I started with that "oh it's 3X per month" they'd be gone, because they're not invested in the program yet.

I for one, didn't actually start up until I got a bunch of models on sale and knew I could build a decent fleet from there, and the initial cost difference originally led to me playing X-Wing instead of Armada.

Now my bank account is not quite directly funneled into my FLGS...

::shrug:: perhaps I'm just crazy, because I asked from the start, "Okay, how much is this going to cost me on average, and can I afford it?"

As I've done with every game in the past.

The analogy works for the person who has no experience and no demonstration and just sees the box on the shelf and goes..... I'll give that. Lower Price is always better.

But replying specifically to this concept:

" I've tried to introduce the game to multiple friends, and they look at that $100 buy in and just totally drop interest, no matter how much they enjoyed playing the demo with me. "

That person says that they've demo'd the game (ie, given that person the first month free) already , ... So I just don't get it... Because at that point, they're either invested or they're not - and the price tag of getting in the door versus the price tag of the whole thing should be mostly moot...

My misunderstanding is: (with the variables that said person has enjoyed a demo game and stated that they'd enjoy playing, and were looking at purchasing a singular fleet)

++ $100 Buy in with the "requirement" to keep buying in for a further potential $200. (To get to 400pt re-playability)
versus
++ $50 Buy in with the "requirement" to keep buying in for a further potential $200. (To get to 400pt re-playability)

Why are those different? Why is one considered a barrier to playing, and the other is not?

6 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

++ $100 Buy in with the "requirement" to keep buying in for a further potential $200. (To get to 400pt re-playability)
versus
++ $50 Buy in with the "requirement" to keep buying in for a further potential $200. (To get to 400pt re-playability)

Why are those different? Why is one considered a barrier to playing, and the other is not?

This is why I don't run the karate school, or work at a sales-based business in general.

Like I was working up to, I'm pretty sure it's that later investment. So many people look at just the up-front cost, and once they're in (hooked, I believe is the fancy sales term), they don't worry so much about it as they're enjoying themselves already. Where as other, smarter, more long-thinking people, cost out what they're expecting to be putting in ahead of time.

Another miniatures game I take great delight in, has a $40 starter box for each of their 14 (i think?) factions, and then it's roughly $400 to get a standard list together, but that $40 gets people in and playing and hooked. Accessibility is what it comes down to.

I play in an area that has a lot of college kids. They are always tight with money - which is the norm for anyone young and in school. Many of them share upgrades, and even borrow ships from each other for tournaments - so money i s VERY tight. Conisdering that in the current core set, an Imperial Player is effectively buying 2 Rebel Ships and 4 Rebels Squadrons that they aren't going to use - and could otherwise invest in a raider and an arquitens instead... that would be more ideal.

So allowing players to do more of their purchases ala carte... is I think, the way to go.

Also - if they DID two smaller core sets - I would seriously hope it's not another victory and neb/cr-90 in them. I'd like all new ships that even veteran players will want.

25 minutes ago, Crabbok said:

Also - if they DID two smaller core sets - I would seriously hope it's not another victory and neb/cr-90 in them. I'd like all new ships that even veteran players will want.

But then they would need the core for stuff from the core like dodonna and Tarkin. Along with unique stuff from it.

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

::shrug:: perhaps I'm just crazy, because I asked from the start, "Okay, how much is this going to cost me on average, and can I afford it?"

As I've done with every game in the past.

The analogy works for the person who has no experience and no demonstration and just sees the box on the shelf and goes..... I'll give that. Lower Price is always better.

But replying specifically to this concept:

" I've tried to introduce the game to multiple friends, and they look at that $100 buy in and just totally drop interest, no matter how much they enjoyed playing the demo with me. "

That person says that they've demo'd the game (ie, given that person the first month free) already , ... So I just don't get it... Because at that point, they're either invested or they're not - and the price tag of getting in the door versus the price tag of the whole thing should be mostly moot...

My misunderstanding is: (with the variables that said person has enjoyed a demo game and stated that they'd enjoy playing, and were looking at purchasing a singular fleet)

++ $100 Buy in with the "requirement" to keep buying in for a further potential $200. (To get to 400pt re-playability)
versus
++ $50 Buy in with the "requirement" to keep buying in for a further potential $200. (To get to 400pt re-playability)

Why are those different? Why is one considered a barrier to playing, and the other is not?

Because when you are poor, the difference between 50 dollars all at once and 100 dollars all at once is the difference between possible if I like it and not possible if I want to eat.

Its the difference between shoes and no shoes. Gas and no gas. Making rent and not making rent. The entirety of your have a good time budget this month and HALF your have a good time budget this month.

People can impulse buy the 20 dollar blisters like squadron packs and corvettes, because 20 bucks is a chunk of change but not enough your life will swing in the balance, normally. But for alot of college age kids and even early 30s *let alone teens* the difference between 50 bucks and 100 bucks is huge.

Especially when its just the starter . For 100 bucks I cant get a Hordes starter, a solo, and pack of infantry or another warbeast. It just feels more complete, and frankly because of smaller tournament sizes being available.... it is, in a very real sense.

Because me and my friend I demod Armada to at 250pts can play at 250pts for several months while they slowly amass a fleet. They dont have to have a tournament table army just to get any use out of it at all. They just need friends. Thats fun. That makes it worthwhile, and means theyll keep coming back and want to invest more. Once they have the minis and are playing the game it feels silly to not invest a little more money for alot more fun, as opposed to not having any models and having to invest alot of money for maybe some fun.

And if you arent poor? You still have to compare it to things you can do yourself- 100 bucks is a nice date, a couple of videogames you might be hyped about, a day trip, or good shoes. Do you want to gamble on when the next time youll get a game in or do you want to take the sure-fire fun? Because in most areas there isnt enough Armada players to guarantee youll regularly get games in, even if your buddy really wants to play with you.

54 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

But then they would need the core for stuff from the core like dodonna and Tarkin. Along with unique stuff from it.

No, they wouldnt need it. They might want it, but they wont need it. Its an important distinction. I love Tarkin, but no one *has* to play him.

What about Luke or Howlrunner? Leia or wulf?

Useful, great stuff... but you dont *have* to have them to play. You do need a range ruler, a damage deck, dice and ships. Everything else, taken individually, is nice but not needed to just play a game.

There are zero ship, squadron, or upgrade cards from the core set that are required to play.

The idea here is that if they made a NEW core set - lets say for example they do a sequel trilogy set of smaller core sets, and they handle it just like X-WIng handled the Force Awakens core set...

First order is on the same side as Empire - so they can share cards and builds - they are effectively the same faction. Same goes with Resistance and Rebellion.

Empire box has a 1st order cruiser - some type of small or medium ship that would be all new to the game.

Resistance box has a Gunship (Perhaps one quite similar to the one seen in EP8 Trailer?) and it's all new to the game.

Each would retail at like 40 bucks and have a damage deck, objectives (Maybe have a new objective or two also?) a Commander unique to their box, and a single title for their ship, plus one or two upgrades. Players could buy dice and movement took separately (Or they could be packaged with the new core set and that would be fine too).

Now veteran players AND new players will both buy these sets. That's a good thing.

They can also make standalone expansions for each of these ships that have the REST of the titles and more commanders - this way you aren't forced to buy 4 core sets if you want a fleet of new gunships.

On 4/18/2017 at 10:13 PM, Forgottenlore said:

I cannot emphasize this enough: the Imperial Star Destroyer literally sold the game on its own to quite a few players. Just the mere existence of that ship helped sales immensely.

On 4/18/2017 at 10:13 PM, Forgottenlore said:

Quoted for additional emphasis.

Triple quoted for emphasis.

I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

--

Yeah, if they made a new starter set for each faction with new good cards and some new squadrons (they'd need to as a starter) it would be a great thing for the game. Priced around $40-50 USD meant to also be relatively good value.

Venator or ISD1 vs MC75?? haha.

The real issue is in the OT there really is only 1 imperial ship: The ISD1 and ISD2. That's it. The Tector honestly is probably just some clip of a ship model where they either forgot the hangar or whatever. Then theres the SSD and the deathstar. That's it.

There are 4 or 5 Rebel ships in the OT: CR90, Neb, MC80, MC80L, Transport (Dornean gunship??)

Perhaps wait until Ep8 and really do the Finalizer vs some Resistance ship. Except Finalizer feels like it should be an expo.

You dont have to like the Tector for it to exist.