Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Azazelx wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


The software and machinery is indeed decades ahead of Mantic - but I will take the Mantic ghouls over the GW ghouls. (The skeletons are not a fair comparison - the GW skellies that I have most recently seen were themselves decades behind the curve. So Mantic skellies being better is not to be unexpected.)

I prefer the Mantic ghouls over the GW ones, but it's worth noting that the Mantic Ghouls are some of their oldest sculpts in plastic, and as such don't really fit well into this discussion at all. FWIW, I found the Mantic Skellies as horrible as I found their Ghouls a pleasure to paint.

GW's current plastic Skeletons are quite a lot nicer and finer than the old ones that were essentially updated Skeleton Horde models. I prefer them quite a bit over the Mantic ones, but again - both lines are relatively old in terms of this discussion and Mantic's time in existence.

Spoiler:

"New" GW

Spoiler:

Old GW

Actually... looking at those pictures... I think that the new GW skellies are about on par with the Mantic skellies.

Price edges the Mantic skellies over the GW ones - but aside from price... I would call it a tossup. (And I have painted a crapton of both Mantic and old GW skellies. Mantic skeletons are wicked easy to paint up.)

The Auld Grump - who now kind of wants to see a side by side comparison of the new GW skellies and the Mantic ones....

My biggest problem with the GW skellies is that they all are leaning so far forwards that with every standard bearer I've made with that kit, I've had to put a weight in its base so it'd stand up straight. Mantic ones are much more substantial and don't feel like they're gonna break if I look at em wring.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Actually... looking at those pictures... I think that the new GW skellies are about on par with the Mantic skellies.

Price edges the Mantic skellies over the GW ones - but aside from price... I would call it a tossup. (And I have painted a crapton of both Mantic and old GW skellies. Mantic skeletons are wicked easy to paint up.)

The Auld Grump - who now kind of wants to see a side by side comparison of the new GW skellies and the Mantic ones....

As someone who owns both, and for whom price isn't a big deal, I think the GW ones are far superior in terms of sculpt, detail, moulding, posability and fun to paint. The Mantic ones are better priced, and simpler/faster to assemble. Both look solid when painted up and will fill ranks on a table equally well.

 Gromgor wrote:
My biggest problem with the GW skellies is that they all are leaning so far forwards that with every standard bearer I've made with that kit, I've had to put a weight in its base so it'd stand up straight. Mantic ones are much more substantial and don't feel like they're gonna break if I look at em wring.

I've had the opposite experience. Mantic skellies look on par with GW's for the most part. But their accessory stuff including exceptionally thin banner poles and spears were always breaking even with careful handling/transport.

 privateer4hire wrote:

 Gromgor wrote:
My biggest problem with the GW skellies is that they all are leaning so far forwards that with every standard bearer I've made with that kit, I've had to put a weight in its base so it'd stand up straight. Mantic ones are much more substantial and don't feel like they're gonna break if I look at em wring.

I've had the opposite experience. Mantic skellies look on par with GW's for the most part. But their accessory stuff including exceptionally thin banner poles and spears were always breaking even with careful handling/transport.

I have never had a spear or banner pole break on a Mantic elf or undead model - which are the thinnest.

However, I have had a weapon pop out of a 'Lego hand' on some of those same models.

Never had one tip over from being top heavy - even the metal hybrid archers.

The Auld Grump - I carry my minis around in pistol cases, not professional miniature carrying cases.

I can agree that their banners aren't the most impressive, but I've never had a problem with their spears. The GW ones, on the other hand, I built a hybrid using a GW body with Mantic head and a GW banner with Mantic shield arm, and the whole thing looked nice until you tried to line it up with the other Mantic skeletons that I had. then he leaned so far forward in comparison that it looked like he was going to fall over.

Part of Mantics problem is their pa inters are terrible compared to the GW team.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Part of Mantics problem is their pa inters are terrible compared to the GW team.

And they're not doing themselves any favours by refusing to show pictures of the unpainted components.

Can anyone explain to me why so many companies have an aversion to showing their products in the state the customer actually will receive them?

I've lost count of the number of models from various manufacturers I've declined to purchase simply because I cannot find a picture anywhere of what the actual model looks like unpainted and assembled . You'd think that if someone is capable of taking a photo of a unpainted model, they could do the same with a unpainted one but apparently that's not the case.

 Zywus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Part of Mantics problem is their pa inters are terrible compared to the GW team.

And they're not doing themselves any favours by refusing to show pictures of the unpainted components.

Can anyone explain to me why so many companies have an aversion to showing their products in the state the customer actually will receive them?

I have a player in my group that if asked when she will paint her army, her reply is 'Eww! Artsy stuff!'

Showing the unpainted minis make it look like work, I guess?

The Auld Grump

 Zywus wrote:
And they're not doing themselves any favours by refusing to show pictures of the unpainted components.

That's an excellent point. It would be one thing if the "studio" paint jobs were less ... off-putting. I think the current message received is, gosh if that's what it looks like when a professional paints it ...

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Part of Mantics problem is their pa inters are terrible compared to the GW team.

And they're not doing themselves any favours by refusing to show pictures of the unpainted components.

Can anyone explain to me why so many companies have an aversion to showing their products in the state the customer actually will receive them?

I have a player in my group that if asked when she will paint her army, her reply is 'Eww! Artsy stuff!'

Showing the unpainted minis make it look like work, I guess?

The Auld Grump

Ehm, she know the miniatures are still supplied unpainted and assembled right?
Does there exist a significant slice of the customer-base of people that believe their miniatures magically assemble and paint themselves as long as they never witness a picture of the miniatures unpainted before they buy them?

You can show painted models as the default picture and also have pictures of unpainted components to those who click further. I have a hard time believing such pictures would lose you one single solitary sale.

I think one answer is that unpainted components look terrible in photos, especially anything in PVC or resin, their interaction with the light makes everything look worse than it is, even with a strong scrub to remove the release fluid.

This argument comes the other way with Reaper, where people beg them to at least throw a wash on their new Bones, because they look just awful in photos unpainted - which Reaper refuse to do, on the basis that it creates false expectations, or some such, so they steadfastly stick to unpainted Bones photos only.

Well, to be fair though, the wulfen is the worst (imo) GW model and the EoDust models are, next to the Undead, maybe the best KoW models. And...they finally got sweet paint jobs on the site. Brandon is, like, top of the tops Mantic certainly is getting better though, especially looking at a complete army collection.

 NTRabbit wrote:
I think one answer is that unpainted components look terrible in photos, especially anything in PVC or resin, their interaction with the light makes everything look worse than it is, even with a strong scrub to remove the release fluid.

This argument comes the other way with Reaper, where people beg them to at least throw a wash on their new Bones, because they look just awful in photos unpainted - which Reaper refuse to do, on the basis that it creates false expectations, or some such, so they steadfastly stick to unpainted Bones photos only.

True, it can be difficult to get good photos of unpainted resin and metal models. But as you mention; giving them a wash helps a lot. Hasselfree gives a oil wash to their metal minis and I've never had a problem seeing the details of their models, metal or resin. Resin can be photographed well even without a wash if just the lightning is right.

I see Reapers point on avoiding false expectations but it's rather stupid to not show a unaltered unpainted model AND one with some ink or otherwise to show the detail.

Also. There's no reaon for why one cannot show both a painted and an unpainted version.

I see Reapers point on avoiding false expectations but it's rather stupid to not show a unaltered unpainted model AND one with some ink or otherwise to show the detail.

The odd thing is that if you look at the older figures in their webstore (often the originals for many of the current Bones figures) they have the unpainted and painted figures, so it is not like they are unfamiliar with the concept. Indeed, in a couple of cases, I've looked at the older figures so I could see the detail on the Bones that I have purchased, i.e. "yes, that is a strap holding up a satchel."

I was actually pretty put off by some of the newer 40k stuff. I got into the hobby back in 3rd ed and to me the Chaos chosen the DV set (for ex) look like a mess. All jags and skulls and studs without any blank space to put the actual armor color.

And that seems to be the 'new' aesthetic.

Part of why I got into 30k was that the plastic MkIV marine armor was much sleeker and not covered in a million CAD clip art skulls.

I admit though I have no experience with Mantic.

Huh. I find the DV Chaos dudes to be the best Chaos minis yet released, and the most like the artwork.

If you like sleek, you might check out some Mantic Enforcer Peacekeepers. They have a nice design, and it's about as detail-busy as an Iron Man suit.

 ScarletRose wrote:
I was actually pretty put off by some of the newer 40k stuff. I got into the hobby back in 3rd ed and to me the Chaos chosen the DV set (for ex) look like a mess. All jags and skulls and studs without any blank space to put the actual armor color.
And that seems to be the 'new' aesthetic.

The "new" GW Chaos models are actually a bit of a throwback to the original RT/RoC-era armor styles.