chaos0xomega wrote:


My pile of shame is truly shameful. I have more unopened boxes in my apartment than most flgs in the area. For the most part, I only buy bundle sets though (starter boxes, combat patrol boxes, 2-player battleboxes, launch boxes, battleforces, etc.), which I acquire through various sources and means at anywhere from ~25% to 40% off (I know people and have kind of a side hustle that gets me employee discounts or considerable store credit, etc. at various places)., so I basically compound the discount offered by GW in the bundle by buying it at well below retail to collect massive volumes of stuff at a relatively low price, and then often sell the extras to recoup some of the cost. As such I have a lot of very large armies/collections, the downside is that despite that there are many units I simply don't own because they weren't included in the various boxes and bundles I've purchased lol. The Tomb Kings purchase is probably the first time in several years that I bought individual kits.

I've been thinking about starting a blog to do in depth reviews, scale comparisons, sprue photos, dimensional measurements and stuff like that of everything I own as an informational resource for other hobbyists, as well as to document my efforts to do a burn-down of what is probably one of the largest piles of shame in the community lol.

 caladancid wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


My pile of shame is truly shameful. I have more unopened boxes in my apartment than most flgs in the area. For the most part, I only buy bundle sets though (starter boxes, combat patrol boxes, 2-player battleboxes, launch boxes, battleforces, etc.), which I acquire through various sources and means at anywhere from ~25% to 40% off (I know people and have kind of a side hustle that gets me employee discounts or considerable store credit, etc. at various places)., so I basically compound the discount offered by GW in the bundle by buying it at well below retail to collect massive volumes of stuff at a relatively low price, and then often sell the extras to recoup some of the cost. As such I have a lot of very large armies/collections, the downside is that despite that there are many units I simply don't own because they weren't included in the various boxes and bundles I've purchased lol. The Tomb Kings purchase is probably the first time in several years that I bought individual kits.

I've been thinking about starting a blog to do in depth reviews, scale comparisons, sprue photos, dimensional measurements and stuff like that of everything I own as an informational resource for other hobbyists, as well as to document my efforts to do a burn-down of what is probably one of the largest piles of shame in the community lol.

You know I obviously have disagreed with a lot of what you’ve said in this thread, but this is actually extremely helpful to understanding why we don’t see eye to eye. If your form of hobby enjoyment is buying boxes I genuinely think that is substantively different than someone who plays the game or paints as a primary source of hobby enjoyment.

 Baragash wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Did Marvel create their Malekith before GW did? I was never a big Thor fan.

Marvel Malekith is from 1984. Not sure when GW Malekith came about.

Google suggests the 1992 High Elf army book was the first mention.

 Platuan4th wrote:
He is referred to as the Kinslayer, so naming him "Bad Friend" makes way more sense than him being in reference to a B-list Thor villain.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 caladancid wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


My pile of shame is truly shameful. I have more unopened boxes in my apartment than most flgs in the area. For the most part, I only buy bundle sets though (starter boxes, combat patrol boxes, 2-player battleboxes, launch boxes, battleforces, etc.), which I acquire through various sources and means at anywhere from ~25% to 40% off (I know people and have kind of a side hustle that gets me employee discounts or considerable store credit, etc. at various places)., so I basically compound the discount offered by GW in the bundle by buying it at well below retail to collect massive volumes of stuff at a relatively low price, and then often sell the extras to recoup some of the cost. As such I have a lot of very large armies/collections, the downside is that despite that there are many units I simply don't own because they weren't included in the various boxes and bundles I've purchased lol. The Tomb Kings purchase is probably the first time in several years that I bought individual kits.

I've been thinking about starting a blog to do in depth reviews, scale comparisons, sprue photos, dimensional measurements and stuff like that of everything I own as an informational resource for other hobbyists, as well as to document my efforts to do a burn-down of what is probably one of the largest piles of shame in the community lol.

You know I obviously have disagreed with a lot of what you’ve said in this thread, but this is actually extremely helpful to understanding why we don’t see eye to eye. If your form of hobby enjoyment is buying boxes I genuinely think that is substantively different than someone who plays the game or paints as a primary source of hobby enjoyment.

Bold of you to assume that I don't play or paint? Having a backlog doesn't mean I don't hobby, it means that I buy at a faster rate than I hobby. Although, its true that I haven't played anything for the past year as both my locals closed down within the span of a month for altogether different reasons and the next closest gaming space being over an hours drive from me.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
He is referred to as the Kinslayer, so naming him "Bad Friend" makes way more sense than him being in reference to a B-list Thor villain.

It would be an unbelievably massive coincidence for two Dark Elf Kings to be given the exact same name completely independently.

 Overread wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 caladancid wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:


My pile of shame is truly shameful. I have more unopened boxes in my apartment than most flgs in the area. For the most part, I only buy bundle sets though (starter boxes, combat patrol boxes, 2-player battleboxes, launch boxes, battleforces, etc.), which I acquire through various sources and means at anywhere from ~25% to 40% off (I know people and have kind of a side hustle that gets me employee discounts or considerable store credit, etc. at various places)., so I basically compound the discount offered by GW in the bundle by buying it at well below retail to collect massive volumes of stuff at a relatively low price, and then often sell the extras to recoup some of the cost. As such I have a lot of very large armies/collections, the downside is that despite that there are many units I simply don't own because they weren't included in the various boxes and bundles I've purchased lol. The Tomb Kings purchase is probably the first time in several years that I bought individual kits.

I've been thinking about starting a blog to do in depth reviews, scale comparisons, sprue photos, dimensional measurements and stuff like that of everything I own as an informational resource for other hobbyists, as well as to document my efforts to do a burn-down of what is probably one of the largest piles of shame in the community lol.

You know I obviously have disagreed with a lot of what you’ve said in this thread, but this is actually extremely helpful to understanding why we don’t see eye to eye. If your form of hobby enjoyment is buying boxes I genuinely think that is substantively different than someone who plays the game or paints as a primary source of hobby enjoyment.

Bold of you to assume that I don't play or paint? Having a backlog doesn't mean I don't hobby, it means that I buy at a faster rate than I hobby. Although, its true that I haven't played anything for the past year as both my locals closed down within the span of a month for altogether different reasons and the next closest gaming space being over an hours drive from me.

That said if you are buying vastly beyond your capacity to build and paint then you are engaging in a form of hobby engagement that includes an element very different to many who buy and operate closer to "within their hobbying means". Especially when you're very much at an outlier where you've vast amounts of unbuilt.

It's normal to have a "pile of shame" but at the same time someone who builds that up into a very big component of their hobby is, on some level, most likely engaging differently to a "player/painter" before collector. Esp if you're only focusing on big boxed sets and, for the most part, avoiding single model purchases.

Shakalooloo wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
He is referred to as the Kinslayer, so naming him "Bad Friend" makes way more sense than him being in reference to a B-list Thor villain.

It would be an unbelievably massive coincidence for two Dark Elf Kings to be given the exact same name completely independently.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Black Library still sells products with the name "Malekith" in it, including a book or novel (or eBook) titled "Malekith" by Gav Thorpe. I suspect that the name change was done purely internally to differentiate GWs brand from others and not because of some direct legal concern (otherwise the continuing usage and sale of products bearing said name would probably be verboten). Where the name originated is kinda irrelevant IMO, it certainly wasn't the first usage (nor the last, apparently theres an Elden Ring boss also named Malekith), and was likely inspired by something (directly or indirectly) rather than just originated whole cloth from the minds of one of GWs staffers.

chaos0xomega wrote:
On the one hand, I kinda see your point. On the other hand, it seems a little arbitrary and unnecessarily discriminatory. Does the fact that I engage with the hobby by sourcing the best possible value to avoid GWs otherwise extortionate pricing (and consequently ended up with a hording habit as a result of trying to stay on top of every possible deal that comes my way) render me a different class of hobbyist? Im certainly a different type of customer (of the cetaceous variety), but I build, paint, and play the same as anyone else. My pile of shame isn't for the sake of collecting, the intent is to very much build/paint/play with everything I own, so labeling me a "collector" I think is erroneous.

 ImAGeek wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Black Library still sells products with the name "Malekith" in it, including a book or novel (or eBook) titled "Malekith" by Gav Thorpe. I suspect that the name change was done purely internally to differentiate GWs brand from others and not because of some direct legal concern (otherwise the continuing usage and sale of products bearing said name would probably be verboten). Where the name originated is kinda irrelevant IMO, it certainly wasn't the first usage (nor the last, apparently theres an Elden Ring boss also named Malekith), and was likely inspired by something (directly or indirectly) rather than just originated whole cloth from the minds of one of GWs staffers.

The Elden Ring boss is actually Maliketh, not Malekith. No idea how much swapping two letters would change things in terms of legal concern.

Tyel wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
On the one hand, I kinda see your point. On the other hand, it seems a little arbitrary and unnecessarily discriminatory. Does the fact that I engage with the hobby by sourcing the best possible value to avoid GWs otherwise extortionate pricing (and consequently ended up with a hording habit as a result of trying to stay on top of every possible deal that comes my way) render me a different class of hobbyist? Im certainly a different type of customer (of the cetaceous variety), but I build, paint, and play the same as anyone else. My pile of shame isn't for the sake of collecting, the intent is to very much build/paint/play with everything I own, so labeling me a "collector" I think is erroneous.

Yeah... I'm sort of drawing a blank on the difference.
I mean I have an extensive pile of shame - and am happy to admit most of it will probably never be painted. I'd like it to be - and it might be, but it almost certainly won't be.
Because odds are, I'll buy more.

I don't know about you - but I think the real clash (and this applies to the whole economics of the hobby) are how people's circumstances change.

When I was 15 or so - I had plenty of time for painting if I wanted to, but no money. Today I'm rapidly closing in on 40, I have far less free time (and what I have I want to use to play games, not paint models). But dropping £150~ on a TOW starter (not that I did in this case as neither army overly interests me), or a starting a new 40k army, or whatever every 6 months or so, really isn't some terrible financial imposition. And I suspect this is why, despite the very high prices, GW's sales seem to go up and up.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well I did it. Bought 4 Tomb guard boxes, 4 sepulchral stalkers boxes, and 6 necrosphinx/warsphinx boxes.

Oh no.

Now, if I could find a nice alternative set of skeleton horses, I have plans to kitbash myself 6 or so chariots from the sphinx and necropolis knight leftovers. Other things on my to buy list- 2 units of bow ushabti, necrolith bone dragon.

 nathan2004 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Well I did it. Bought 4 Tomb guard boxes, 4 sepulchral stalkers boxes, and 6 necrosphinx/warsphinx boxes.

Oh no.

Now, if I could find a nice alternative set of skeleton horses, I have plans to kitbash myself 6 or so chariots from the sphinx and necropolis knight leftovers. Other things on my to buy list- 2 units of bow ushabti, necrolith bone dragon.

Hey are you running a grand army or army of infamy? Cause grand army still requires either archers or warriors I think.

VAYASEN wrote:
I used to play WFB back in ...er...about 1990 and before(edit...well before that on reflection)

I just got told these new sets arnt new models....they looked it to me as the Brettionians look very updated from the Brettonians I remember....but I presume if they arnt new, they must be from later editions down the line?

Very disappointed to hear its being re released but not using new models.

Edit again to say I remember having a set which had some dwarves on an expedition to the south and they were fighting Slaan in various scenarios. Name of the lead dwarf is on tip of my tongue but cant quite remember it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

VAYASEN wrote:
I used to play WFB back in ...er...about 1990 and before(edit...well before that on reflection)

I just got told these new sets arnt new models....they looked it to me as the Brettionians look very updated from the Brettonians I remember....but I presume if they arnt new, they must be from later editions down the line?

Very disappointed to hear its being re released but not using new models.

Edit again to say I remember having a set which had some dwarves on an expedition to the south and they were fighting Slaan in various scenarios. Name of the lead dwarf is on tip of my tongue but cant quite remember it.

They're 6th edition Bretonnians, Bretonnians never got an update after 6th edition so these are those same models (other than the foot knights and a few characters that are new). I believe they came out in 2004.

I started in the mid 90's, when the 5th edition Bretonnians were out, those are the ones that came in the starter set, overall I tended to prefer the 5th edition ones as they were better proportioned models.

There were some Bretonnians prior to that that were before my time.

 Shakalooloo wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
He is referred to as the Kinslayer, so naming him "Bad Friend" makes way more sense than him being in reference to a B-list Thor villain.

It would be an unbelievably massive coincidence for two Dark Elf Kings to be given the exact same name completely independently.