http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/7.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net
I was talking to some friends yesterday, and almost simultaneously we decided that we will likely quit WH40K and GW miniature collecting simply because the quality of the products are so poor.

You know, its the 21st century, and with the tech availible today, you'd think that GW could just be more creative in their posing, detail, and scaling then they manage at the moment.

When I look at the quality of other games companies, and even some of the independant lines out there, they really make GW stuff look like it was thrown together by a 2 year old using play-dough.....but the rant goes on....the rule books....OMG!

I compared the current WH40K rulebook, and the current codexes with the Infinity rulebook, and IMHO it was pitifull from GW side. The greatly acclaimed 'eavy metal team must have had their middle fingers cut off, or some other major hand disfigurement, cause the "quaity" of miniature painting in those books is just rubbish......considering what percentage of the market is owned by Infinity and GW, you'd expect the situation to be reversed.

If I look at Forgeworld, I can't belive these guys work for the same company....if GW as an organisation can churn out Forgeworld quality, why is the "mainstream" stuff so bad?

So, what does the gaming community feel about this? Are you guys still buying GW miniatures because you genuienly feel they are the best out there? or do you buy it cause you've invested too much to tuen back now? Is it just nostalgia?

I'm really interested in what others have to say on this. I don't think GW will change anytime in the future, and because of that I will not be buying anymore GW products....least of all the 5th edition coming out soon. I reckon I've invested a few £ short of £1500 on stuff so far, and my intention is to paint it as best as I can and sell it on ebay......

...for me, the honey moon is OVER!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305343.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305343.page GMT
I've looked at Infinity's stuff on the web. I have a hard time believing that they are categorically a step above. Some stuff is good, some is great, some is seriously foul.

Every company has that. Infinity has the added problem of price per model and the fact that in the last 3 states I have lived in, no one plays it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305352.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305352.page GMT
I'm still playing the game, but switching models. Only some armies will be able to use stuff from other companies. Fantasy has miniatures all over the place and for just about every list. Reaper has an excellent Ogre that would be great for an Ogre Kingdoms leader.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305355.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305355.page GMT GW is RUBBISH compared to their rules/minis/painting".

Maybe I just have never seen these amazing alternative companies and miniature ranges that everyone raves about, but every war gaming miniature maker I've ever seen pales in comparison to GW for the most part.

Or maybe it's just different strokes for different folks, and the people out there raving about other companies just think Rackham, Reaper, Privateer Press etc are all genuinely better than GW whereas I just think they're mostly crap...

GW Minis aren't ALWAYS the best quality, but they seem to be more consistent in their quality. I find other companies will have a handful of minis I absolutely love and the rest I wouldn't deign to line the bottom of my bitz box with.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305363.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305363.page GMT
The greatly acclaimed 'eavy metal team must have had their middle fingers cut off, or some other major hand disfigurement, cause the "quaity" of miniature painting in those books is just rubbish......[/quote]

They have to paint massive amounts of miniatures. They don't get the luxury of spending 12-16 hours on a single mini. Go look at cmon to see why they're so "greatly acclaimed". I believe WD also features their personal collections in there these days.

As for sculpting, again, their range is huge. They can't all be great, no-ones forcing you to buy the less-than-good minis. Buy the ones you like, as I do. I know if I had a choice between only GW and only Infinity I'd go for GW every time.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305373.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305373.page GMT
I get the complaints about rules.
I get the complaints about the WD.
I get the complaints about the prices.
I get the complaints about online retailers.
I get the complaints about support.

GW is still the premiere maker of little toy soldiers. Other companies make some nice sculpts, and GW occasionally lets a clunker through. But all in all, they have the greatest number of quality minis, with the added bonus of plastics (easier to convert/repurpose). It's not even a race in that arena.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305392.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305392.page GMT
I was talking to some friends yesterday, and almost simultaneously we decided that we will likely quit WH40K and GW miniature collecting simply because the quality of the products are so poor.[/quote]

I was hoping for some examples to express what you are considering as poor quality

[quote=Delephont]You know, its the 21st century, and with the tech availible today, you'd think that GW could just be more creative in their posing, detail, and scaling then they manage at the moment.[/quote]

Again, some examples of your complaint would give us a small platform to at least be able to adequately debate you.

[quote=Delephont]When I look at the quality of other games companies, and even some of the independant lines out there, they really make GW stuff look like it was thrown together by a 2 year old using play-dough.....but the rant goes on....the rule books....OMG!..[/quote]

Again examples. I can't even think of any GW sculpts that look like a 2 year old using play dough. Or else those 2 year olds are damn good sculpters and they have managed some things with play dough that are outstanding ..

[quote=Delephont]I compared the current WH40K rulebook, and the current codexes with the Infinity rulebook, and IMHO it was pitifull from GW side. The greatly acclaimed 'eavy metal team must have had their middle fingers cut off, or some other major hand disfigurement, cause the "quaity" of miniature painting in those books is just rubbish......considering what percentage of the market is owned by Infinity and GW, you'd expect the situation to be reversed.[/quote]

What were you comparing? Pictures? Shouldn't you be using a book that showcases the GW models in a similar way that INfinity showcases their models in their books? A rulebook and a codex are more about "tabletop" quality etc. I think your comparison is apples to oranges and hardly worth debate.

[quote=Delephont]If I look at Forgeworld, I can't belive these guys work for the same company....if GW as an organisation can churn out Forgeworld quality, why is the "mainstream" stuff so bad?[/quote]

Again, I am not sure what you are talking about. Forgeworld does niche level modeling and as such they don't mainstream their models in the same quantity as GW does and as such, they are able to get more detail etc with their work. So, while GW churns out thousands and thousands of plastic frames, Forgeworld is churning out hundreds of resin models from a rubberized form. again, apples and oranges.

[quote=Delephont]So, what does the gaming community feel about this? Are you guys still buying GW miniatures because you genuienly feel they are the best out there? or do you buy it cause you've invested too much to tuen back now? Is it just nostalgia?[/quote]

I buy what I feel is the best for me. I have not found a company that makes space marines better than GW does. I have also not found any better ogres, or anything for the armies I collect. I have found single models from other companies that I might like a weapon from or something about the model, but in the long run, I cannot see buying any armies from anyone else.




[quote=Delephont]...for me, the honey moon is OVER![/quote]

If you are one of those that thinks a marriage is peaches and roses after the honey moon is over, then I am afraid that the real world is really going to slap you in the face one of these days. the marriage is only as good as you make it. If you wake up the day after the honeymoon and start finding fault with your spouse, then unfortunately for you, the marriage will be rocky and if you don't get your nose caved in, then you will be lucky.

Does GW have the best single models out there? I would say a great many of GW models are of that quality. But there are other companies that do some single models better. Does GW do the best models out there? Depending on the army, I would say yes.

that's my take. You are welcome to it or not.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305407.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305407.page GMT [quote=Delephont]When I look at the quality of other games companies, and even some of the independant lines out there, they really make GW stuff look like it was thrown together by a 2 year old using play-dough.....but the rant goes on....the rule books....OMG!..[/quote]

Again examples. I can't even think of any GW sculpts that look like a 2 year old using play dough. Or else those 2 year olds are damn good sculpters and they have managed some things with play dough that are outstanding ..
[/quote]
Chaos ogres immediately come to mind as actually poorly sculpted. Capt Cortez is an example of poor posing, but not bad technical sculpting otherwise. There are many aesthetic choices made that I personally disagree with - demonette clothes + flat left boob, overly-accesorizing some models (skulltaker, for example) - but that's understandable and a matter of my taste vs the sculptor's (or more likely what GW thinks the public will want to or can be convinced to buy).

Personally, I think GW does a fantastic job, compared against Reaper - who crank out loads of good ideas and have a couple solid sculptors, if you like Werner Klocke's (sp?) one woman over and over (and I do!) - or other sci fi games in its bracket (VOR, Void, Warzone back when and even now), though of course Infinity and Rackham stomp them in other places. I'd say PP is on fairly even footing, or even slightly behind still, with GW for number of good sculpts & concepts vs bad.

And in the end, GW's plastic kits tear the pants off any 28mm wargames multi-part plastics I can think of

- Salvage]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305416.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305416.page GMT
I sort of agree that GW's style isn't always the best.

I wish they were more consistant with their scale. I don't mind bigger heads, hands and weapons that true scale since it allows for more character etc., but I don't like the fact that 7-9 foot tall Space Marines in power armor are roughly the same size as every guardsman in a t-shirt. For that matter, I wish there were guardswomen.

I also don't like how hard it is to get certain options on figures, or even aquire the option. Want a combi-weapon? It is tricky.

I further don't like their lack of variety in characters. There are what, 10-15 generic Marine leaders, but only a few non-powerarmored people.

Stil, for what they are, GW's figures are often very very good. I own a lot of Rackham, and really like the look, but they are fragile. I have broken more ankles on my 30 rackham guys than any other line I own. However, the only reason I own those Drunes at all is because GW doesn't make marauders that are not steroid freaks.

It's just one of those things. GW makes a LOT of figures and most are really good. Some are very bad, or at least really showing that they are almost 2 decades old. At the same time, some companies have good lines, but they are very small, and fairly hit or miss too. Just a question of mixing and maxing.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305424.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305424.page GMT
Theres certainly some valid points. I think the theme recuring here is the fact that I didn't give examples of what I consider to be poor...so fair point.

Space Marines.....generally poor posing, and completely wrong scale according to GWs own fluff.

Imperial Guards....again, generally poor posing and why absolutely foul human proportions. DKoK perfect poses, and very well human proportions...as a direct comparrison.

Sisters of Battle.....can GW actually sculpt a female? I mean, I can understand your average GW employee having never seen a woman in the flesh, but with the amount of porn on the net, theres no excuse....

Tyranids...awesome, but how far wrong can you go with an alien race.

Dark Eldar.....do I really need to elaborate?

Eldar....generally very good....but if you have no desire to field an Eldar army, you're stuffed.

So, these are my points....I fully expect people to pull apart my statements, and thats really ok...as long as you remember that you're free to enjoy what you enjoy. I don't wish to take away anybody elses enjoyment of GW products....afterall variety is the spice of life and all that.....I was just wondering if anyone else felt the same....if not, then fine, ignore my rant.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305434.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305434.page GMT GWs own fluff.[/quote]Scale is subjective. They are 1 inch tall figures, so I make allowances for scale. As for posing, sure, sometimes. But considering the sheer amount of plastic available for Marines, I can literally make ANY pose you can dream of. Easily solved.

[quote=Delephont]Imperial Guards....again, generally poor posing and why absolutely foul human proportions. DKoK perfect poses, and very well human proportions...as a direct comparrison.[/quote]Which IG figs? There are several. The Cadians are quite good, especially the Kasrkin by Diaz. I agree the DKoK are better. But the IG is all about the tanks.

[quote=Delephont]Sisters of Battle.....can GW actually sculpt a female? I mean, I can understand your average GW employee having never seen a woman in the flesh, but with the amount of porn on the net, theres no excuse....[/quote]Well, here's a major problem. Thinking that using porn is a great idea to understand the female form Are you serious? The only women that actually look like pornstars are pornstars. The Jes Goodwin Sisters are great models. The bazillion Reaper models that actually do look like pornstars...[b]that's[/b] a sculpting issue.

[quote=Delephont]So, these are my points....I fully expect people to pull apart my statements, and thats really ok...as long as you remember that you're free to enjoy what you enjoy. I don't wish to take away anybody elses enjoyment of GW products....afterall variety is the spice of life and all that.....I was just wondering if anyone else felt the same....if not, then fine, ignore my rant.[/quote]No worries.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305443.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305443.page GMT
Anyway....generally speaking a female porn star, is a female, a human female, and real.....that would qualify her as a good sculpting basis for a....real human female.

If you're refering to fake breast etc....not all porn stars invest in mammory enhancement.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305449.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305449.page GMT
Space Marines.....generally poor posing, and completely wrong scale according to GWs own fluff.

Imperial Guards....again, generally poor posing.[/quote]

I don't understand this at all, to be honest. Both of the most popular kits - the Cadian box set, and the Space Marine plastic set (and its many derivations) are multi-part plastic miniatures. If the posing is poor, you're posing them wrong.


[quote=Delephont]Sisters of Battle.....can GW actually sculpt a female? I mean, I can understand your average GW employee having never seen a woman in the flesh, but with the amount of porn on the net, theres no excuse....[/quote]

I can't help feeling you're using an unfair stereotype to mask a poor argument. The SOB aren't normally proportioned women in regular clothes. For one, they're wearing Power Armour, which is naturally going to do strange things to their proportions. Secondly, if you're expecting "porn star" physiques (and I'm loathe to use the term because it is demonstratively naive to think the average woman is that kind of shape), you have to bear in mind these are [i]warrior women[/i]. They're not meant to be pretty. They're meant to kill stuff in the name of the Emperor.

[quote=Delephont]
Tyranids...awesome, but how far wrong can you go with an alien race.[/quote]

Again, unfairly dismissive. You're basically saying "yeah, these are pretty good, but so what? It's easy." Though you may think the Tyranids are derivative, they still contain a great amount of innovative design work and a number of original concepts. You can go [i]very[/i] wrong with an alien race.

[quote=Delephont]
Dark Eldar.....do I really need to elaborate?[/quote]
The Dark Eldar are by popular consensus in dire need of resculpts, I'll grant you.

[quote=Delephont]
Eldar....generally very good....but if you have no desire to field an Eldar army, you're stuffed.[/quote]

Once more, unfairly dismissive. You're putting a negative spin on these miniatures being good. What, it's bad that these have been sculpted well because it limits our freedom to choose an army? Is that as bad as them being sculpted badly?

[quote=Delephont]
I don't wish to take away anybody elses enjoyment of GW products....afterall variety is the spice of life and all that.....I was just wondering if anyone else felt the same....if not, then fine, ignore my rant.[/quote]

It shan't take away my enjoyment, dear boy. And you too are welcome to ignore my counter-rant. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305503.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305503.page GMT
I don't understand this at all, to be honest. Both of the most popular kits - the Cadian box set, and the Space Marine plastic set (and its many derivations) are multi-part plastic miniatures. If the posing is poor, you're posing them wrong. [/quote]

Or this highlights your lack of imagination.....the plastci kits as they come out of the box are multipart, but they still have restrictions...an example is the leg sprue on the Space Marines...always spread in the hero stance.


[quote=Vandez]I can't help feeling you're using an unfair stereotype to mask a poor argument. The SOB aren't normally proportioned women in regular clothes. For one, they're wearing Power Armour, which is naturally going to do strange things to their proportions. Secondly, if you're expecting "porn star" physiques (and I'm loathe to use the term because it is demonstratively naive to think the average woman is that kind of shape), you have to bear in mind these are [i]warrior women[/i]. They're not meant to be pretty. They're meant to kill stuff in the name of the Emperor. [/quote]

Hold on...did you read my comment...directly above your post?!? Why the fixation on porn-stars. The funny thing about your post, is that you accuse me of stereotyping....your whole statement is a stereotype of "pornstars"....here's a news flash: Pornstars are human beings, with normal features.....perhaps you've never seen a real woman to compare...but take it from a married man, theres no difference between a pornstar and a "normal" woman.....do you realise that pornography is a career path and not a genetic basis for a "type" of woman....get your head out of your ass, do some research and stop acting as if you've just climbed out of a Mormon church cellar.

[quote=Vandez]Once more, unfairly dismissive. You're putting a negative spin on these miniatures being good. What, it's bad that these have been sculpted well because it limits our freedom to choose an army? Is that as bad as them being sculpted badly?[/quote]

I'm not being unfairly dismissive...anymore than someone walking into a GW store and deciding...yeah I want to field a Space Marine army and not Eldar army....full stop. I'm acknowledging the fact that these are good sculpts even though I don't necessarily want to buy and field them....so how is that me being "unfairly dismissive"?!?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305563.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305563.page GMT GW's mini quality is usually pretty good, at least from a technical stand point. I'm a bit burned out on the aesthetics of GW's lines, but that's my problem.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305584.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305584.page GMT
[quote=Delephont]

Or this highlights your lack of imagination.....the plastci kits as they come out of the box are multipart, but they still have restrictions...an example is the leg sprue on the Space Marines...always spread in the hero stance.[/quote]

But surely any kit anywhere is going to have restrictions? There are other legs available. I know there are plastic kneeling ones, for starters. And I'd like to think producing a squad of individual looking models from similar legs shows the opposite of a lack of imagination, thanks.

[quote]
Hold on...did you read my comment...directly above your post?!? Why the fixation on porn-stars. The funny thing about your post, is that you accuse me of stereotyping....your whole statement is a stereotype of "pornstars"....heres a news flash: Pornstars are human beings, with normal features.....perhaps you've never seen a real woman to compare...but take it from a married man, theres no difference between a pornstar of a "normal" woman.....do you realise that pornography is a career path and not a genetic basis for a "type" of woman....get your head out of your ass, do some research and stop acting as if you've just climbed out of a Mormon church cellar.[/quote]

I did, indeed, read your post. I'm not trying to fixate on the aforementioned actresses, but they were used as an example in your post so I ran with it. In fact, this is in general a really insulting paragraph and I'm struggling to pull something positive from it. Surely we can agree that there will be marked differences in the body type of a woman who has a career based on having an attractive physique/figure rather than one who relies on physical fitness and ability?

[quote][quote]Once more, unfairly dismissive. You're putting a negative spin on these miniatures being good. What, it's bad that these have been sculpted well because it limits our freedom to choose an army? Is that as bad as them being sculpted badly?[/quote]

I'm not being unfairly dismissive...anymore than someone walking into a GW store and deciding...yeah I want to field a Space Marine army and not Eldar army....full stop. I'm acknowledging the fact that these are good sculpts even though I don't necessarily want to buy and field them....so how is that me being "unfairly dismissive"?!?[/quote]

It just seems to me that the basis of your argument, on the whole, is that GW miniatures are sub-par. Then you seemingly go back on this by stating that the Eldar and Tyranid ranges are not sub-par, but apparently, yes, [i]dismiss[/i] these positive additions to the range as being some sort of easy, no-brainer design work, at least on the part of the Tyranids.

I don't think I'm explaining myself properly. A day at work has melted my brain somewhat.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305588.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305588.page GMT GW is rusbbish and their product is rubbish....we have to be clear on this point, because every post has had an underlying aggressiveness against my statement.

If people don't agree with me, thats fine...but don't try to convince me that my opinion is flawed or wrong....its my money and my opinion.

I created this thread to see if anyone else is in the same boat as me, or if people were motivated to buy GW products , why that was......

@ Vandez directly

Why do you keep differentiating female forms based on the jobs they do? The female form comes in all shapes and sizes....the porn industry hires women from all backgrounds and body shapes, why? because the audience they perfom for is vast and varied.

...the reason why I singled out pornography as a means for sculpting cues...is because its one of the few mediums freely availible where someone can see (a wide variety) of naked female forms....not because they set some kind of precident for how females should look.

Having said that, if I had selected Olympic athelete as a precident, would that be more fair? How many everyday women (or men) can attain that level of physique?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305612.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305612.page GMT

Yes, women come in all shapes and sizes. To be honest, I've forgotten what point I was trying to make. What was your problem with the Sisters sculpts, again?

You're right about there being an underlying negativity or disapproval to the replies. I realise I'm being overly defensive on behalf of a company that really doesn't require my support, so in response to your restated objective to the thread:

I, on the whole, think GW's miniatures are very good. In the years I've been playing their metal minis have been consistantly high quality (with a few glaring errors - Cortez, the 4th Ed Possessed marines et al) and their plastic work has come on in leaps and bounds. I think there is a lot of potential in their plastic kits. The relative scale is not perfect, but the exaggerated and melodramatic miniatures are perfectly evocative of a similarly exaggerated and melodramatic universe.

If we were looking at GW's miniature range circa 1998, I think I'd be more inclined to agree with you.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305622.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305622.page GMT SOB are quite good, especially taken in the context of when they were sculpted. They have held up remarkably well.

GW has always had a tough time with "evil" elves. Both chocolate and vanilla "DE" seem to have been designed with the idea the points make something inherently evil.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305785.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305785.page GMT
Wow, is really all I can say about them.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305804.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305804.page GMT GW and think everything GW does is wonderful. Become disgruntled but ultimately still a fan of GW. Become a GW hater, decide random company x does everything in a completely superior way to GW. From here there are three options:

(a) burn out on the hobby and get on with having a life,
(b) burn out on the new game and decide some other random company is completely superior, inevitably burning out on that one and repeating the cycle,
(c) or burn out on the new game, gain some perspective about what this hobby is really about and learn to approach each game on it’s own merits. Gain the ability to see each game in a somewhat objective manner, noting the strengths and weaknesses of each.

It appears to me the OP is a (b), but while it may take a few game lines to get there, he will inevitably move to an (a) or a (c). Such is the circle of life.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305897.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/305897.page GMT
Fair point.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/306185.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/306185.page GMT GW miniatures are really a mixed bag these days.

I don't have much issue with GW's metal range. I find the proportions and posing of many of the recent sculpts from GW and Privateer approaching the realm of absurdity and ugliness. Price really isn't an issue as most manufacturers products are around the same price. What I do have issues with however is:

[list]Models have lots of flash - not just the annoying spindly kind, but also huge tabs attached. This was supposed to be fixed when they moved production to the Atlanta Fab, but that never happened. No other manufacturer has this kind of ridiculous problems with flash covered models. Privateer's models have some - Reapers models are usually very clean, needing minimal prep-work (and they are the cheapest of the bunch!). Other manufacturer's products - Anima Tactics and Confrontation models are typically fairly clean as well. (I guess this is where GW chimes in with the rising cost of metal and all that!)[/list]
[list]Availability of metal bitz, once one of GW's largest selling points have become largely unavailable.[/list]

Common issues with GW plastics

[list]Quality control is spotty. GW seems to have vastly incosistent plastic mixes in their plastic kits. They have a "dark grey" plastic which is fairly hard and retains detail very well. They also seem to run batches of figures run in a "light grey" almost "white" plastic which is very soft, and holds detail about as well as a bucket with a hole in it holds water. This soft plastic is a recurring issue and can be found in kits as recent as Chaos Terminators and most vehicle kits - (my general inexperience with the Fantasy range does not alow me to comment if this is the case in Fantasy as well).[/list]
[list]Detail is plentiful on infantry kits - but (recently) the details are very shallow. While the details on the early kits were fairly crisp, later kits have very soft details with a lot of rounded edges. Examples from within the same ranges can be seen: Compare: Space Marines Tactical Squad vs. Scouts - Khorne Berserkers vs. Chaos Marines. The new daemons have been reported to have very shallow body detail. I just bought a squad of the new Vampire Counts Ghouls, and can report that the details on the body and head are fairly shallow requiring careful painting. Mine was moulded in the dark grey plastic, but if it was produced in the above mentioned "light grey" plastic, most of this shallow detail would not be discernable.[/list]
[list]Detail is negligible on vehicle kits! While it is understood that vehicles lack "fine" detail that might break off during play - simple details like panel lines, vehicle engine detail, exhaust vents etc. are largely missing on many kits.[/list]
[list]Recent Fantasy kits (and some 40k plastics) have been of the "assemble only one way" variety. While this helps rank up the unit, and the pieces fit together very well - this makes them almost useless for converting. This is especially annoying on items such as heads and arms.[/list]
[list]GW plastic figures were supposed to alow for more economical construction of large armies. Instead, they are approaching the cost of metal figures in price. (This is more pronounced in many Non-US markets). Strangely, this phenomena only affects WH and WH40k models in the GW stable, as Lord of the Rings plastic infantry are just as detailed, but are very reasonable in price (i.e. a magnitude cheaper than metal).[/list]]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/306224.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/306224.page GMT
Back on topic, my GW figures are all either early SMs (beakies including plastics) or Tau or a mixed bag of RPG figures from the mid 1980s onwards.

Prices for GW plastics are as you say approaching the cost of metal figures from other companies. For example the Tau Fire Warrior box has 12 infantry and costs £18.

Perry Miniatures metals are £1 each. They are not the most expensive metal figures but they are not the cheapest either.

The new Perry Miniatures plastic ACW infantry box set has 36 figures and costs £12. That makes the Tau about 5 times more expensive. Both kits have similar sorts of options of poses, heads and so on.

Makes you think, doesn't it.

Tau Vehicles have decent detail for models made for gaming, and generally fit together well. You could well complain about the price compared to Tamiya kits.

There are a lot of older GW figures that are quite caricatured and cartoony. I'm not sure if that was a design decision or the result of having a particular sculptor. It was a style I didn't like however that was a personal preference.

In my considered opinion the quality of figures is good, though they are expensive. The quality of vehicles is acceptable and again they are expensive.

Basically you can get much cheaper figures and models in historical ranges.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/306388.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/306388.page GMT


I agree with most of your post in that I too am willing (and do) pay for quality - and for the most part, GW does put out a quality product.

However, I find their quality control to be highly suspect. Other than the plastic mix issue, I forgot to mention that GW has problems where plastic kits are shipped with significantly warped components which a lot of work to properly assemble (if it can be assembled at all. One Landspeeder I owned became terrain because the hull was so warped that no amount of straightening could fix it.) - Panel warpage is a common problem in most imperial tanks, landspeeders, monoliths and falcon hulls. If I buy an old Revel kit for $15, I don't have much issue with some fit problems, or warpage, but when I shell out $70 for a monolith that won't fit together properly due to panel warpage, I get a little irrate. I think that the majority of the panel warpage issues could be solved by going with a harder plastic. The old gothic ruin sprues used a hard impact-resistant plastic - so I don't see why GW kits don't use the dark terrain plastic for kits prone to warpage.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/306848.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/306848.page GMT GW change their plastic occasionally -- there is another thread talking about the trees. (Surreal?) The plasticity of plastic depends on the amount of plasticiser mixed into it. A mix with more plasticiser will more easily warp due to incorrect temperature storage and other causes.

I personally have never had a warped kit from GW, however I have only built a couple of dozen of their kits so I may have been lucky.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/306880.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/306880.page GMT GW figures. But the biggest decision is how many people in my area are playing a game.

Buy infinity models, and have no one to play with
OR
Buy GW models and have dozens of people to play with.

Hmmmmm...think I'll stick with Warhammer. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307106.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307106.page GMT GW. A veteran gamer like me would buy the Infinity figures because they like them, and if no-one plays Infinity either start it up or play a different SF game using the same figures.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307133.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307133.page GMT GW actually sculpt a female? I mean, I can understand your average GW employee having never seen a woman in the flesh, but with the amount of porn on the net, theres no excuse.... [/quote]

I always find it funny that it's men who have such a problem with SoBs. I'm a woman gamer and neither me nor any of my friends think the models are badly sculpted or out of proportion.

~TS]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307197.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307197.page GMT
Its not funny, its an opinion. I don't think the Cadian males are sculpted well either.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307243.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307243.page GMT http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307268.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307268.page GMT [quote=Balance]GW's mini quality is usually pretty good, at least from a technical stand point. I'm a bit burned out on the aesthetics of GW's lines, but that's my problem.[/quote]

I think you got it there mate. Its not that the figs are bad, its how the same stuff has been rehashed for years. It kinda limits the oooh factor for me too.

Some of the heavy metal paint jobs have worked very hard to make the fig look rubbish. Also, I believe that Gary Morley has been buried some where (thank god) as some of his figs were terrible - who ever gave him Eldar/Elf models to do should be dragged out by the sc*&%$m and stoned to death with unsold Gary Morley sculpts.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307539.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307539.page GMT GW's minis is their convertability. They just seem to respond well to mad science/alchemy/blasphemous inter-breeding/wacked out genetic engineering.
Whereas, while I'll concede that minis from Rackham (for example) are often stunning, I never really feel inspired to dis- and re-assemble them.
Inspired or, really worthy of the challenge, I suppose. They're just too damn pretty to mess with.
And messing with the minis has become probably my favorite aspect of the hobby.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307576.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307576.page GMT GW actually sculpt a female? I mean, I can understand your average GW employee having never seen a woman in the flesh, but with the amount of porn on the net, theres no excuse....
.[/quote]

The wealth of porn online probably explains the most recent additions to the SOB line.

Repentants and Death Cult Assassins...
The breasts are porn star big.
Bondage masks (which is good since I don't think I've ever liked a GW female face.)
and other bondage gear.

Like really.


Only GW female that looks female is the Tanith Guard model.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307611.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307611.page GMT
Well actually to raise a point from history sparta was known as the land on beautiful women. This was because the women were indeed trained to fight as a last defence and they believed that a healthy body made healthy babies. So I find your analysis wron. In the respect that because they are warrior women they should be prettier than the average female. (though in regard to the original posters comment about the ugliness I do find their faces to look somewhat neanderthallish/whacked with a mallet in appearence.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307659.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/307659.page GMT
I tend to agree. I dislike, and always have done, Citadel's "heroic" proportions - banjo hands, pumpkin heads etc. Of GW's entire catalogue I ONLY like the LotR range, and of that range I only like sculpts by the Perries and Brian Nelson as a rule. Gary Morely's style is just horrible.

But of course that's only a personal value judgement.

Alongside (for instance) Hasslefree's gloriously perfect style for example:

[img]http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/6150/hasslefree2yy6.jpg[/img]

GW's often look crude and unoriginal. To my eyes at least.

GW stuff works as a good "starter", but really there ARE better models out there and there are also CHEAPER ones. You just have to look.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/308303.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/308303.page GMT
The Imperial, Eldar and Ork stuff however is too typecast and "silly" to be much use without a lot of converting. This is personal aesthetic judgement, of course.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/308318.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/308318.page GMT GW's vehicle models are usually made quite well (unlike some vehicle models, I'm looking at you Tamiya). So you can get awesome, real world tanks (Tigers or Abrams for example) and risk a crappy model, or get ugly as sin GW kits, that are well built.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/308395.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/308395.page GMT GW uses. Really conveys the gothicity of this sci-fi, if you see what I mean.
To each his own, I guess.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/308441.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/308441.page GMT
Theres certainly some valid points. I think the theme recuring here is the fact that I didn't give examples of what I consider to be poor...so fair point.

Snip
Tyranids...awesome, but how far wrong can you go with an alien race.

Snip.[/quote]

What do you mean? All people should putt happy cap just for looking at carni kit! This got to be the most versatile kit from GW ever!

As for the topic, GW like any company does good and bad models, it really depends what your after... for example i do love infinity models for my scifi mood, then old rackham models for my fantasy kicks, warmachine for ze steam necessities and lots of diferent companies for just painting stuff like freeboter minis etc... GW stuff is great for convos and sculpt all kinds of gribbly things.
I dont see that one company range should kill the interest of other, at the end of the day if you enjoy good models you can find them spreaded everywere so why not collect them all?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/308539.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/308539.page GMT GW's products. If it did, I wouldn't be spending hundreds of dollars on em.

IMO they produce a quality product that looks good and the game, in spite of it's rule problems, is still very fun to play. The moment it stops being fun for me, I'll move on to a new hobby. That has yet to happen though and it's been 14 years for me...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/308566.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/308566.page GMT
In my experience, GW kits are somewhat lower quality than the old Frog kits from the 1960s. I mean, the best GW kits I have made (Tau) are the worst kits I've ever made in terms of detail, fit, construction, price and options.

I hear some of the other GW kits are much worse -- truly shocking. The Landspeeder is notorious.

Of course it is RANK HERESY to suggest that GW might do better to put part numbers on a £60 kit like the Baneblade.

I still buy (or bought) plenty of GW kits, but let's not suggest they are anything more than mediocre at their best.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/308694.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/308694.page GMT GW plastic kits, but mostof them (Landraider, Dreadnaught, Carnifex, Leman Russ) have been easy to assemble, with little to no warping or pieces that required any adjustment before assembly. After building model plane and tank kits that would barely fit together with welding, the ease of assembly came as a surprise to me.
That being said, I have seen Tau kits and the Necron Monolith that aren't that great. So I guess it's hit or miss.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/309348.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/309348.page GMT GW's vehicle models are usually made quite well (unlike some vehicle models, I'm looking at you Tamiya).[/quote]

That is utter nonsense, I had to read it through several times to makie sure I'd got it right. Tamiya are not made well?! Some of their kits were a little ropey in the 70s (the 1/35th Sheridan come to mind) but their modern stuff, while being expensive, is second to none.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315549.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315549.page GMT GW and their minis, i cannot understand all this hate and unfair critism, IMHO.

This is the only hobby that has some fantastic modeling and painting]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315554.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315554.page GMT GW and their minis, i cannot understand all this hate and unfair critism, IMHO. [/quote]

They do get far more than their fair bit of 'mould-slippage'. Why this it the case I don't know because the mould should align exactly and cast figures should not have a huge step in them, which is far harder to correct than a bit of flash. It's not so bad when you can see the figure in a pack, but when it's in a box you're buying blind. Yes you can probably get a free replacement from customer services but you shouldn't have to chase things like that up, a company like GW should have better quality control. My guess is that they are producing too much too quickly.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315563.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315563.page GMT GW and their minis, i cannot understand all this hate and unfair critism, IMHO. [/quote]

They do get far more than their fair bit of 'mould-slippage'. Why this it the case I don't know because the mould should align exactly and cast figures should not have a huge step in them, which is far harder to correct than a bit of flash. It's not so bad when you can see the figure in a pack, but when it's in a box you're buying blind. Yes you can probably get a free replacement from customer services but you shouldn't have to chase things like that up, a company like GW should have better quality control. My guess is that they are producing too much too quickly.[/quote]

You have a good point on that. 1 to you, lol. but in all seriousness for such mass production they do a great job over all, im not saying that there are parts that lack but there are parts that excell. I sort of agree that they need to slow down abit and take there time but they are a multi country hobby and theres always a demand for soming new from them.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315579.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315579.page GMT GW and their minis, i cannot understand all this hate and unfair critism, IMHO.

This is the only hobby that has some fantastic modeling and painting[/quote]

What about Napoleonics? What about wargaming in general outside GW? Huge choice, and excellent work being done by lots of participants.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315590.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315590.page GMT GW's women is that they really haven't sculpted one in a long time. All of their girls that look reasonably female (or unreasonably female) are pretty recent. I am thinking of the Repentia and some of the Eldar, though I don't know them too well. I think the issue with the standard Sisters is that they are really old, and single peice pewter has a very checkered past.
That and the heroic scale "giant head" doesn't really scream "girly!"

HEhe and TS, I think your gamer girls are different from mine. All the ones I know consider painting Sisters such that they don't look like trannies to be a sign of skill. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315639.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315639.page GMT GW and their minis, i cannot understand all this hate and unfair critism, IMHO.

This is the only hobby that has some fantastic modeling and painting[/quote]

What about Napoleonics? What about wargaming in general outside GW? Huge choice, and excellent work being done by lots of participants.[/quote]

Furthermore, what about modelling in general? There are masses of people painting 54mm figures or making kits in 1/72, 1/48 and 1/35th who easily come to the standard of things entered at Games Day, you just have to look around. This is the roblem with the "Games Workshop hobby", either by accident or design on behalf of GW, many people involved seem oblivious of modelling at large.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315689.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315689.page GMT GW models from an imagery perspective - I think most of them look pretty cool.

There is, however, a phrase within our group that gets repeated time and time again:

'[i]GW make good looking models, not practical models[/i]'

I actually like the Russ (scale issues aside). But I hate the Russ [i]kit[/i]. The needlessness of the tracks and the wheels and the track links and UHHH! It's horrible. I own 31 Russ Hulls and 24 Chimera Hulls, and believe me I was quite happy when I finished the last one - I even took a photo of the final Russ track I would ever build.

Occasionally they make something that is just perfect - I love the Land Raider kit, it is perfect - but there are so many metal and plastic models where we have to sit back and go '[i]Why did they put the join there?[/i]' or '[i]That's never going to hold![/i]'


Forge World's worse. I still haven't worked up the effort to repair my Stormblade. Those tracks... God... and you thought the Russ Tracks were bad. The resin Baneblade tracks don't even reach one another - there are huge gaps between each one. I can't even imagine what it would be like to super-glue the plastic tracks to the Malcador kit. The combination of fiddly little tracks, super-glue and Forge World's 50% chance of warping my mini out of proportions... It's the primary reason I've not bought any.

BYE]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315701.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315701.page GMT GW and their minis, i cannot understand all this hate and unfair critism, IMHO.

This is the only hobby that has some fantastic modeling and painting[/quote]

What about Napoleonics? What about wargaming in general outside GW? Huge choice, and excellent work being done by lots of participants.[/quote]

Furthermore, what about modelling in general? There are masses of people painting 54mm figures or making kits in 1/72, 1/48 and 1/35th who easily come to the standard of things entered at Games Day, you just have to look around. This is the roblem with the "Games Workshop hobby", either by accident or design on behalf of GW, many people involved seem oblivious of modelling at large.[/quote]

I agree 100% GW is really just a small fraction of the modelling and painting hobby world. If you havent figured it out that yet better open your eyes because your missing the party!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315713.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315713.page GMT http://theminiaturespage.com/

Yes, there's a lot out there beyond GW. And it's not all Ancients or Napoleonics either. Check out the Pulp and Horror gaming.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315746.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/315746.page GMT
Mine have stuck together remarkably well, actually. I used two-component epoxy, which took AGES, but has lasted fairly well in gaming conditions fair and foul. It's still among my favorite vehicles, aesthetics-wise, though I got some annoying warps and a bit of transit damage. Still, it came together into a solid, durable vehicle that is at least as sturdy as any Chimera you'd care to name.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/316884.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/212674/316884.page GMT