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.

I was looking at some of the old Warhammer models for ToW, and then looking over at the more elaborate plastic models they are offering today...

And I felt nostalgic for the old slabs of pewter I used to push around the tabletop.

Sure, some of the old pewter models were a pain to glue together (I'm looking at you Carnifex), but they were durable and easy (spacewise) to transport.

The new stuff is prettier, but makes me feel like I'm building stuff made for display, not gaming.

What do you think? Plastic or Pewter?

I prefer plastic, as it is much easier to work with.

However, nothing beats the old metal-Dread-in-a-sock feel.

While I do appreciate the hefty feel of metal miniatures, there's no denying that they can usually get as good or even better detail with plastic these days, and that's a much easier material to work with.

Times have moved on and so not really no. That said, Finecast needs to be sent back to the evil abyss from whence it came.

As a material white metal isn't bad to work with once you have the right skills and tools. The 900grit diamond files I've got are a GODSEND for working with metals.

Similarly learning to score join surfaces for superglue; learning pinning and such - these all make it easier and easier to work with.

That said GW plastic holds good detail and is super easy to work with. I think some sculpts would still benefit from metal (looking at you Marines for new-Epic) but in general I think GW has just mastered plastics so well.

The issue you're more talking about is less material and more style and I do agree some stuff GW does today is very impractical to transport or game with. It can look stunning, but it can also really make you question if they ever gamed with the model itself.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
The new stuff is prettier, but makes me feel like I'm building stuff made for display, not gaming.

That's less to do with the material, and more down to GW's current design philosophy prioritising aesthetics over functionality. ie: You are building stuff made for display, not gaming.

To answer the question though, I'll go for plastic over metal any day of the week. Easier to work with, lighter to carry around, and less smooshed detail when you accidentally drop a mini on a concrete floor.


And that preference goes up exponentially with the size and number of parts of the model involved. GW's multi-part metal monster models were a crime against humanity.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Similarly learning to score join surfaces for superglue;...

As an aside, I've never seen any evidence to show that this is actually a good idea. I think it's an idea that people imported from wood and leather work without considering the different types of glues involved.

Due to its chemical composition, superglue works best when it is as thin a layer as possible sandwiched between two smooth surfaces. Scoring the surfaces means thicker areas of glue, which cures more slowly and will be more brittle over time.

I miss metal, but mostly due to the era of the sculpts and nostalgia.

If I had to choose, I’d rather have modern plastics.

When I do work with metal, the rose colored glasses come off. It’s not horrible, but plastic is better.

 insaniak wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Similarly learning to score join surfaces for superglue;...

As an aside, I've never seen any evidence to show that this is actually a good idea. I think it's an idea that people imported from wood and leather work without considering the different types of glues involved.

Due to its chemical composition, superglue works best when it is as thin a layer as possible sandwiched between two smooth surfaces. Scoring the surfaces means thicker areas of glue, which cures more slowly and will be more brittle over time.

So I don't have any formal evidence but

1) I know that in my own experiences pushing two flush smooth surfaces together could take AGES for the glue to reach a "tacky" enough state to hold them on its own.
Meanwhile if I ensure two smooth surfaces and then score I get a tacky holding bond MUCH faster. It's a very noticeable difference.

2) The argument I've already read is that yes you want a thin layer of superglue; but scoring basically increases the active surface area of the join and the variety of angles that the glue has to hold onto when forming the bond; allowing it to form that quicker tacky bond but also form a generally stronger bond.


Again I agree you don't want thick globs of glue and I generally use Loctite brushon these days to help keep a thin layer. But I've always found scoring to just work so well over bare surfaces.

 Overread wrote:
1) I know that in my own experiences pushing two flush smooth surfaces together could take AGES for the glue to reach a "tacky" enough state to hold them on its own.
Meanwhile if I ensure two smooth surfaces and then score I get a tacky holding bond MUCH faster. It's a very noticeable difference.

I suspect that what's happening here is that when you score it, there's more air getting in to the glue due to the burred edges of the scoring making the parts not sit perfectly flush. So the glue sets faster, but it's not as tight a bond.

2) The argument I've already read is that yes you want a thin layer of superglue; but scoring basically increases the active surface area of the join and the variety of angles that the glue has to hold onto when forming the bond; allowing it to form that quicker tacky bond but also form a generally stronger bond.

Yeah, that's the argument I've heard, but it doesn't actually make sense. Superglue is generally more brittle than whatever you're gluing with it. It doesn't want a variety of angles, it wants a microscopically thin film.


That said, as with so many things in this hobby - do what works for you!

I have a hard time keeping paint on metal.
It never seems long before there is a bit shining through on a edge or corner.

I'd rather have the old aesthetic though, the new stuff from GW is far too fancy and fragile for me.

For a long time the economics of minis was rank and file models in plastic (expensive to set up, cheap to mass produce) and characters and rares in metal/resin (cheap to set up, expensive to make).

But my experience is that I prefer the opposite. For the 100+ riflemen (or spearmen or swordsmen) an army needs just give me one-piece models so I can get to painting. Then give me easy to customize plastic kits for my officers and characters.

Of course for anything bigger than an ogre, anything with a pose more dramatic than pointing a rifle we need plastic.

But GW's current line of 10 part (or more) rank and file is not fun to build.

Yes and no.

Plastic is MUCH easier to work with.

I have a vintage necron horde that I love, but I need a fork lift truck to get it in the car.

As someone who grew up with them.... yes.

HUZZAH!



Plastic easier to convert
Resin is just annoying and too easy to break for fine models.

Metal models are for primative apes, bashing rocks together.
The truely enlightened consumer works in GW Finecast resin. It's like the moon landing, yo! (And remember how it reduced prices thanks to the lower material costs?)

I like metal models but I also like plastic. Monopose hand sculpted metal has a charm to it, but any kind of multipart metal is a pain in the arse to assemble.

Generally I'll prefer plastic but I do prefer a more restrained aesthetic than is common with modern GW plastic miniatures and I'm tired of all the miniatures jumping into the air balancing on pieces of elaborate ruins and so on. I also find the price of individual characters in plastic to be so ridiculous I never buy them outside of a discounted set - even really nice ones like the Genestealer Magus are just waaaaay too much for a single miniature.

But at the moment my favourite kits to work with are the north star plastics. Chunky and restrained aesthetic, simple to build, but with lots and lots of options.

I do. I like the weight and I put metal washers under bases of my plastic models so they feel right and don't get moved around the board when someone exhales.

Also, converting metal models felt much more like an achievement. Kitbashing plastics is so easy it doesn't give me this feel that I did something unique and special.

I don't miss assembling metal minis, but they had a style and individuality to them that I miss.

Metal models, with casting limitations, lends themselves to being gaming models. Plastic is a better material, but it was good when making multipart models that allowed for easy mix and match (like say Stargrave models). Making monopose plastic is just a waste.

Plastic all the way for me. Allows for more complex and interesting kits.

And it’s easier to convert with, doesn’t require pinning, and your carry case doesn’t weigh a ton!

Oh god yes. I'm a metal model stan. If there was a version of a model that existed before Finecast or a plastic alternative was made, I'll scour the internet for the metal version.

This is partially due to the fact that I like collecting. But also the fact that I enjoy buying used models and refurbishing them. Metal is by far the easiest to strip/repaint.

Metal all the way, preferably single piece, but even then there are solutions for gluing (crosshatch scoring + loctite flexible gel superglue is my personal favourite) which work nicely.

I'm currently painting up some Urban War and Burrows & Badgers metals and they are an absolute joy to assemble, paint and have on the gaming table.

Undercuts with metal mean that you can have good detail without having to have lots of different parts or cleanup, most of the time it's just removing a single mould line around the silhouette of the model, glue to base and done.

In comparison, something like the Necromunda Escher I assembled where it's 14 tiny parts and three of them are the hair and they all need mould lines removing from each one pre-assembly is my idea of assembly hell.

Plastic for large models, anything on a flying base works well I think, but at the standard 28mm size, metal all the way.

Exceptions can also be made for games like Mordheim, Frostgrave etc. where kitbashing and conversion is the standard.

I much prefer plastic to metal, largely as it makes it easier to convert. I've also had fewer problems with paint chipping or rubbing off from plastic models jsut from normal game handling.

More than the material, I miss the hand-sculpted style over modern digital designs.

Gonna update my take here. Ladies, Gents and Respected Others, don your Rose Tinteds………now.

I do not miss metal as a material. I’ve had to assemble and pin too many Hive Tyrants for too many customers to have especially fond memories of the material.

Yet……

I’ll always have nostalgia as a wean going through the racks, in the hope of finding Just The Right Blister Pack.

Could mean one where the sword wasn’t all bent. Could be finding Just The Sculpt I wanted, even in a multipack. Could even be applying a weather eye to find the Lesser Stocked Variant.

But, like Streaming vs Video Store? It’s just nostalgia. Warm, happy memories, and something I’d happily tolerate once more if push came to shove. But the modern approach is still better.

 Da Boss wrote:

But at the moment my favourite kits to work with are the north star plastics. Chunky and restrained aesthetic, simple to build, but with lots and lots of options.

There's also a great selection of versatile kits.
I like the new Mantic stuff too; but it's more specific, so what I'm looking for less often.

I like metal...solid and hard to knock over.

Usually they also lacked thin, easily damaged, parts sticking out.

The metal models were also easier to fit into foam transport boxes.

Yes, falling from heights tended to be more destructive than plastic (repairs take a longer time).

They are heavier to transport.

Each to their own.

Cheers,

CB

For big models, rank infantry and anything that requires a degree of modularity, plastic all the way, but for characters, sergeants etc, I really like metal. Being able to cast a model in one or two pieces that would end up being a 13-piece jigsaw nightmare in plastic is a major advantage for smaller guys. Resin (when done well, so not Finecast) is much the same, and arguably is viable for some larger models too due to the lighter weight.

All my Eldar aspects units are in metal. I collected them because I liked them. Now I want to replace them with plastic. Reasons:

1) Weight
2) Damage to paint
3) Breakage

I pin and I varnish but when a model drops it breaks more easily than plastic and the latest resin from GW. And after handling them many times in games played the edges do start loosing their layers of paint, which is a shame.

So:

1) Plastic
2) Resin
3) Metal

Usually old metal models still have superior details and sharpness to even current plastics.
So, for characters I like metal. Since my painting is not that good to make the increased detail of metals really count, I'm also okay with plastics.
But here's the thing, GW specifically sells plastic chars at a higher price than metal chars usually. A plastic char beats the metal char when it has
a) more options (see 40K CSM terminator Lord/ sorceror, an outstanding kit even today)
b) is cheaper (see the very first batch of GWs plastic chars for 8€ like the (now) AoS plague lord, or the savage orcboss).

If neither of those apply I'll take the metal char and won't buy the plastic character. Most of my Death Guard plastic characters are from the magazine for 10€, which is an okay price. 20€ or even 32€ for an extremely ugly Typhus that looks worse than his metal predecessor in any way is not an okay price.

Most of what I said applies to resin as well, just not failcast.

Do I miss metal models? Yes.