63000
Post by: Peregrine
rigeld2 wrote:Wait - people need to earn money to be able to spend it?
I wasn't aware.
It isn't a reasonable thing to require because it apparently applies to credit cards and debit cards. An income requirement is reasonable for a credit card because the bank is loaning you money to buy stuff and you need to demonstrate that you can plausibly pay them back. But it isn't reasonable to demand for a debit card because a debit card only allows you to spend the money you've already deposited into your bank account. It's nothing more than cash in a more convenient package. If I have $100 in the bank account my debit card accesses it doesn't matter if I have $0 salary per year and will never put more money in or $100,000,000 a year salary and could treat that $100 as a rounding error in my budget. I can only spend the $100 that I already have, and nobody has to trust me.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Makumba wrote:t's not that hard to order stuff online. I doubt Poland is that far behind the rest of the world with using debit and credit cards.
You need work to get one and an account at a bank. Even if your parents put more then enough money for a buy on your account, your still not going to get a card unless you bring an official paper from work that you earn a minimum wage , that or you have some sort of social or pension.
Surely you can open a savings account with a debit mastercard/visa/whatever without having to have a wage? I can understand them not giving you a credit card, but surely a debit card... if not then Poland is further behind the rest of the world than I thought 
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Don't bet on it, a few years back, I was trying to open a business account, I was refused on the grounds that the business was "too high risk" despite having no need for credit of any kind.
Banks are stupid, greedy, short sighted and inflexible institutions.
Remind you of any corporations you might know? 
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Ok I back off until I get back home to my PC, I was close to throwing my phone at the wall while editing posts and this is all too much to answer..l
But have to say that most of you have no idea what quality is in a proffesional sense. I'll start with definitions next time.
I absolutely hate Taurox design but it is, or rather might be top notch quality kit. I just lack data to decide. Also looks are only part of what makes it quality kit and are only relevant with target audience.
If sturdines is not important, try taking your dust tactics mechs to the shop for a game on weekly basis. Or play with non gaming models.
Peregrine read again because there's a lot that you seem to get wrong. Might be my way of explaining, can't say.
Oh and GW makes best plastic kits in the world. Look at coven throne. And no the fact that you don't like busy design or the overall look of it doesn't change the fact that it's a super quality plastic kit.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
 Azreal13 wrote:Don't bet on it, a few years back, I was trying to open a business account, I was refused on the grounds that the business was "too high risk" despite having no need for credit of any kind. Banks are stupid, greedy, short sighted and inflexible institutions. Remind you of any corporations you might know?
Wow that's impressive. Surely it's easy for personal accounts though? When I went to the USA I just walked up to a bank, "hi, I'd like to open an online checking account", "sure, you're not American? Can I see your passport and some proof of residency... thanks, here's your account details and temporary visa debit card" 
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Bold claim, Cotton, let's see how it pays off for him.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Plumbumbarum wrote:Ok I back off until I get back home to my PC, I was close to throwing my phone at the wall while editing posts and this is all too much to answer..l
But have to say that most of you have no idea what quality is in a proffesional sense. I'll start with definitions next time.
I absolutely hate Taurox design but it is, or rather might be top notch quality kit. I just lack data to decide. Also looks are only part of what makes it quality kit and are only relevant with target audience.
If sturdines is not important, try taking your dust tactics mechs to the shop for a game on weekly basis. Or play with non gaming models.
Peregrine read again because there's a lot that you seem to get wrong. Might be my way of explaining, can't say.
Oh and GW makes best plastic kits in the world. Look at coven throne. And no the fact that you don't like busy design or the overall look of it doesn't change the fact that it's a super quality plastic kit.
Whether I or anyone else has a deep understanding of quality in a professional sense is utterly irrelevant in this context. Quality to a consumer is subjective, what one may consider high quality will be largely based on their own frame of reference. I may think McDonalds is the best quality food I've ever eaten, however I am unlikely to hold that opinion unless I have eaten at very few restaurants (or fast food shops in all honesty)
Stating " GW makes the best kits in the world" is ridiculous. Do you mean in wargaming? Maybe. But you've just discounted the likes of Tamiya, Bandai and all who turn out much more sophisticated kits, often at a lower price. You see? Subjective!
34243
Post by: Blacksails
I also don't get the thing about sturdiness. So what if kit A is sturdier than kit B? So long as kit B is sturdy enough to play with, any increase in sturdiness (measured in units of Sturd) is effectively lost. No one hucking their models against walls...well maybe Tauroxes after someone realizes how feth ugly they are.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Azreal13 wrote:Don't bet on it, a few years back, I was trying to open a business account, I was refused on the grounds that the business was "too high risk" despite having no need for credit of any kind.
Banks are stupid, greedy, short sighted and inflexible institutions.
Remind you of any corporations you might know?
Wow that's impressive. Surely it's easy for personal accounts though? When I went to the USA I just walked up to a bank, "hi, I'd like to open an online checking account", "sure, you're not American? Can I see your passport and some proof of residency... thanks, here's your account details and temporary visa debit card"
If you're a grown up, yes, but I'm getting the impression Makumba is not (at least according to relevant banking criteria)
That said, I can remember banks coming to our school when I was younger to try and recruit us, because they knew that people are not inclined to change banks frequently they tried to recruit as young as they could.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Azreal13 wrote:
That said, I can remember banks coming to our school when I was younger to try and recruit us, because they knew that people are not inclined to change banks frequently they tried to recruit as young as they could.
That's...odd. Almost creepy. You Brits are weird.
*Edit* Flags confuse me.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Show me something close to necrosphinx, latest wood elf guys, or Imperial Knights or Hive Tyrant made from hard plastic.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Plumbumbarum wrote:Oh and GW makes best plastic kits in the world. Look at coven throne. And no the fact that you don't like busy design or the overall look of it doesn't change the fact that it's a super quality plastic kit.
Actually, disliking busy design does change the perceived quality. I mean, how could it not?
Because, if you don't like a lot of crap on your models, and GW puts a lot of crap on your models, you're not going to see that as good quality.
There are also other issues - like the problem of models not coming with enough equipment. Sorry, but if you're going to claim to make "the best models in the world", then your models shouldn't be deliberately missing pieces. Because, to me, that demonstrates a complete lack of quality.
Likewise, it is equally hard to accept their prices when their models don't look nice. Human faces shouldn't look like they were sculpted out of a potato - yet that's exactly what we see in GW's guardsmen. So, why am I expected to pay almost £2 per model for something that resembles a half-melted waxwork? Now, possibly these are old models, but that just raises even more questions. Namely, if GW is charging similar prices for old models (that look awful) as they do for new ones, what exactly are you paying for? Obviously it's not quality, otherwise the older ones (with worse quality) would be cheaper.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Plumbumbarum wrote:
Show me something close to necrosphinx, latest wood elf guys, or Imperial Knights or Hive Tyrant made from hard plastic.
Well off the top of my head, this guy is a strong contender over the Knight. Better poseability are the biggest plus, combined with a better price for a large hard plastic kit with options and solid detail.
I think you'd be hard pressed to argue the Knight is somehow completely superior.
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
Man a lot of people are slinging gak at the turox in this thread. Have you not seen Victoria minis have the wheel convertion kit up now?
It almost kinda looks ok if you squint at it and focus on the wheels now.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
 Blacksails wrote:I also don't get the thing about sturdiness. So what if kit A is sturdier than kit B? So long as kit B is sturdy enough to play with, any increase in sturdiness (measured in units of Sturd) is effectively lost. No one hucking their models against walls...well maybe Tauroxes after someone realizes how feth ugly they are.
Actually, sturdiness is VERY important to me. I almost lost a majority of my first Necron army because of a family mishap involving tripping and bookshelves. When I got back into the game, I was actually able to repair some of them because of the models being durable (granted, some of them weren't worth fixing really; damn you Destroyers!), which helped save me money.
You can't plan for someone not throwing a model at a wall, but you don't think it's reassuring to know that they might be able to stand up to some abuse?
99
Post by: insaniak
AllSeeingSkink wrote:1. A large amount of the cost of producing a model (especially plastic) seems to be the start up cost, paying the creative team who came up with the idea, paying the sculptor to sculpt it, paying to get a mould made. The actual individual casting seems like a relatively small cost and all those other costs are diminishing the more models you sell. Thus if you intend to sell a lot of models, you should be able to afford to make them cheaper. The difference between including 4 identical sprues I would not expect to be significantly higher than including 2 identical sprues.
Yes and no. The development cost is indeed the significant bit (particularly with plastics) but having a kit that is going to sell in large quantities doesn't automatically equate to lower prices. What often happens is simply that the better selling kits that pay off their development costs faster wind up subsidising the creation of other kits that might not sell as well. So with the 40K example, the ever-popular Space Marine Tactical Squad box would have paid for its development costs reasonably quickly, and then profits from that kit would have gone into developing plastic scouts, or tank variants, or Tankbustas, or whatever else GW wanted to create in plastic that wouldn't necessarily actually pay for itself as quickly.
2. You aren't just selling individual models, you're selling armies. When I think of Revell, Tamiya, Dragon, they are companies selling individual models. They have to consider the costs and revenue of individual models. When you're selling armies, you need to consider the typical average costs of an entire army against the revenue per customer buying that army. It doesn't really matter if it costs you 10 cents to produce a single guardsman, because no one buys a single guardsman. It doesn't really even matter what the costs of entire box of guardsmen cost, because you can't make an army from 1 box of guardsmen.
It's not like this concept is unheard of... almost everything if you buy it in bulk you can get it cheaper But even within wargaming, you can often find examples of people selling large swaths of high quality models for low prices vs skirmish games of only a few models that sell much cheaper. GW are just trying to sell their models at skirmish level prices but you have to buy large swaths of them
I'm not saying a game that requires 200 models should cost the same as a game that requires 5 models... but the price per model should sure as hell be cheaper.
But the price per model can only be less if there is actually a reason for it to be less.
If the two models have the same production cost, and the same level of quality, there is absolutely no valid reason for one to cost less than the other.
It's complicated even further if you consider that a single company might sell both a skirmish game and a larger game. If the models for their larger game are priced lower purely because you're supposed to buy more of them, how are they supposed to sell the skirmish miniatures?
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Blacksails wrote: Azreal13 wrote:
That said, I can remember banks coming to our school when I was younger to try and recruit us, because they knew that people are not inclined to change banks frequently they tried to recruit as young as they could.
That's...odd. Almost creepy. You Brits are weird.
*Edit* Flags confuse me.
Hey, there was free calculators! Automatically Appended Next Post: Plumbumbarum wrote:
Show me something close to necrosphinx, latest wood elf guys, or Imperial Knights or Hive Tyrant made from hard plastic.
I'm sorry, based on what criteria?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Plumbumbarum wrote:But have to say that most of you have no idea what quality is in a proffesional sense. I'll start with definitions next time.
Yes, please start with definitions, and try to come up with some better ones. Because so far your definitions have been way too narrow. There's a lot more to quality than "skulls per square inch" and "low miscast rate", and you're completely ignoring all of those factors.
I absolutely hate Taurox design but it is, or rather might be top notch quality kit.
Only because you have a very narrow set of requirements for "quality" that have very little to do with "am I, as a potential customer, satisfied with this product".
Also looks are only part of what makes it quality kit and are only relevant with target audience.
Yes, it's only part, but it's a very important part. If a kit is shamefully ugly it doesn't matter if it has a 0.0000001% miscast rate, it's still a bad product that I'm not going to buy.
If sturdines is not important, try taking your dust tactics mechs to the shop for a game on weekly basis. Or play with non gaming models.
I play a FW DKOK army with plenty of fragile parts. And somehow I manage to take care of my models and have very rarely broken anything. An occasional arm has come unglued (requiring 30 seconds to fix), but other than that the only damage I've done to my models has come from knocking over aircraft on 12" rods. And even that damage was limited to a single cracked part that was easily fixed with no visible marks.
I think the conclusion here seems to be that you just need to take better care of your models.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Blacksails wrote:I also don't get the thing about sturdiness. So what if kit A is sturdier than kit B? So long as kit B is sturdy enough to play with, any increase in sturdiness (measured in units of Sturd) is effectively lost. No one hucking their models against walls...well maybe Tauroxes after someone realizes how feth ugly they are.
Actually, sturdiness is VERY important to me. I almost lost a majority of my first Necron army because of a family mishap involving tripping and bookshelves. When I got back into the game, I was actually able to repair some of them because of the models being durable (granted, some of them weren't worth fixing really; damn you Destroyers!), which helped save me money.
You can't plan for someone not throwing a model at a wall, but you don't think it's reassuring to know that they might be able to stand up to some abuse?
Sure, but you can say that about any hard plastic model, really. Really, your ability to glue things properly is going to have as much an impact on sturdiness as the innate quality of how the model is put together.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Plumbumbarum wrote:Show me something close to necrosphinx, latest wood elf guys, or Imperial Knights or Hive Tyrant made from hard plastic.
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal11/10301-10400/gal10326-F-104-Oslizlo/00.shtm
15717
Post by: Backfire
WayneTheGame wrote:
And GW loses on this front too because Perry and Victrix sell three or more times the figures for half the price as GW, for comparable quality (albeit a different design aesthetic as you cannot really compare quality between a Space Marine and a French Grenadier as they are two totally different visuals). There is nothing about GW's quality that warrants the kind of prices that they charge, for anything because other companies that don't have their own facilities (i.e. it costs them more to produce) can offer 60 models for less than what GW asks for 5 models.
Victrix, like nearly all other manufacturers other than GW, outsource their production to China, which is major factor why they are substantially cheaper. Looking at pictures, whilst those Romans are real good looking for the price, I'd also flat out say that they're not up to Sternguard level sculpt nor detail wise. No idea of size comparisons, but I'd bet that Sternguard models are signifantly beefier even if nominally same scale. Now I definitely agree that Sternguard price is quite insane (and not even the worst offenders - look at what plastic SM characters cost!), but the comparison isn't as clear-cut as you make it.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Why does beefiness matter?
I'd rather have more accurately scaled models than beef-chunks mcbeeferson.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Worth mentioning that those Hasegawa kits are also very competitively priced compared to GW kits. In some cases half what a medium-large a GW kit (Land Raider or similar)
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
Blacksails wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:
Show me something close to necrosphinx, latest wood elf guys, or Imperial Knights or Hive Tyrant made from hard plastic.
Well off the top of my head, this guy is a strong contender over the Knight. Better poseability are the biggest plus, combined with a better price for a large hard plastic kit with options and solid detail.
I think you'd be hard pressed to argue the Knight is somehow completely superior.
Exactly. The only thing that can make the GW Knight superior is its aesthetic. On every other level, the DFG Leviathan wins. The Leviathan is fully poseable, is actually designed to hotswap its weapons, and is even cheaper.
For other examples of superior plastics, look at the Kingdom Death models (some are NSFW, so be careful when searching) that are on the way. Automatically Appended Next Post: Backfire wrote:WayneTheGame wrote:
And GW loses on this front too because Perry and Victrix sell three or more times the figures for half the price as GW, for comparable quality (albeit a different design aesthetic as you cannot really compare quality between a Space Marine and a French Grenadier as they are two totally different visuals). There is nothing about GW's quality that warrants the kind of prices that they charge, for anything because other companies that don't have their own facilities (i.e. it costs them more to produce) can offer 60 models for less than what GW asks for 5 models.
Victrix, like nearly all other manufacturers other than GW, outsource their production to China, which is major factor why they are substantially cheaper. Looking at pictures, whilst those Romans are real good looking for the price, I'd also flat out say that they're not up to Sternguard level sculpt nor detail wise. No idea of size comparisons, but I'd bet that Sternguard models are signifantly beefier even if nominally same scale. Now I definitely agree that Sternguard price is quite insane (and not even the worst offenders - look at what plastic SM characters cost!), but the comparison isn't as clear-cut as you make it.
I would argue that GW should be the one that is cheaper. They essentially have a near-vertical monopoly on the production of their own models. The concepts are done inhouse. The sculpts are done inhouse. The tooling is done inhouse. The plastic production is done inhouse. All of that should actually help to lower costs when compared to other companies that have to pay for outside talent and production.
15717
Post by: Backfire
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Backfire wrote:
Victrix, like nearly all other manufacturers other than GW, outsource their production to China, which is major factor why they are substantially cheaper. Looking at pictures, whilst those Romans are real good looking for the price, I'd also flat out say that they're not up to Sternguard level sculpt nor detail wise. No idea of size comparisons, but I'd bet that Sternguard models are signifantly beefier even if nominally same scale. Now I definitely agree that Sternguard price is quite insane (and not even the worst offenders - look at what plastic SM characters cost!), but the comparison isn't as clear-cut as you make it.
I would argue that GW should be the one that is cheaper. They essentially have a near-vertical monopoly on the production of their own models. The concepts are done inhouse. The sculpts are done inhouse. The tooling is done inhouse. The plastic production is done inhouse. All of that should actually help to lower costs when compared to other companies that have to pay for outside talent and production.
No, the opposite is true. There is a reason why outsourcing is popular. Vertical integration brings other benefits, but it's not really cheap, which is why relatively few companies practice it nowadays.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Backfire wrote: Tannhauser42 wrote:
Backfire wrote:
Victrix, like nearly all other manufacturers other than GW, outsource their production to China, which is major factor why they are substantially cheaper. Looking at pictures, whilst those Romans are real good looking for the price, I'd also flat out say that they're not up to Sternguard level sculpt nor detail wise. No idea of size comparisons, but I'd bet that Sternguard models are signifantly beefier even if nominally same scale. Now I definitely agree that Sternguard price is quite insane (and not even the worst offenders - look at what plastic SM characters cost!), but the comparison isn't as clear-cut as you make it.
I would argue that GW should be the one that is cheaper. They essentially have a near-vertical monopoly on the production of their own models. The concepts are done inhouse. The sculpts are done inhouse. The tooling is done inhouse. The plastic production is done inhouse. All of that should actually help to lower costs when compared to other companies that have to pay for outside talent and production.
No, the opposite is true. There is a reason why outsourcing is popular. Vertical integration brings other benefits, but it's not really cheap, which is why relatively few companies practice it nowadays.
Because I doubt you'd take my word for it..
Literally the first result on Google wrote:
Vertical integration also typically offers significantly ability to control costs throughout the distribution process. In the traditional distribution process, every step in product movement involves mark-ups so the reseller can earn profit. By selling directly to end buyers, manufacturers can "eliminate the middle man," removing one or more steps of mark-ups along the way. A single entity managing the distribution process also has more ability to optimize resource utilization and avoid wasted costs. Lower transportation costs are common.
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
I still fail to see how that justifies GW costing twice as much as someone casting out of their garage.
Economy of scale matters too, not just where something is produced.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
More importantly, why do I as a customer care about justifying GW's prices? I don't care if the prices are high because of a bad production system or just because GW wants more profit, I care about how much I have to pay for the final product. A $50 tactical squad that costs $50 because of inefficient manufacturing is no better than a $50 tactical squad that costs $50 because GW wants an extra $10 profit from selling it, I'm still paying $50 for a tactical squad.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Not to mention that GW used to use companies in China for production, IIRC, and still charged a premium when compared to other companies.
15717
Post by: Backfire
Azreal13 wrote:Backfire wrote: No, the opposite is true. There is a reason why outsourcing is popular. Vertical integration brings other benefits, but it's not really cheap, which is why relatively few companies practice it nowadays.
Because I doubt you'd take my word for it.. Literally the first result on Google wrote:
Vertical integration also typically offers significantly ability to control costs throughout the distribution process. In the traditional distribution process, every step in product movement involves mark-ups so the reseller can earn profit. By selling directly to end buyers, manufacturers can "eliminate the middle man," removing one or more steps of mark-ups along the way. A single entity managing the distribution process also has more ability to optimize resource utilization and avoid wasted costs. Lower transportation costs are common.
Again, if it was true, then more companies would practice it. Note how in the past, big manufacturing companies had very deep level of vertical integration. For example, Ford used to own its own cotton fields so it could manufacture all necessary textiles for the cars it produced. By contrast, these days a company like Apple doesn't manufacture anything. They have never manufactured a single iPhone - it's all outsourced to dedicated manufacturing companies like Foxconn, who in turn have their own subcontractors etc. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Peregrine wrote:More importantly, why do I as a customer care about justifying GW's prices? I don't care if the prices are high because of a bad production system or just because GW wants more profit, I care about how much I have to pay for the final product. A $50 tactical squad that costs $50 because of inefficient manufacturing is no better than a $50 tactical squad that costs $50 because GW wants an extra $10 profit from selling it, I'm still paying $50 for a tactical squad.
Well, common complaint nowadays is that manufacturing is moved to 3rd World countries where exploited workers do 12 hour shifts with crappy salaries and non-existent worker care...whatever other faults GW has, they don't do that. Well, they did have some production in China (ForgeWorld IIRC) and the accessories are mostly outsourced, but main production is still in the home country, a rarity these days.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Backfire wrote: Azreal13 wrote:Backfire wrote:
No, the opposite is true. There is a reason why outsourcing is popular. Vertical integration brings other benefits, but it's not really cheap, which is why relatively few companies practice it nowadays.
Because I doubt you'd take my word for it..
Literally the first result on Google wrote:
Vertical integration also typically offers significantly ability to control costs throughout the distribution process. In the traditional distribution process, every step in product movement involves mark-ups so the reseller can earn profit. By selling directly to end buyers, manufacturers can "eliminate the middle man," removing one or more steps of mark-ups along the way. A single entity managing the distribution process also has more ability to optimize resource utilization and avoid wasted costs. Lower transportation costs are common.
Again, if it was true, then more companies would practice it. Note how in the past, big manufacturing companies had very deep level of vertical integration. For example, Ford used to own its own cotton fields so it could manufacture all necessary textiles for the cars it produced. By contrast, these days a company like Apple doesn't manufacture anything. They have never manufactured a single iPhone - it's all outsourced to dedicated manufacturing companies like Foxconn, who in turn have their own subcontractors etc.
If it was true....if...it...was...true.
Hookay. Well, this is going nowhere.
You're just getting hung up on various levels of vertical integration.
I suppose we can't call GW vertically integrated because they don't own the oil plants to extract the crude nor the refineries needed to turn it into plastic?
We aren't allow to call Apple vertically integrated despite the fact they maintain a worldwide chain of their own retail shops?
There are many, many examples, literally any brand of good whose parent company maintains a retail chain, of vertical integration, the level that GW employs may be higher than is common, but to say it isn't widely practiced is daft.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Apple charges what it does for its products because they can. Because they have literally no competition for iOS devices, as they have a monopoly on that specific line of products (and patents on most of the accessories for them, too). Of course, they compete with other cellphone manufacturers on iPhones, for the consumer not dedicated to an iOS device, and have some competition on personal music players like their iPod line, and similar competition in the tablet/netbook market with their iPad devices.
... all of which serve to keep costs to the consumer down.
GW has plenty of competition for miniatures. Why, then, are their prices not competitive?
89259
Post by: Talys
 Psienesis wrote:Apple charges what it does for its products because they can. Because they have literally no competition for iOS devices, as they have a monopoly on that specific line of products (and patents on most of the accessories for them, too). Of course, they compete with other cellphone manufacturers on iPhones, for the consumer not dedicated to an iOS device, and have some competition on personal music players like their iPod line, and similar competition in the tablet/netbook market with their iPad devices.
... all of which serve to keep costs to the consumer down.
GW has plenty of competition for miniatures. Why, then, are their prices not competitive?
I disagree. GW and Apple are not bad comparisons at all.
Personally, I think that iOS devices are grossly overrated and overpriced, and that Windows alternatives (like Dell Venue Pro 8 and Surface Pro 3) are far superior in every meaningful way, including price, functionality, aesthetic, and available software. I'm sure there are people who think exactly the same of GW, and (fill in the blank for competitor)
In the same way that some (many) buy Apple products just do so because they like the distinct products, I buy GW products because I happen to like them, and the price into out of my range. I do also buy a lot of stuff from other miniature companies, but I happen to like a lot of things about the GW models.
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
 wuestenfux wrote: ImAGeek wrote: wuestenfux wrote:Well, my Cyriss faction has been as expensive as my Necron army, 5000 pts, played in apoc games.
I presented details elsewhere here at Dakka.
The issue with GW for me is their policy not to talk to the customer.
PP is much more open minded.
How on earth did a Cyriss force cost the same as a 5000 pt Necron army? Either you have like one of everything and multiples of the Vectors and like 5 Prime Axioms or you got your Necron very cheap which is hardly a fair comparison... And saying 'elsewhere on Dakka' doesn't help, could be anywhere, could you link it?
I could link it later as I'm underway.
I have been surprised too.
Here is the link:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/618447.page#7306300
63000
Post by: Peregrine
But those aren't really fair comparisons.
Your list comparison involves a single 40k list against two Warmachine lists. While there's some overlap in models between the two lists and therefore it isn't doubling the cost it's still a significant cost increase. And yes, I know that Warmachine tournaments use a dual-list format, but you don't have to start playing and go straight to tournaments. A single list will work just fine for pickup games at your local store, and that significantly reduces the barrier to entry for a new player.
Your whole collection comparison involves enough Warmachine models to play any list you want, but I can't see how your 5000 points of Necrons could do the same just because of how many 40k lists spam multiple copies of the same unit. Another ~3k points might be enough to get one copy of every unit, but can you make a spam list built around each concept? And I really don't understand how the remaining ~3k points in your collection can be cheaper than the ~2k points in your tournament list. Are you counting used models/scratchbuilds/etc in the rest of the collection?
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
wuestenfux wrote: wuestenfux wrote: ImAGeek wrote: wuestenfux wrote:Well, my Cyriss faction has been as expensive as my Necron army, 5000 pts, played in apoc games.
I presented details elsewhere here at Dakka.
The issue with GW for me is their policy not to talk to the customer.
PP is much more open minded.
How on earth did a Cyriss force cost the same as a 5000 pt Necron army? Either you have like one of everything and multiples of the Vectors and like 5 Prime Axioms or you got your Necron very cheap which is hardly a fair comparison... And saying 'elsewhere on Dakka' doesn't help, could be anywhere, could you link it?
I could link it later as I'm underway.
I have been surprised too.
Here is the link:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/618447.page#7306300
Ah okay I see. Yeah if you have two 50pt Tournament lists for WMH it's not going to be cheap, but in terms of start up cost WMH is cheaper. I ordered a 35pt army including rules (which is like medium-large sized for WMH id say?) for £140 the other day, I doubt I'd be able to get an equivalent sized army including rules for 40k. I guess if I'd got an infantry heavy force It would be more but then the same applies to GW.
And also the points Peregrine mentioned above ^
52675
Post by: Deadnight
Makumba wrote:
You need work to get one and an account at a bank. Even if your parents put more then enough money for a buy on your account, your still not going to get a card unless you bring an official paper from work that you earn a minimum wage , that or you have some sort of social or pension.
its not the obstacle you claim it to be Makumba. age is generally a thing, but debit cards are pretty standard these days - they're just a convenient way of paying. i find it hard to believe you need an income stream to get one. credit cards are a different story, but debit cards are pretty safe - you can only spend whats in your account. In any case, why not go to your parents? When i was a kid, and if i needed to buy something via a card, i got my mom to buy it, and i paid her in cash.
Makumba wrote:
And as for people buying models cheaper here there are two options. There was one store in warsaw that had WM models and it was selling it stock, because it was closing. Or they bought models from people not stores. There is not even an official seller of PP stuff for Poland, that actualy sells models.
two shops in all of poland that sell warmachine stuff? Yeah, i dont buy that for a second. regardless, you dont need an "official" seller. thats not how Privateer Press works. PP dont have a retail chain. they outsource most of their retail operations and rely on independent distributors and retailers. there doesnt need to be an "official" seller in order for you to get stuff. All you need is for your LGSs to be relatively competent and be able to source some of those distributors. business 101. Failing that, there is nothing stopping you going direct to the source and getting things yourself by ordering online from the various UK and EU based stores. they ship to Poland.
Makumba wrote:
So yes you can order stuff online and pay for posting those heavy metal models from US. And if you get lucky customs will open the big heavy box and check what is inside and if they have a good day, they will class the stuff not as import toys and according with the law put the 23% vat on it.
um, no.
some misconceptions here. You wont be paying for posting from the US. Privateer Press outsource a lot of their manufacturing. IIRC their european manufacturer is a company called Cerberus, and they're based in Liverpool in England. Any of the european retailers, distributors and stores will be getting their stuff sourced there ultimately. My old LGS owner used to deal directly with Cerberus for anything that he wanted to order in before Wayland picked up the contract. In any case, whats stopping you from buying from any of the UK based online stores (wayland etc) that also offer 10-20% discounts. Dont think for a second that its all coming from the US. add in your 23% vat as a worst case scenario, and you're paying recommended retail price. thats not that shocking. Ordering from within the EU with all our free trade etc should make it relatively easy on your end.
Peregrine wrote:
But those aren't really fair comparisons.
Your list comparison involves a single 40k list against two Warmachine lists. While there's some overlap in models between the two lists and therefore it isn't doubling the cost it's still a significant cost increase. And yes, I know that Warmachine tournaments use a dual-list format, but you don't have to start playing and go straight to tournaments. A single list will work just fine for pickup games at your local store, and that significantly reduces the barrier to entry for a new player.
Your whole collection comparison involves enough Warmachine models to play any list you want, but I can't see how your 5000 points of Necrons could do the same just because of how many 40k lists spam multiple copies of the same unit. Another ~3k points might be enough to get one copy of every unit, but can you make a spam list built around each concept? And I really don't understand how the remaining ~3k points in your collection can be cheaper than the ~2k points in your tournament list. Are you counting used models/scratchbuilds/etc in the rest of the collection?
they're not unfair comparisons either. Warmachine/Hordes is balanced around steamroller and two, or three list formats. In 40k, there is a focus on "building a list", and thats you, and thats your army. thats not really the case in WMH. Its find to start off with 1 list, but the simple reality is that no one will *just* play that one list. everyone will expand quickly, at least with an extra caster or two, and a small sideboard of swap-in units/jacks/beasts.
I find that WMH tourney lists can vary in cost enormously. i took my three lists to the scottish masters recently. amongst what i'd taken were two squads of black dragon pikemen, butcher3, vlad 3, max uhlans, max greylord outriders and the behemoth. Individually - quite pricey, and i'm sure that if you priced my three lists it would cost loads. then again, on the other side, with my Hordes list, its a lot more reasonable. Kromac, Mohsar, Morvahna2, 2 stalkers, gorax and ghetorix. unit wise - bloodtrackers, wolf riders, shrimps,stones etc. Probably comes out at half of my khador stuff, as i'm able to use a lot of it across all three of my lists.
Warmachine is cheaper to get into. 40k's costs are all frontloaded. with WMH, the up-front costs are a lot less, and its generally the done thing that people expand gradually. Regardless, you can end up spending equal amounts on both games.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Yeah peregrine aircraft model can get there, except for the fact that they wouldn't last 2 games. I gave a Tomcat model to a kid and it was in pieces in 20 minutes. I also gave him an sm predator and it is still in the same shape, after a year. You cant compare them directly even if again you will claim that sturdiness is not important. GW uses much thickier parts and manufacture of gaming pieces is a different thing than of exposition pieces.
Peregrine wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:But have to say that most of you have no idea what quality is in a proffesional sense. I'll start with definitions next time.
Yes, please start with definitions, and try to come up with some better ones. Because so far your definitions have been way too narrow. There's a lot more to quality than "skulls per square inch" and "low miscast rate", and you're completely ignoring all of those factors.
Wow you lost in my eyes, falacies and shallow reading left and right. It wasn't about the things you mention the way you portray it at all and I havnt yet mention miscasts a single time. Get down to forgeworld then yes we might talk that. The point about detail is that if you hate skulls but 97% of consumers love them then the skulls are adding to the quality of the pieces regardless of your opinion. Also capability to put so much skullls on a model is quality too, again assuming that vast majority of your consumers like the effect.
Peregrine wrote:I absolutely hate Taurox design but it is, or rather might be top notch quality kit.
Only because you have a very narrow set of requirements for "quality" that have very little to do with "am I, as a potential customer, satisfied with this product".
As opposed to you who have it broad like it's ugly therefore everybody must find it ugly therefore low quality. And no it's not narrow, just unlike you I get beyond myself and mine reception and unlike you I assume that my personal distaste for a piece does not rule out that others like it. Quality of product is about numbers not Peregrine's taste so give me numbers if you want to claim taurox is not a quality piece based on its looks. GW plastics, especialy the new ones have practicaly zero flaws from the standpoint of what is required for a quality wargaming tabletop piece but you dissmis its quality based on personal taste. You just dont get it, again.
Peregrine wrote:Also looks are only part of what makes it quality kit and are only relevant with target audience.
Yes, it's only part, but it's a very important part. If a kit is shamefully ugly it doesn't matter if it has a 0.0000001% miscast rate, it's still a bad product that I'm not going to buy.
Prove that its shamefuly ugly. I think so too but prove it, and prove that it's not what majority of IG players like as a new transport or whatever that is. Because thats how you quantify taste when it comes to assesing quality.
Peregrine wrote:If sturdines is not important, try taking your dust tactics mechs to the shop for a game on weekly basis. Or play with non gaming models.
I play a FW DKOK army with plenty of fragile parts. And somehow I manage to take care of my models and have very rarely broken anything. An occasional arm has come unglued (requiring 30 seconds to fix), but other than that the only damage I've done to my models has come from knocking over aircraft on 12" rods. And even that damage was limited to a single cracked part that was easily fixed with no visible marks.
I think the conclusion here seems to be that you just need to take better care of your models.
Or the conclusion is that not everyone has to be required to be so anal about their gaming pieces and if you actualy sit down and ask yourself what quality means in relation to gaming pieces, sturdiness will come as one of the first things beecause those are things meant to withstand various forms of abuse. It's better when you don't have to worry about your minis that much when gaming, transporting, modeling or having an accident out of bad luck - objective fact that does not change because Peregrine is super careful about his toys. Btw I speak from broad perspective all the time not my own, thats how you define quality requirements for a product but you still havn't comprehended it. I never broke a mini only had to paint dust tactics mech and treat it like a model plane because of how delicate it was.
Also no wonder you care so much after paying that much for medium quality minis made from crap material that you have to go extra mile to glue properly (see hierophant legs) and can be made better by garage chinamen. They are saved only by exquisite sculpts, and thats the only quality thing about them. Arguably detail but thats standard with resin unlike with plastics, where GW excells in comparision to others.
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
 Accolade wrote:It's not even like 40k was always this bloated-skirmish size game. People like to say "I play 40k because it's more the game feels bigger" to justify its purchase compared to other games (like X-Wing and WMH) that have pricey models but smaller model counts for games. The thing is, 4th and 5th editions got along fine with that whole "bigger game" thing without the model count going through the roof, and 6th and 7th just dumped the whole concept of game scale and threw in everything and the kitchen sink. Each new edition compressed army points more, so that that $30 box of Dark Eldar wyches is worth less and less in the game experience.
You basically have to look at any expensive kit and say "okay, I need 2-3 of those, so let me triple the price for this small portion of the army." Don't get me wrong, I like the models...I'd just rather them be something more than placeholders considering how expensive they are.
This so much.
Personally I also just find for both campaigns and general fun with friends and family to be better at less then two thousand points, or around Kill Team size but removing the no 2+ save rule.
I don't even know why people want to play apocolypse scale games in the first place, as infantry is useless and all those wonderful models you put so much effort into painting just get swept off the table, not to mention the shear amount of time spent rolling dice is insane.
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
Your whole collection comparison involves enough Warmachine models to play any list you want, but I can't see how your 5000 points of Necrons could do the same just because of how many 40k lists spam multiple copies of the same unit. Another ~3k points might be enough to get one copy of every unit, but can you make a spam list built around each concept? And I really don't understand how the remaining ~3k points in your collection can be cheaper than the ~2k points in your tournament list. Are you counting used models/scratchbuilds/etc in the rest of the collection?
Here I counted the superheavies, Ctan and Obelisk, who alone fill 1000 pts.
They are comparable with a Colossal in WH.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Plumbumbarum wrote:Yeah peregrine aircraft model can get there, except for the fact that they wouldn't last 2 games. I gave a Tomcat model to a kid and it was in pieces in 20 minutes. I also gave him an sm predator and it is still in the same shape, after a year. You cant compare them directly even if again you will claim that sturdiness is not important. GW uses much thickier parts and manufacture of gaming pieces is a different thing than of exposition pieces.
Again, why do I care about what happens when you give a model to a young child and let them smash it? I take care of my models, and I could play as many games as I want with that F-104 model without breaking anything. The extra durability of GW's kits is only added value if you assume that you're not going to treat your models properly, which means that for many people it isn't added value at all.
It wasn't about the things you mention the way you portray it at all and I havnt yet mention miscasts a single time.
Yes you did:
If Dust Tactics sell you a mech for comparable price but it's made of thin plastic, is full of mold lines etc and overall a worse gaming piece, then the fact that you need only 2 is irrelevant to the fact that you got less, not more for the money.
The point about detail is that if you hate skulls but 97% of consumers love them then the skulls are adding to the quality of the pieces regardless of your opinion.
Sure, some people like them. But you know what that is? A subjective preference. Your claim that you're only talking about objective standards is completely destroyed by what you just said, and now you no longer have any excuse for rejecting factors like "the Taurox is ugly".
As opposed to you who have it broad like it's ugly therefore everybody must find it ugly therefore low quality.
I never said that everyone finds it to be low quality, I said that I find it to be low quality.
GW plastics, especialy the new ones have practicaly zero flaws from the standpoint of what is required for a quality wargaming tabletop piece but you dissmis its quality based on personal taste.
Again, appearance is a flaw. If GW's kit is so ugly that I'd be embarrassed to have one in my army then it's not a high-quality product no matter how many skulls per square inch it has.
Prove that its shamefuly ugly. I think so too but prove it, and prove that it's not what majority of IG players like as a new transport or whatever that is. Because thats how you quantify taste when it comes to assesing quality.
You know just as well as I do that GW doesn't release sales numbers for specific kits, but the number of "wow this sucks" opinions and third-party conversion kits that attempt to salvage the Taurox would suggest that it wasn't a very popular design.
Or the conclusion is that not everyone has to be required to be so anal about their gaming pieces and if you actualy sit down and ask yourself what quality means in relation to gaming pieces, sturdiness will come as one of the first things beecause those are things meant to withstand various forms of abuse.
Again, why do they need to withstand abuse? My models are never abused, and in my experience the people who do abuse their models don't really care if random parts break off as a result. If GW is sacrificing appearance to make their models survive being smashed by an angry five year old then they're producing a low quality product from my point of view.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote:they're not unfair comparisons either. Warmachine/Hordes is balanced around steamroller and two, or three list formats. In 40k, there is a focus on "building a list", and thats you, and thats your army. thats not really the case in WMH. Its find to start off with 1 list, but the simple reality is that no one will *just* play that one list. everyone will expand quickly, at least with an extra caster or two, and a small sideboard of swap-in units/jacks/beasts.
Well yeah, people will expand their collections eventually. But where "total cost to play" matters most is when you're a new player and trying to get your first army on the table. And in that context the total cost to play 40k is much higher than the total cost to play WM/H. And of course once you do finish buying that initial force each new WM/H purchase gives you a much higher percentage of a new army than an equivalent-price 40k purchase so it's a lot cheaper to try new things.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
From now on just put me down as 'what Peregrine said'.
52675
Post by: Deadnight
Peregrine wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote:they're not unfair comparisons either. Warmachine/Hordes is balanced around steamroller and two, or three list formats. In 40k, there is a focus on "building a list", and thats you, and thats your army. thats not really the case in WMH. Its find to start off with 1 list, but the simple reality is that no one will *just* play that one list. everyone will expand quickly, at least with an extra caster or two, and a small sideboard of swap-in units/jacks/beasts.
Well yeah, people will expand their collections eventually. But where "total cost to play" matters most is when you're a new player and trying to get your first army on the table. And in that context the total cost to play 40k is much higher than the total cost to play WM/H. And of course once you do finish buying that initial force each new WM/H purchase gives you a much higher percentage of a new army than an equivalent-price 40k purchase so it's a lot cheaper to try new things.
Agreed on the 'cost to play' point regarding getting your first army together. It's a lot easier to 'get into' WMH to begin with, and it's easier to expand with it, and as you say, get that 'new army' feel from each expansion, especially since how even swapping out a single piece can change the feel and style of a whole army. The fact it's not all front loaded is a bonus. In the long run though, it can be pricey.  just don't baulk when you start purchasing cavalry. And when you price out your two or three lists with little overlap, you might be surprised as well. Depending on how you've built your armies of course.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
The main thing I think is gonna cost me most in WMH is the fact that I like almost every bloody faction -.- the cheaper start up costs for a new army are almost dangerous in that sense. Same with if I get into Malifaux with all the dual faction stuff...
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Makumba wrote:
And as for people buying models cheaper here there are two options. There was one store in warsaw that had WM models and it was selling it stock, because it was closing. Or they bought models from people not stores. There is not even an official seller of PP stuff for Poland, that actualy sells models.
No, they were buying NIB products from local retailers that the organization had invited to be present at the event. The only things that they said had the same price as the rest of Europe were the Colossals / Gargantuans, everything else they said was significantly cheaper.
And PP doesn't work with "official sellers" in specific countries, the official distributor for PP products in Europe is Simple Miniatures, so get your local retailer to get in touch with them. (I'm getting deja vu, haven't we had this conversation already?!)
Makumba wrote:
So yes you can order stuff online and pay for posting those heavy metal models from US. And if you get lucky customs will open the big heavy box and check what is inside and if they have a good day, they will class the stuff not as import toys and according with the law put the 23% vat on it.
That is not how online orders work in the EU... Lots of places have no shipping costs when you reach a certain level with your purchase, for my preferred online retailer (Firestorm Games), any order above 30 € gets free shipping to anywhere in Europe and every product has a 20% discount already. And since Poland is a part of the EU, you don't pay any extra taxes for products that you've bought in another EU country. I have no idea how you could even think that PP models had to be imported from the US by every retailer / individual customer, that would be insane! Automatically Appended Next Post: wuestenfux wrote: wuestenfux wrote: ImAGeek wrote: wuestenfux wrote:Well, my Cyriss faction has been as expensive as my Necron army, 5000 pts, played in apoc games.
I presented details elsewhere here at Dakka.
The issue with GW for me is their policy not to talk to the customer.
PP is much more open minded.
How on earth did a Cyriss force cost the same as a 5000 pt Necron army? Either you have like one of everything and multiples of the Vectors and like 5 Prime Axioms or you got your Necron very cheap which is hardly a fair comparison... And saying 'elsewhere on Dakka' doesn't help, could be anywhere, could you link it?
I could link it later as I'm underway.
I have been surprised too.
Here is the link:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/618447.page#7306300
I don't get your comparisons... By your own accounts, you can get the whole model range for an entire faction for less than your Necron army and this makes it just as expensive?! And your initial comparison between the 2 WM lists vs 1 40k list: the 2 WM lists are still cheaper than the single 40k army even when you jack up their price by including things that you don't need like the army book and this makes it as expensive as 40k?! 
15717
Post by: Backfire
Azreal13 wrote:
If it was true....if...it...was...true.
Hookay. Well, this is going nowhere.
You're just getting hung up on various levels of vertical integration.
I suppose we can't call GW vertically integrated because they don't own the oil plants to extract the crude nor the refineries needed to turn it into plastic?
We aren't allow to call Apple vertically integrated despite the fact they maintain a worldwide chain of their own retail shops?
There are many, many examples, literally any brand of good whose parent company maintains a retail chain, of vertical integration, the level that GW employs may be higher than is common, but to say it isn't widely practiced is daft.
Well, if you insist on having an example closer to GW than Apple, then how about nearly all plastic model kit manufacturers? Almost no one - other than small garage companies - produce anything in the West (or Japan). I think Revell was one of the last, when they closed their German plant. All the production moved to 3rd world countries in the '90s, mostly China. And that industry is more competive than miniatures market, if those companies believed they could produce cheaper in-house like they did in days of yore, they certainly would.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Jesus Peregrine, the thing about giving Tomcat to my child was an example to show the difference in sturdiness between aircraft model and gw tank, it doesn't mean that they literaly have to be made to withstand kids playing with them. Just like with the xwing comparision before, I could have used other system as an example of how you can go into absurd with your argument, it had nothing to do with exact point cost or unit numbers. Some things fly over your head, might be my explaining but they do.
Just as my initial point about comparing cost and quality of miniatures. When you want to compare quality on global scale and take aesthetics into account then you quantify subjective preferences and with that data, it becomes objective at least in realation to your customers base (well as objective as you can get because total objectivity might be impossible). At that point your or mine dislike of taurox just doesn't matter anymore. You can say ofc that judgidng by dakka reactions it's objectively atrocious but it's not proof, we don't have means to research peoples reaction to it accurately and as said GW dont realease sales data. So, my point is, you can't use your dislike for their designs as an argument that their minis are worse quality than someone elses and therefore are relatively overpriced or sth. Amount of detail, sturdiness, how parts fit together and high tech involved that allows them do things other companies are in apable of with plastics (dont ask I read it somewhere) are more objective measures.
Not to mention you equaling detail to skulls is unfair, it is used for many great things on 40k plastics.
I didn't know mold line qualifies as miscast, my bad.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Blacksails wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:
Show me something close to necrosphinx, latest wood elf guys, or Imperial Knights or Hive Tyrant made from hard plastic.
Well off the top of my head, this guy is a strong contender over the Knight. Better poseability are the biggest plus, combined with a better price for a large hard plastic kit with options and solid detail.
I think you'd be hard pressed to argue the Knight is somehow completely superior.
Just re-posting this in case our friend Plumbum missed it.
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
don't get your comparisons... By your own accounts, you can get the whole model range for an entire faction for less than your Necron army and this makes it just as expensive?! And your initial comparison between the 2 WM lists vs 1 40k list: the 2 WM lists are still cheaper than the single 40k army even when you jack up their price by including things that you don't need like the army book and this makes it as expensive as 40k?!
At the end of the day, the comparison is not unfair.
WM/H is not as cheap as some might think.
It is clear that the entry pt could be cheaper with 2 player boxes and building a single 35 pt faction is affordable.
But with all the shiny models and units around, like Mercenaries
and Minions, a WM/H army can become rather expensive.
Moreover, Cyriss is one of the cheapest factions since the
model range is rather limited (since its rather new) and there
are no Mercenaries around.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
wuestenfux wrote: don't get your comparisons... By your own accounts, you can get the whole model range for an entire faction for less than your Necron army and this makes it just as expensive?! And your initial comparison between the 2 WM lists vs 1 40k list: the 2 WM lists are still cheaper than the single 40k army even when you jack up their price by including things that you don't need like the army book and this makes it as expensive as 40k?!
At the end of the day, the comparison is not unfair. WM/H is not as cheap as some might think. It is clear that the entry pt could be cheaper with 2 player boxes and building a single 35 pt faction is affordable. But with all the shiny models and units around, like Mercenaries and Minions, a WM/H army can become rather expensive. Moreover, Cyriss is one of the cheapest factions since the model range is rather limited (since its rather new) and there are no Mercenaries around.
Nobody has said it's "cheap", the argument is that it's A) Cheaper to get a regular army to play, since a 35-point WM/H army often costs the same as a 750 point 40k army, and B) You get more value for what you buy because duplicates are rare and you don't need 2 boxes to make one unit. I don't feel like I'm being cheated or not getting my money's worth when I buy a $50 or even $60 box for a unit for WM/H, the same can't be said about buying a 10-man squad for 40k. Maybe that's because you typically need multiples of the same box for 40k (e.g. 3 Tactical Squads) and the units feel like they are less significant, while basically every WM/H unit adds some new dynamic to the list to where you typically don't need the same unit more than once except in some cases.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Holy crap, my entire Cyriss army was about $250.
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
WayneTheGame wrote: wuestenfux wrote: don't get your comparisons... By your own accounts, you can get the whole model range for an entire faction for less than your Necron army and this makes it just as expensive?! And your initial comparison between the 2 WM lists vs 1 40k list: the 2 WM lists are still cheaper than the single 40k army even when you jack up their price by including things that you don't need like the army book and this makes it as expensive as 40k?!
At the end of the day, the comparison is not unfair.
WM/H is not as cheap as some might think.
It is clear that the entry pt could be cheaper with 2 player boxes and building a single 35 pt faction is affordable.
But with all the shiny models and units around, like Mercenaries
and Minions, a WM/H army can become rather expensive.
Moreover, Cyriss is one of the cheapest factions since the
model range is rather limited (since its rather new) and there
are no Mercenaries around.
Nobody has said it's "cheap", the argument is that it's A) Cheaper to get a regular army to play, since a 35-point WM/H army often costs the same as a 750 point 40k army, and B) You get more value for what you buy because duplicates are rare and you don't need 2 boxes to make one unit.
I don't feel like I'm being cheated or not getting my money's worth when I buy a $50 or even $60 box for a unit for WM/H, the same can't be said about buying a 10-man squad for 40k. Maybe that's because you typically need multiples of the same box for 40k (e.g. 3 Tactical Squads) and the units feel like they are less significant, while basically every WM/H unit adds some new dynamic to the list to where you typically don't need the same unit more than once except in some cases.
Indeed, in WM/H you basically need one unit exactly once.
There are exceptions to this like Bane Thralls in Cryx who can be placed in a feat (Shade1).
53939
Post by: vipoid
Plumbumbarum wrote:
Show me something close to necrosphinx, latest wood elf guys, or Imperial Knights or Hive Tyrant made from hard plastic.
Are the GW knights really that good? Honestly, I find them pretty unimpressive.
- As far as detail goes, much of it appears to be either bling (oh good, more purity seals), or just painted on (which has nothing to do with the quality of the model itself).
- In terms of aesthetics, they look... strange. Their top 'shell' in particular looks like it was taken off an aircraft or something, giving the overall appearance of a model that was built from scraps - which is something I'd expect more of ork models.
- Finally, they don't even look functional. These things are supposed to be tough, right? So, why is it covered in exposed wires and pipes? Aren't they the sort of thing you'd want to protect? I really can't see this thing being hard to disable. Hell, just look at the back - there doesn't appear to be any armour at all. There's just a frame and what I can only presume to be some pretty important components that are completely exposed.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Backfire wrote: Azreal13 wrote:
If it was true....if...it...was...true.
Hookay. Well, this is going nowhere.
You're just getting hung up on various levels of vertical integration.
I suppose we can't call GW vertically integrated because they don't own the oil plants to extract the crude nor the refineries needed to turn it into plastic?
We aren't allow to call Apple vertically integrated despite the fact they maintain a worldwide chain of their own retail shops?
There are many, many examples, literally any brand of good whose parent company maintains a retail chain, of vertical integration, the level that GW employs may be higher than is common, but to say it isn't widely practiced is daft.
Well, if you insist on having an example closer to GW than Apple, then how about nearly all plastic model kit manufacturers? Almost no one - other than small garage companies - produce anything in the West (or Japan). I think Revell was one of the last, when they closed their German plant. All the production moved to 3rd world countries in the '90s, mostly China. And that industry is more competive than miniatures market, if those companies believed they could produce cheaper in-house like they did in days of yore, they certainly would.
No, I don't insist on an example closer to GW, I have no need of that to demonstrate that your original assertion which was along the lines of "vertical integration doesn't offer cost savings which is why it doesn't happen that often" to be outright wrong.
There is no need to make comparisons to other kit makers, there is no need to continue this line of discussion, you made a point based on a demonstrably flawed premise, which I provided a quote from an economics site and a number of real world examples where it does happen (and can offer more) please accept that, and if you're not big enough to at least admit it, at least move on.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
wuestenfux wrote:WayneTheGame wrote: wuestenfux wrote: don't get your comparisons... By your own accounts, you can get the whole model range for an entire faction for less than your Necron army and this makes it just as expensive?! And your initial comparison between the 2 WM lists vs 1 40k list: the 2 WM lists are still cheaper than the single 40k army even when you jack up their price by including things that you don't need like the army book and this makes it as expensive as 40k?!
At the end of the day, the comparison is not unfair.
WM/H is not as cheap as some might think.
It is clear that the entry pt could be cheaper with 2 player boxes and building a single 35 pt faction is affordable.
But with all the shiny models and units around, like Mercenaries
and Minions, a WM/H army can become rather expensive.
Moreover, Cyriss is one of the cheapest factions since the
model range is rather limited (since its rather new) and there
are no Mercenaries around.
Nobody has said it's "cheap", the argument is that it's A) Cheaper to get a regular army to play, since a 35-point WM/H army often costs the same as a 750 point 40k army, and B) You get more value for what you buy because duplicates are rare and you don't need 2 boxes to make one unit.
I don't feel like I'm being cheated or not getting my money's worth when I buy a $50 or even $60 box for a unit for WM/H, the same can't be said about buying a 10-man squad for 40k. Maybe that's because you typically need multiples of the same box for 40k (e.g. 3 Tactical Squads) and the units feel like they are less significant, while basically every WM/H unit adds some new dynamic to the list to where you typically don't need the same unit more than once except in some cases.
Indeed, in WM/H you basically need one unit exactly once.
There are exceptions to this like Bane Thralls in Cryx who can be placed in a feat (Shade1).
 Iron Fang Pikemen with Butcher1 Claws of the Dragon...
Yet I still don't feel bad paying ~$120USD per unit for those. I cringed at the idea of around $100 for a full 10-man Sternguard squad though.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
wuestenfux wrote: don't get your comparisons... By your own accounts, you can get the whole model range for an entire faction for less than your Necron army and this makes it just as expensive?! And your initial comparison between the 2 WM lists vs 1 40k list: the 2 WM lists are still cheaper than the single 40k army even when you jack up their price by including things that you don't need like the army book and this makes it as expensive as 40k?!
At the end of the day, the comparison is not unfair. WM/H is not as cheap as some might think. It is clear that the entry pt could be cheaper with 2 player boxes and building a single 35 pt faction is affordable. But with all the shiny models and units around, like Mercenaries and Minions, a WM/H army can become rather expensive. Moreover, Cyriss is one of the cheapest factions since the model range is rather limited (since its rather new) and there are no Mercenaries around.
How is the comparison not unfair? You are taking every single model in a WM range and comparing them with a single 40k army of very limited size. If you wan't to compare the cost to own every single model in a WM range then compare it to the cost of owning every single model in that 40k race, including the multiples that you'll need. If you are comparing the need to buy every single merc that eventually works with your WM faction, then compare it with the cost of buying every single allied unit that works with your 40k race ( ). If you wan't to make a fair comparison, then you have to compare similar things from both sides, you can't take everything from one side, compare it with just a very limited portion of the other and then claim that they cost the same!
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Blacksails wrote: Blacksails wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:
Show me something close to necrosphinx, latest wood elf guys, or Imperial Knights or Hive Tyrant made from hard plastic.
Well off the top of my head, this guy is a strong contender over the Knight. Better poseability are the biggest plus, combined with a better price for a large hard plastic kit with options and solid detail.
I think you'd be hard pressed to argue the Knight is somehow completely superior.
Just re-posting this in case our friend Plumbum missed it.
I didn't miss it my friend Brasails. I never liked that model, lookwise it's toyish and horrible for me and probably wouldnt even prefer it over dreadknight if I had a choice, ane believe me that says a lot. I didnt comment because I cant even try "objective" evaluation of it being on the phone. Im also not keen to get into another lenghty discussion now because Id like to retain my eyesigth over -1.
But, with the disclaimer that I speak from memory and that I won't discuss it anymore, yes Id say that Imperial Knight is a vastly superior kit. And to answer the other guy, I dont even like the knight that much from design perspective. But as a kit it's impressive and as I said a 100 times, I try to keep this beyond me.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
But why is the Knight a vastly superior kit?
Hell, why is it even just normally superior?
The Leviathan is more poseable. It has built in ability for hotswapping. They're roughly the same size. Both are hard plastic. Levels of detail on both are comparable. Both have options.
There's nothing about the Knight I can see that would make it an objectively vastly superior kit. If you wish to make that claim and continue to tell everyone GW is the bestest ever, I expect you to at least assemble some sort of details rebuttal, rather than a series of excuses or simple condescension.
If you don't have anything to contribute to your own discussion, don't bother contributing at all. Making entirely unfounded claims like you just did without an ounce of support or argumentation really isn't helping your point about GW.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Breaking news:
Live images of Plumbarum in this debate are now coming through...
53939
Post by: vipoid
Azreal13 wrote:Breaking news:
Live images of Plumbarum in this debate are now coming through...
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
 vipoid wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:
Show me something close to necrosphinx, latest wood elf guys, or Imperial Knights or Hive Tyrant made from hard plastic.
Are the GW knights really that good? Honestly, I find them pretty unimpressive.
- As far as detail goes, much of it appears to be either bling (oh good, more purity seals), or just painted on (which has nothing to do with the quality of the model itself).
- In terms of aesthetics, they look... strange. Their top 'shell' in particular looks like it was taken off an aircraft or something, giving the overall appearance of a model that was built from scraps - which is something I'd expect more of ork models.
- Finally, they don't even look functional. These things are supposed to be tough, right? So, why is it covered in exposed wires and pipes? Aren't they the sort of thing you'd want to protect? I really can't see this thing being hard to disable. Hell, just look at the back - there doesn't appear to be any armour at all. There's just a frame and what I can only presume to be some pretty important components that are completely exposed.
I was bashing them left and right design wise, you could even find it maybe here in one of that million pages thread. I agree with everything you said plus the legs look too weak to support it for me plus it's a warmachine ripoff and I hate warmachine warcraftish aesthetics. And yes I know how Epic knights looked.
It's still light years ahead of similar warmachine models and I like them as a showing to PP how it is really done. Also everybody seems to love itand unlike the very questionable Taurox, it's a super quality kit by every metric. Again I wouldn't even want it in my army unless heavily nurglified may be
44272
Post by: Azreal13
So....no objective criteria just a load of effusive fanboyism with dubious provenance?
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Blacksails wrote:But why is the Knight a vastly superior kit?
Hell, why is it even just normally superior?
The Leviathan is more poseable. It has built in ability for hotswapping. They're roughly the same size. Both are hard plastic. Levels of detail on both are comparable. Both have options.
There's nothing about the Knight I can see that would make it an objectively vastly superior kit. If you wish to make that claim and continue to tell everyone GW is the bestest ever, I expect you to at least assemble some sort of details rebuttal, rather than a series of excuses or simple condescension.
If you don't have anything to contribute to your own discussion, don't bother contributing at all. Making entirely unfounded claims like you just did without an ounce of support or argumentation really isn't helping your point about GW.
As I said, I can't eveluate it now on tiny pics. I will as soon as I get near my PC. From memory it was hardly that much detailed but I saw it maybe 3 times in my life and never looked again.
Azrael I dont think Im in the corner at all. I only said I dislike aesthetics of it but again it's irrelevant. If I see it as quality kit that just doesn't match my taste, Ill just admit it. It is still similarly expensive for similar size (I think) so it could even support my original point of GW not being that overprced (relatively ofc) at all.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
You're in a corner because you've argued that it is possible to argue quality from an objective standpoint and then done nothing but provide subjective examples of why you think some models are better than others.
I'm sure it will all be better when you're back in front of a computer.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
But what about details would make something objectively better? The aesthetic of 40k (Imperium) is about clunkiness, wires, rivets, exhaust ports, purity seals and skulls. Having a lot of those is more detail, but that doesn't make it a better kit in any objective sense.
The Crusader has plenty of detail where appropriate; the leg joints, the exhaust/engine on the back, and other gubbins. On a whole, its sleeker because the design isn't one of clunkiness and random details for the sake of details. Arguably, the lack of random stuff can be a sign of being a better design and better kit because the designer understands how much minute detail is appropriate for the model.
In every other way, the Crusader is a better kit; as a gaming piece its more poseable, has weapon swapping built in, and comes in easy to assemble hard plastic. Its as sturdy as a Knight, so what other metric are you going to compare it on to show us the Knight is somehow leagues better than the Crusader as a kit?
You can't keep pointing to details as some sort of end-all, be-all. As said earlier, skulls per square inch, no matter how pretty, are not an indication of quality. At that point it comes down to preference, which is entirely subjective. Since you came into this thread telling us how you can measure this stuff objectively, I expect you to actually measure things on a quantifiable, objective scale.
You have yet to do so.
So, either admit that GW does not produce the best plastics in the world, or prove to us that they do on an objective set of metrics. Otherwise, just say you prefer GW models and leave it at that.
*Edit* As for value, its $50 cheaper and roughly 1.5 larger.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Azreal13 wrote:So....no objective criteria just a load of effusive fanboyism with dubious provenance?
I find it a cosmic irony that being called a GW hater a hundred times I am called fanboyish because I dare to defend one thing where they are actualy really good and most probably best on wargaming market, their plastic kits. I mentioned objective criteria already and not once I think including criteria for objective asessment for design, learn to read. I doubt, for example that leviathan guys would be able to do all that bling that is on knight, it's only GW showing off ofc but technical superiority that would be one.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
I'm not criticising you for defending it, I'm criticising you for doing it poorly.
EDIT
Plumbumbarum wrote:
I find it a cosmic irony that being called a GW hater a hundred times I am called fanboyish because I dare to defend one thing where they are actualy really good and most probably best on wargaming market, their plastic kits.
Wasn't this "the best plastic kits in the world" yesterday? You know, before a load of people pointed out plastic kits that were better, and in many instances cheaper?
I mentioned objective criteria already and not once I think including criteria for objective asessment for design, learn to read.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
I doubt, for example that leviathan guys would be able to do all that bling that is on knight, it's only GW showing off ofc but technical superiority that would be one.
So, you've no idea how plastic kits are made then? Because if you did, you'd realise this is nonsense.
89259
Post by: Talys
Why does everyone have to "win"?
The brand that a person prefers is their favorite brand. Some prefer the GW aesthetic, others prefer the look of product from other companies. There's no need to call someone else's preferred models "obviously inferior" or whatever. The only time I ever say this is when specific models are poorly molded, forcing a lot of remediation, or just don't fit nicely (like dragon wings from so many companies).
I like that all GW models other than snapfit have many build options. For instance, the Durthu option of Treeman Ancient looks significantly different; I like that there are heavy weapon choices, and that you can go helmet or head, and I like the extra bits I get after I finish a MPP kit. That doesn't mean that I don't like metal PP models, or resin/metal PP models. Or, for that matter, plastic (or whatever that bendy material is) Reaper models.
We have to live with the fact that there are no inexpensive quality models anymore, from anyone, and that wargaming is more expensive. Just look at the PP new releases: Bradigus is $30+ and Borka is $60; neither are particularly large or complex models. I bought both, by the way.
Want to talk about price? When I started modelling, high quality Games Workshop metal miniatures were $1-$2 each, and plastic miniatures were a small fraction of that.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Blacksails wrote:
In every other way, the Crusader is a better kit; as a gaming piece its more poseable, has weapon swapping built in, and comes in easy to assemble hard plastic. Its as sturdy as a Knight, so what other metric are you going to compare it on to show us the Knight is somehow leagues better than the Crusader as a kit?
If that is all so, I will admit it. On the pics I saw I thought it looked toyish and never looked on closeups etc or saw sprues. I'm not going to do it now on the phone with a console warm thanks to Alien Isolation fired up especialy when nerds like Azrael that can't respect others time throw cheap jabs at me to make me so.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Ok, so I'm boorish, can't read and I'm a nerd?
You are familiar with the posting rules of this site?
If you can't argue my points, then admit it, don't try and drag the topic into personal name calling. If you feel you have valid rebuttals to my claims, let's hear them.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Azreal13 wrote:Wasn't this "the best plastic kits in the world" yesterday? You know, before a load of people pointed out plastic kits that were better, and in many instances cheaper?
Yeah exactly one that I always considered abysmal. I just give you all benefit of the doubt because Im nice, therefore "probably". Automatically Appended Next Post: Azreal13 wrote:Ok, so I'm boorish, can't read and I'm a nerd?
You are familiar with the posting rules of this site?
If you can't argue my points, then admit it, don't try and drag the topic into personal name calling. If you feel you have valid rebuttals to my claims, let's hear them.
The rules involving not posting memes or stupid pictures? You started it because you wanted to be funny.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Oh dear..
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.
Jean Jacques Rousseau
*leaves thread*
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
That would make you wrong. First the picture then jabs suggesting Im using cheap excuses of not being behnd PC with proper screen.
Goodbye.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Plumbumbarum wrote: Blacksails wrote:
In every other way, the Crusader is a better kit; as a gaming piece its more poseable, has weapon swapping built in, and comes in easy to assemble hard plastic. Its as sturdy as a Knight, so what other metric are you going to compare it on to show us the Knight is somehow leagues better than the Crusader as a kit?
If that is all so, I will admit it. On the pics I saw I thought it looked toyish and never looked on closeups etc or saw sprues. I'm not going to do it now on the phone with a console warm thanks to Alien Isolation fired up especialy when nerds like Azrael that can't respect others time throw cheap jabs at me to make me so.
You can check yourself later, but I have a hard time finding the Knight to be vastly superior, perhaps maybe in number of pipes and wires on the model, but the Crusader is naturally much cleaner, so I doubt its a matter of technical superiority in design.
Also, classy with the cheap jab at Azrael.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
Blacksails wrote:But what about details would make something objectively better? The aesthetic of 40k (Imperium) is about clunkiness, wires, rivets, exhaust ports, purity seals and skulls. Having a lot of those is more detail, but that doesn't make it a better kit in any objective sense.
.
It's also worth noting that there is a difference between real detail (stuff that serves an actual purpose) and greeble (i.e. skulls for the sake of skulls, etc.) GW, unfortunately, has turned into a greeble factory these past few years with the ability to just cut and paste the same elements in their 3D sculpting program.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Then why do you keep evaluating it? If you don't have good pictures of a model available and don't feel confident in your evaluation then the right thing to say is "I don't know, I'll talk about it later", not "I can't evaluate it well, but the GW model is clearly superior". This pretty strongly suggests that you've already made up your mind about which is the better kit, and your "evaluation" will be nothing more than looking for reasons why the GW kit wins.
Plumbumbarum wrote:I doubt, for example that leviathan guys would be able to do all that bling that is on knight, it's only GW showing off ofc but technical superiority that would be one.
Then you clearly don't know how modern kit design works. Both kits were created as digital models, so the difference between a skull-less non- GW kit and a GW kit covered in skulls and purity seals is just a few minutes copy/pasting skulls onto every flat surface. There's very little skill involved, all you have to do is ask yourself "do I want lots of skulls on this" and then take the appropriate actions. GW decided they want lots of skulls and purity seals, the Leviathan designer decided they want a cleaner look.
This, by the way, demonstrates why your "skulls per square inch" measurement of detail is so badly flawed.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Plumbumbarum wrote:Jesus Peregrine, the thing about giving Tomcat to my child was an example to show the difference in sturdiness between aircraft model and gw tank, it doesn't mean that they literaly have to be made to withstand kids playing with them.
Then why do you even bring it up at all? If the models don't have to survive abuse then why is it relevant that they can survive abuse? You can make as many vague statements about "Peregrine doesn't get it" as you like, but it looks like what actually happened is that you made a claim, completely failed to impress anyone with it, and now you're backing off and pretending that you never made it to avoid the embarrassment of losing the argument.
Just like with the xwing comparision before, I could have used other system as an example of how you can go into absurd with your argument, it had nothing to do with exact point cost or unit numbers.
"It has nothing to do with numbers, but let me make up some numbers that 'prove' that you're wrong". Congratulations, you proved that the cost of playing 40k is not much more than an imaginary game that costs exactly $300 less for a standard army. Now if you want to say anything relevant in this discussion you need to get the actual numbers for the games you're talking about instead of just making up numbers that "prove" your claims.
So, my point is, you can't use your dislike for their designs as an argument that their minis are worse quality than someone elses and therefore are relatively overpriced or sth.
So then why do you get to use your equally unsupported claims about how the market is satisfied with the model's appearance as "proof" that it is a high-quality product?
Amount of detail, sturdiness, how parts fit together and high tech involved that allows them do things other companies are in apable of with plastics (dont ask I read it somewhere) are more objective measures.
Except, as I've pointed out already, those standards are bad.
Amount of detail (as you define it), despite your claims otherwise, is a subjective and utterly useless standard that rewards "skulls per square inch" over good artistic design. It's little more than you attempting to turn your personal preferences about what makes an appealing model design into some kind of objective truth.
Sturdiness is objective, but not very relevant for many customers. If you take care of your models you don't really benefit from GW's excess durability, and GW kits are a lower-quality product than ones from another manufacturer that is willing to design their kits to emphasize appearance at the expense of requiring you to treat them properly.
Parts fit is objective, but a standard that GW is, at best, average on. Their kits don't usually have major fit issues that prevent you from assembling them at all, but gaps between parts are extremely common and it takes a lot of cleanup work to get a GW kit ready for painting (unless you have low standards and don't care about visible mold lines or gaps).
Technology is subjective (how you define "good technology" is personal preference) and utterly useless. As a customer I don't care what methods went into producing a model, I care about the final result. Technology is possibly relevant if it allows the manufacturer to do something I want with their kits that they couldn't otherwise do, but talking about the production technology itself instead of the end result adds nothing to the discussion.
And after coming up with four bad ways of analyzing the quality of a model you completely neglect three very important factors in how much a model is worth to a customer:
Appearance/design: do I like how it looks? I don't know how you think you can keep ignoring this because this is probably the single most important factor in whether a customer wants to buy a model or not. You can claim it is subjective, but if it's too subjective to discuss then the whole "what is a model worth" discussion is too subjective to discuss and you should stop trying.
Gameplay value: what percentage of a complete army is it? Does it come with rules/tokens/etc included, or do I have to buy them separately? This is something GW is pretty bad at. You buy an expensive kit, and it's maybe 10% of a full army. And you don't get any rules for it, you'll have to spend even more money buying those if you actually want to use your expensive new toy.
Options: does it come with everything I need, or does it require other purchases to finish it? Again, this is something GW fails badly at. Most infantry units don't come with all the weapon upgrades you'll want to use in a competitive list, so there's a hidden cost attached to a lot of GW kits that covers buying the melta guns/power fists/etc that you need to have a playable unit.
Not to mention you equaling detail to skulls is unfair, it is used for many great things on 40k plastics.
No, it's entirely fair. GW kits typically have rather blocky, cartoonish detail (remember, as you said, they're made to be durable and that means sacrificing fragile detail parts) with a rather large minimum feature size. The "high detail" you claim is often in the form of purity seals/skulls/etc copy/pasted all over every flat surface just to avoid having flat surfaces. It's fine if you like that style of model, but it isn't some amazing breakthrough in model technology or artistic skill.
(dont ask I read it somewhere)
And this deserves quoting again because it's so hilarious. Let me translate: "I don't have any clue where I got this from, but I think I read somewhere that GW's kits are better, don't ask me for a source but I'm going to keep using it as proof". If you don't know where you got a piece of information or what it really said then stop talking about it.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Plumbumbarum wrote:That would make you wrong. First the picture then jabs suggesting Im using cheap excuses of not being behnd PC with proper screen.
Goodbye.
OK, last post but I'm not letting this go answered.
You have called me a boor, implied I was illiterate and called me a nerd (apparently completely unironically.)
In turn I appear to have offended you by posting a picture is someone who has painted themselves into a corner rather than simply state the words? Well, more fool me for trying to introduce a little levity.
Theres something you should do BTW, which is give people the benefit of the doubt, even ask for confirmation, before getting offended. I have a dry sense of humour which perhaps due to my failing, possibly to yours, seems to have bunched your panties. I posted things that have offended because of misinterpretation, can the same be said of nerd, boor or illiterate?
I'm also disappointed to see "you started it" as some sort of justification/counter point, especially as anything you cite happened nearly 24 hours after you called me a boor (and I let it ride rather than call you on it or report you) so it isn't even factually accurate.
PS
I wrote this whole post on my phone, just for you.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
I wrote this on a piece of paper, which was handed to a carrier pigeon, which flew to an internet cafe, and posted this for me.
Technology these days. Astounding.
52675
Post by: Deadnight
Pfft. This post was brought to you via smoke signal and telegraph.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
I just have to jump in and say that Plum was claiming the IK as "vastly superior" while giving no reasons why or with little knowledge of the other model in question.
As for what else has amazing detail, highly posable, lots of options and comes in hard plastic?
I bought this bad boy for $35.00 in Japan. (It'll be about $50 or $60 in USA for shipping.)
This was designed by an American, btw, Syd Mead of Blade Runner and Alien fame.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Believe it or not this is too many fine posts to answer on the phone now. Will happily revisit.
Would post more maybe but too afraid that you Peregrine will find something to pick on completly out of context maybe twist a bit or sth. Really man I realised that wot I thought (and respected) you have is pinpoint accuracy logic but it is in fact only discussing techniques. Also I said that "Peregrine dont get it, possibly my fault". Out of context again, and for all your supposed calling me out on sth bs, I will just admit if will be proven wrong, dont feel wrong just yet.
Mr Azrael you were passive agressive I returned the favor. You started mentioning forum rules so maybe it's you who should get over yourself and not get you pants sth not familiar with the expression.
See you fine gentelmen in 2 days and prepare some tasty hats. ( dry humour hehehehe)
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Plumbumbarum wrote:Would post more maybe but too afraid that you Peregrine will find something to pick on completly out of context maybe twist a bit or sth.
You know, when pretty much everyone here is disagreeing with you and saying the same things I'm saying it should be a sign to you that it isn't just a case of "Peregrine picking on things out of context".
89259
Post by: Talys
 MWHistorian wrote:I just have to jump in and say that Plum was claiming the IK as "vastly superior" while giving no reasons why or with little knowledge of the other model in question.
As for what else has amazing detail, highly posable, lots of options and comes in hard plastic?
I bought this bad boy for $35.00 in Japan. (It'll be about $50 or $60 in USA for shipping.)
This was designed by an American, btw, Syd Mead of Blade Runner and Alien fame.
That's a cool model, but I wouldn't compare it against something like an Imperial Knight (or a Crusader). It's not better; it's different. I for example, would never pay $50-$60 to model something like that, because Manga/Robotech-type models don't appeal to me (not even a tiny bit), while Eldar Wraithknights do. I guess, for the same reason, I have no desire to model a Tau Riptide. Though frankly, the IK is not one of my favorite models either.
Nothing against the model you linked, nor anyone who loves that kind of thing... all the power to you!
86302
Post by: Crimson Heretic
the way i look at it is that you get what you pay for, i've looked at all the other games people claim to be so much better then GW products at a cheaper price...which to me look cheap and childish(infinity)..i've been eyeballing warhammer 40k since i was about 13 when i entered the mini gaming scene..yes the price is a huge turn off but as an adult i've realised that i'm getting high quality bitz and funding a very rich background of fluff. To have a game where i can go to the local book store and find a novel that enriches my table top expierence is great. I'm tired of reading the anti-GW threads that are beaten like a dead horse, if you don't find pleasure in GW products anymore then disappear and move on instead of bitching, they are evolving not turning back to sludge.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Crimson Heretic wrote:I'm tired of reading the anti- GW threads that are beaten like a dead horse, if you don't find pleasure in GW products anymore then disappear and move on instead of bitching, they are evolving not turning back to sludge.
So it's either love it or leave it? I can't enjoy doing something with friends but acknowledge fault where it exists?
86302
Post by: Crimson Heretic
rigeld2 wrote:Crimson Heretic wrote:I'm tired of reading the anti- GW threads that are beaten like a dead horse, if you don't find pleasure in GW products anymore then disappear and move on instead of bitching, they are evolving not turning back to sludge.
So it's either love it or leave it? I can't enjoy doing something with friends but acknowledge fault where it exists?
theres a fine line between seeing the flaws and still pushing through to enjoy it, or breakdown and lose your fething mind on here saying GW is nazi germany
39550
Post by: Psienesis
I think that's the first Godwinning in the thread.
And I think most people do "push through" the flaws to find the enjoyment... but after spending almost $1000 on an army, I shouldn't fething well have to "push through" any flaws. This gak should be published as near-perfect as is humanly possible.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Is there a GW Advocate Academy I'm not aware of? It seems every week we get a new graduate who makes the same arguments and misrepresentations and then tells people to love it or get lost.
Can I join, what are the prospects like after I qualify?
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Azreal13 wrote:Is there a GW Advocate Academy I'm not aware of? It seems every week we get a new graduate who makes the same arguments and misrepresentations and then tells people to love it or get lost.
Can I join, what are the prospects like after I qualify?
I think they are new GW players who haven't become grumpy old men like the rest of us. Yet.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Plumbumbarum wrote:
I was bashing them left and right design wise, you could even find it maybe here in one of that million pages thread. I agree with everything you said plus the legs look too weak to support it for me plus it's a warmachine ripoff and I hate warmachine warcraftish aesthetics. And yes I know how Epic knights looked.
Fair enough. I wasn't really looking at Knights (or any threads about them) prior to this, so I fear I missed any comments you made there.
Plumbumbarum wrote:
It's still light years ahead of similar warmachine models and I like them as a showing to PP how it is really done. Also everybody seems to love itand unlike the very questionable Taurox, it's a super quality kit by every metric. Again I wouldn't even want it in my army unless heavily nurglified may be
Sorry, but I'm struggling to understand your logic. If you hate the aesthetics and that it's a warmachine ripoff, then what makes it a super quality kit?
86302
Post by: Crimson Heretic
Azreal13 wrote:Is there a GW Advocate Academy I'm not aware of? It seems every week we get a new graduate who makes the same arguments and misrepresentations and then tells people to love it or get lost.
Can I join, what are the prospects like after I qualify?
I guess i'm a black sheep i play with friends and enjoy the beatings and i also enjoy the wins, i don't play tournements because they leave foul tastes in my mouth. I enjoy GW products, i really don't like the costs but it is what it is for an imported product.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Crimson Heretic wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Crimson Heretic wrote:I'm tired of reading the anti- GW threads that are beaten like a dead horse, if you don't find pleasure in GW products anymore then disappear and move on instead of bitching, they are evolving not turning back to sludge.
So it's either love it or leave it? I can't enjoy doing something with friends but acknowledge fault where it exists?
theres a fine line between seeing the flaws and still pushing through to enjoy it, or breakdown and lose your fething mind on here saying GW is nazi germany
Please elaborate on the underlined. Where has anyone come near that level of hatred?
Seriously, perhaps you would be kind enough to not throw massive exaggerations around that end up hurting your point? That'd be great. Automatically Appended Next Post:
No, it's really not. There are dozens of "imported products" that cost less for equal quality.
86302
Post by: Crimson Heretic
rigeld2 wrote:Crimson Heretic wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Crimson Heretic wrote:I'm tired of reading the anti- GW threads that are beaten like a dead horse, if you don't find pleasure in GW products anymore then disappear and move on instead of bitching, they are evolving not turning back to sludge.
So it's either love it or leave it? I can't enjoy doing something with friends but acknowledge fault where it exists?
theres a fine line between seeing the flaws and still pushing through to enjoy it, or breakdown and lose your fething mind on here saying GW is nazi germany
Please elaborate on the underlined. Where has anyone come near that level of hatred?
Seriously, perhaps you would be kind enough to not throw massive exaggerations around that end up hurting your point? That'd be great.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
No, it's really not. There are dozens of "imported products" that cost less for equal quality.
I open this forum probably about once a week, and look to enjoy some new and fresh topics but the "fething gw screwed us up the coal chute again" theme keeps popping up, its old and a well beaten pile of bones, i come here to look into new and fresh 40k ideas. I'm not sure what you consider cheaper imports for the same quality, Cheap means lower quality in almost any aspect in life, cars, toilet paper anything...there is no gaming god that will bestow upon you a cheap product with no flaws
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Crimson Heretic wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Crimson Heretic wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Crimson Heretic wrote:I'm tired of reading the anti- GW threads that are beaten like a dead horse, if you don't find pleasure in GW products anymore then disappear and move on instead of bitching, they are evolving not turning back to sludge.
So it's either love it or leave it? I can't enjoy doing something with friends but acknowledge fault where it exists?
theres a fine line between seeing the flaws and still pushing through to enjoy it, or breakdown and lose your fething mind on here saying GW is nazi germany
Please elaborate on the underlined. Where has anyone come near that level of hatred?
Seriously, perhaps you would be kind enough to not throw massive exaggerations around that end up hurting your point? That'd be great.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
No, it's really not. There are dozens of "imported products" that cost less for equal quality.
I open this forum probably about once a week, and look to enjoy some new and fresh topics but the "fething gw screwed us up the coal chute again" theme keeps popping up, its old and a well beaten pile of bones, i come here to look into new and fresh 40k ideas. I'm not sure what you consider cheaper imports for the same quality, Cheap means lower quality in almost any aspect in life, cars, toilet paper anything...there is no gaming god that will bestow upon you a cheap product with no flaws
Well... screwing the Customer is kind of what GW does now. It's really their MO when you think about it.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
Crimson Heretic wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Crimson Heretic wrote:rigeld2 wrote:Crimson Heretic wrote:I'm tired of reading the anti- GW threads that are beaten like a dead horse, if you don't find pleasure in GW products anymore then disappear and move on instead of bitching, they are evolving not turning back to sludge.
So it's either love it or leave it? I can't enjoy doing something with friends but acknowledge fault where it exists?
theres a fine line between seeing the flaws and still pushing through to enjoy it, or breakdown and lose your fething mind on here saying GW is nazi germany
Please elaborate on the underlined. Where has anyone come near that level of hatred?
Seriously, perhaps you would be kind enough to not throw massive exaggerations around that end up hurting your point? That'd be great.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
No, it's really not. There are dozens of "imported products" that cost less for equal quality.
I open this forum probably about once a week, and look to enjoy some new and fresh topics but the "fething gw screwed us up the coal chute again" theme keeps popping up, its old and a well beaten pile of bones, i come here to look into new and fresh 40k ideas. I'm not sure what you consider cheaper imports for the same quality, Cheap means lower quality in almost any aspect in life, cars, toilet paper anything...there is no gaming god that will bestow upon you a cheap product with no flaws
He did say cheap, he said 'cost less for equal quality'. So, paying less but getting the same quality. So cheaper doesn't always equal lower quality when one side is charging ridiculous prices and you need lots more of the product.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Talys wrote: MWHistorian wrote:I just have to jump in and say that Plum was claiming the IK as "vastly superior" while giving no reasons why or with little knowledge of the other model in question.
As for what else has amazing detail, highly posable, lots of options and comes in hard plastic?
I bought this bad boy for $35.00 in Japan. (It'll be about $50 or $60 in USA for shipping.)
This was designed by an American, btw, Syd Mead of Blade Runner and Alien fame.
That's a cool model, but I wouldn't compare it against something like an Imperial Knight (or a Crusader). It's not better; it's different. I for example, would never pay $50-$60 to model something like that, because Manga/Robotech-type models don't appeal to me (not even a tiny bit), while Eldar Wraithknights do. I guess, for the same reason, I have no desire to model a Tau Riptide. Though frankly, the IK is not one of my favorite models either.
Nothing against the model you linked, nor anyone who loves that kind of thing... all the power to you!
I think you missed the point. This thing is taller than a knight, FAR more posable, more parts, more detail and its cheaper. Aesthetics are secondary. (for the argument I was making.)
21196
Post by: agnosto
Crimson Heretic wrote: I open this forum probably about once a week, and look to enjoy some new and fresh topics but the "fething gw screwed us up the coal chute again" theme keeps popping up, its old and a well beaten pile of bones, i come here to look into new and fresh 40k ideas. I'm not sure what you consider cheaper imports for the same quality, Cheap means lower quality in almost any aspect in life, cars, toilet paper anything...there is no gaming god that will bestow upon you a cheap product with no flaws
Granted there's a fair bit of 40k traffic on this board but I feel obliged to comment that Dakka is not a GW owned and operated bulletin board; it is primarily a tabletop gaming discussion board, populated by various people who possess a wide range of opinions, some of which might even be counter to your own (shocker, I know). If you feel that people who disagree with your opinion are somehow stealing your soul or diminishing your enjoyment of the interwebs, maybe it's time to reassess your personal interactions with others. Do you feel that you are able to relate to people of various backgrounds and schools of thought on a personal basis? Do you find yourself flying into impotent rage whenever someone disagrees with your opinion or expresses a dislike of something that you enjoy? If you answered "no" to the first question and "yes" to the second, maybe it's time for a little vacation from interwebland (patent pending). As to your second point. Cheaper, not cheap, does not mean something is of lower quality than a GW product. I know, you've been visiting GW stores and they tend to serve purple punch which has an uncanny ability to remove cognizant, comparative thought processes from unsuspecting imbibers but please heed the other threads on this board and various other places in interspace and partake of other manufacturers, you might be surprised. Now, the aesthetics may not be to your liking and that's a separate issue but if you use a modicum of critical thought, you'll realize that there are a great number of models out there that are both cheaper than a comparable GW product and a better quality design. An example is the Dreamforge Games Leviathan that's been posted in this thread. The leviathan is completely posable, made of hard plastic and has an absolute gackton of options and parts for much less than a GW Imperial Knight. I own one and it has actual screws and comes with a screwdriver for the articulated joints. Amazingly crafted model. Cheaper than GW and a better design. I'll wait while you try to bend knee and foot joints on your GW model and then try to swap your Errant out for a Paladin's payload. *crickets chirping* No? Well, the GW model is obviously superior then because who would want to pose it or swap weapons...why mess with perfection, obviously.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Exalted, and they're not things I hand out easily!
47462
Post by: rigeld2
Crimson Heretic wrote:I open this forum probably about once a week, and look to enjoy some new and fresh topics but the "fething gw screwed us up the coal chute again" theme keeps popping up, its old and a well beaten pile of bones,
a) Don't click those threads.
b) No, those threads don't exist. No one has said "fething gw screwed us up the coal shute again" in a thread (that I know of - I'd laugh my ass off though)
c) Again, exaggerating like that doesn't help your point, it hurts it.
d) The ratio of hate threads to content threads is massively in favor of content threads. Again, don't click the hate threads.
i come here to look into new and fresh 40k ideas. I'm not sure what you consider cheaper imports for the same quality, Cheap means lower quality in almost any aspect in life, cars, toilet paper anything...there is no gaming god that will bestow upon you a cheap product with no flaws
I didn't say "cheaper". Cheaper implies lower quality.
I said less expensive for the same quality. The Dream Forge Games Leviathan is one example in this thread, countless Taiyama and other modeling companies... step back from the GW portal on the web and look around at options.
78336
Post by: Envihon
One thing that keeps coming up as a counter point is being able to pose the model like an action figure...when did this become an expectation for GW products? I thought one of the signatures for awesome skill was the ability to model a miniature in certain freeze frame-like way and then paint it. To make the static look fluid...not the ability to have kung-fu action.
The ability to easily swap out weapons and equipment I also understand but again, I thought this was also a skill to develop as a hobbyist through magnetization, not a requirement of GW.
To require these out of the company instead of developing one's skill kind of kills the hobby for me. I love it when I am able to capture a miniature in an awesome pose or magnetize it, I feel a sense of accomplishment. To have the company do this ruins the fun.
47462
Post by: rigeld2
 Envihon wrote:One thing that keeps coming up as a counter point is being able to pose the model like an action figure...when did this become an expectation for GW products? I thought one of the signatures for awesome skill was the ability to model a miniature in certain freeze frame-like way and then paint it. To make the static look fluid...not the ability to have kung-fu action.
The ability to easily swap out weapons and equipment I also understand but again, I thought this was also a skill to develop as a hobbyist through magnetization, not a requirement of GW.
To require these out of the company instead of developing one's skill kind of kills the hobby for me. I love it when I am able to capture a miniature in an awesome pose or magnetize it, I feel a sense of accomplishment. To have the company do this ruins the fun.
Adding posability and built-in option swapping vastly increases possibilities for modeling. Instead of focusing strictly on the pose, you can spend more time on the base, etc. Ditto on the option swapping.
Sure, posing is a skill and it takes less skill to pose a Leviathan, but to say that GW kits have the "feature" of not being posable is... at best it's laughable.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Envihon wrote:One thing that keeps coming up as a counter point is being able to pose the model like an action figure...when did this become an expectation for GW products? I thought one of the signatures for awesome skill was the ability to model a miniature in certain freeze frame-like way and then paint it. To make the static look fluid...not the ability to have kung-fu action.
I'm not really sure what you mean here. Are you referring to a choice of poses prior to gluing, or the ability to move parts of the model even after it's been put together?
If the latter, I don't particularly mind.
If the former, I think it would be nice if GW's characters didn't have fixed poses. I speak here as someone who doesn't have great skill with green-stuff or precise cutting. So, I'm basically stuck using the stock position - or else stuck with a model that either had a dislocated shoulder/elbow, or is suffering from massive tumours.
I mean, why is it that most of my basic troopers have a variety of poses, yet most characters are stuck with a single pose? It just seems backwards to me.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
Envihon wrote:One thing that keeps coming up as a counter point is being able to pose the model like an action figure...when did this become an expectation for GW products? I thought one of the signatures for awesome skill was the ability to model a miniature in certain freeze frame-like way and then paint it. To make the static look fluid...not the ability to have kung-fu action.
The ability to easily swap out weapons and equipment I also understand but again, I thought this was also a skill to develop as a hobbyist through magnetization, not a requirement of GW.
To require these out of the company instead of developing one's skill kind of kills the hobby for me. I love it when I am able to capture a miniature in an awesome pose or magnetize it, I feel a sense of accomplishment. To have the company do this ruins the fun.
Because possibility and swapping out options are definitely things that makes the Leviathan better than the Knight. Have you seen how static the Knight is? Just because you enjoy magnetising models doesn't mean every body has the time, skill, will, patience etc to do so. Being able to swap out options is definitely a bonus. GW probably just don't do it because they think 'we don't need to give them options. They can just buy a second kit...'
And what the above two people said. Keep missing good responses while I'm typing my own out...
78336
Post by: Envihon
vipoid wrote: Envihon wrote:One thing that keeps coming up as a counter point is being able to pose the model like an action figure...when did this become an expectation for GW products? I thought one of the signatures for awesome skill was the ability to model a miniature in certain freeze frame-like way and then paint it. To make the static look fluid...not the ability to have kung-fu action.
I'm not really sure what you mean here. Are you referring to a choice of poses prior to gluing, or the ability to move parts of the model even after it's been put together?
If the latter, I don't particularly mind.
If the former, I think it would be nice if GW's characters didn't have fixed poses. I speak here as someone who doesn't have great skill with green-stuff or precise cutting. So, I'm basically stuck using the stock position - or else stuck with a model that either had a dislocated shoulder/elbow, or is suffering from massive tumours.
I mean, why is it that most of my basic troopers have a variety of poses, yet most characters are stuck with a single pose? It just seems backwards to me.
I did mean after it has been glued and put together, you can still pose it like the Leviathan. I just never had that expectation really, I know what I am buying when I buy a GW product and that is a miniature that I will have to glue in a certain action pose and that is the pose it will have.
Addressing your other point, I feel your pain on the characters but I take it as a chance to model my own character instead of using the standard GW kit for it but again, I love the thrill of kit bashing and customization like when I made my own Grey Knights Librarian instead of using the Fine Cast Librarian in regular Terminator armor instead of Grey Knight Terminator armor. The only thing I don't do this with is Named Characters that have their own kit but I tend to shy away from using named Characters for that reason, I like to customize my miniatures. I do have a few for scenario missions but that is it. I understand the frustration for this but the only thing I can think of as a reason is that GW is trying to make them iconic? So that people can just look and say that is definitely this or that is definitely this character from the book I just read. Crappy excuse but the only reasoning I can think of which is as I said, take a chance to evolve as a hobbyist.
ImAGeek wrote: Envihon wrote:One thing that keeps coming up as a counter point is being able to pose the model like an action figure...when did this become an expectation for GW products? I thought one of the signatures for awesome skill was the ability to model a miniature in certain freeze frame-like way and then paint it. To make the static look fluid...not the ability to have kung-fu action.
The ability to easily swap out weapons and equipment I also understand but again, I thought this was also a skill to develop as a hobbyist through magnetization, not a requirement of GW.
To require these out of the company instead of developing one's skill kind of kills the hobby for me. I love it when I am able to capture a miniature in an awesome pose or magnetize it, I feel a sense of accomplishment. To have the company do this ruins the fun.
Because possibility and swapping out options are definitely things that makes the Leviathan better than the Knight. Have you seen how static the Knight is? Just because you enjoy magnetising models doesn't mean every body has the time, skill, will, patience etc to do so. Being able to swap out options is definitely a bonus. GW probably just don't do it because they think 'we don't need to give them options. They can just buy a second kit...'
And what the above two people said. Keep missing good responses while I'm typing my own out...
These response seems to have some major assumptions and I have never seen a kit, barring a particular character with a set stat line, that skimps on the bits. The Knight comes with both load outs to get and I understand magnetization takes sometime but to accuse them automatically of money grubbing seems like a bit of a stretch. And the Knight I built does not look static and there are ways to really make the Knight look awesome but the kit provides several ways and stages to pose the Knight in a position you like before committing to pose. I have also seen some awesome ways people have modeled the Knight into awesome positions that make it look like it is about to move.
rigeld2 wrote: Envihon wrote:One thing that keeps coming up as a counter point is being able to pose the model like an action figure...when did this become an expectation for GW products? I thought one of the signatures for awesome skill was the ability to model a miniature in certain freeze frame-like way and then paint it. To make the static look fluid...not the ability to have kung-fu action.
The ability to easily swap out weapons and equipment I also understand but again, I thought this was also a skill to develop as a hobbyist through magnetization, not a requirement of GW.
To require these out of the company instead of developing one's skill kind of kills the hobby for me. I love it when I am able to capture a miniature in an awesome pose or magnetize it, I feel a sense of accomplishment. To have the company do this ruins the fun.
Adding posability and built-in option swapping vastly increases possibilities for modeling. Instead of focusing strictly on the pose, you can spend more time on the base, etc. Ditto on the option swapping.
Sure, posing is a skill and it takes less skill to pose a Leviathan, but to say that GW kits have the "feature" of not being posable is... at best it's laughable.
I wouldn't say that I meant it as a feature but it isn't something that I assumed that GW would ever do. They are pretty open about the fact that these are suppose to be static miniatures that you model in a certain way to make them look awesome that is why I don't understand where people make this an expectation since GW has never advertised it as such. It seems like the argument is that since the Leviathan does that means all miniature companies should do it regardless of what product they are trying to sell. It isn't something that I would hold as a valid point over GW to point out why they are a bad company but people continue to do so when there are other problems more worthy to tackle.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
You can objectively discuss quality, it's just people go too far with it and start acting like the subjective points like aesthetics are objective. I don't care how ugly you think a Taurox is... that's a subjective point
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
No one has said that every company should make possible miniatures. They've said its ONE part of why the Leviathan is better than the IK. And when I didn't mean the Knight kit didn't come with both load outs, I meant it's not designed for the weapons to be switchable, hence the 'they'll buy a new kit'.
78336
Post by: Envihon
ImAGeek wrote:No one has said that every company should make possible miniatures. They've said its ONE part of why the Leviathan is better than the IK. And when I didn't mean the Knight kit didn't come with both load outs, I meant it's not designed for the weapons to be switchable, hence the 'they'll buy a new kit'.
I still seeing as it offering two different kinds of products. I still see this as being overly cynical and jaded especially with the amount that magnetization has taken a hold of the hobby. Magnetization is also more cost effective and less time consuming than buying a whole new kit that you have to fully paint another kit. I just don't see this as an ultimatum of just get over it or buy another kit.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm all for magnetisation, I have some magnets sitting on my hobby desk (they were meant for my SoH Contemptor but I'll probably use the, on Hordes Warbeast stuff now). But not everyone might feel comfortable doing it, so the option to change weapons etc on a model would be nice. What I was saying is Games Workshops logic is probably 'why bother making weapons interchangeable? They can buy another kit'. That's not my logic at all.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Magnetizing kits like the IK is extremely difficult. My opinion is "why bother when company X makes a customizable kit?"
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
Is it even possible to magnatize the IK out of the box? I was under the impression that the weapons shared a lot of integral parts, meaning its designed not to be magnetized.
61618
Post by: Desubot
 jonolikespie wrote:Is it even possible to magnatize the IK out of the box? I was under the impression that the weapons shared a lot of integral parts, meaning its designed not to be magnetized.
The gun weapon does as it has different cable positions and stuff.
78336
Post by: Envihon
jonolikespie wrote:Is it even possible to magnatize the IK out of the box? I was under the impression that the weapons shared a lot of integral parts, meaning its designed not to be magnetized.
It isn't a straight forward magnetization job but it can and has been done. There are plenty of tutorials that are on Youtube on how to do. It mostly involves having to magnetize both kinds of barrels and also magnetizing the corresponding ammo storage.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Envihon wrote:They are pretty open about the fact that these are suppose to be static miniatures that you model in a certain way to make them look awesome that is why I don't understand where people make this an expectation since GW has never advertised it as such.
Nobody expects GW to do it, it's just an argument against the claim that GW miniatures are some vastly superior art form that no other company can compete with. A model that can be posed any time you like and have its weapons swapped without having to do any magnetization work yourself is superior to an otherwise-identical kit that lacks those things. And since GW has decided not to include those features that is one way in which GW's kits are lower quality than the competition.
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
Wait are we talking reposing the leviathans after painting like action figures?
That I'd agree has no barring on the quality discussion.
The insane amount of possibility also allows you to simply glue your model in an almost infinite amount of poses that makes GWs ultra static knight look like a toy or baby's first robot kit. That is a serious drawback in the GW knight.
62560
Post by: Makumba
Isn't the knight a multi part model like marines are?
21196
Post by: agnosto
It is but all of the joints are static (i.e. cannot be changed without a great deal of work) and the weapons share parts so unless you want to take the time to do a good amount of magnetizing (some of it not easy) you choose one weapon and that's it. If you want to move the arms at all, you have to let them hang, loose and floppy otherwise you have to glue them in place. You can twist the torso but you'll have do some creative magnet work there as well otherwise you have to glue it. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice kit, I loved putting it together (I have 3 regular ones and all 4 of the FW ones too) but it pales in comparison to the Leviathan as a quality modeling/wargaming kit.
62560
Post by: Makumba
That is kind of a stupid, almost as bad as a snap fit model only for more cash and larger. No one has an original knight here, so I didn't knew.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
The big problem for me is that GW's kits are just detailed in the wrong way. Lots of skulls and tiny bits are not detail. They are fiddly and annoying. The Chaos Chosen in DV, for example, while they looked awesome looked like they had tons of detail added just to add detail, but they are too small to see it. That level of detail is fine for like 54mm figures, but not 28mm where it's hard to see all the tiny intricate bits and pieces. They don't need that kind of "bling".
78336
Post by: Envihon
WayneTheGame wrote:The big problem for me is that GW's kits are just detailed in the wrong way. Lots of skulls and tiny bits are not detail. They are fiddly and annoying. The Chaos Chosen in DV, for example, while they looked awesome looked like they had tons of detail added just to add detail, but they are too small to see it. That level of detail is fine for like 54mm figures, but not 28mm where it's hard to see all the tiny intricate bits and pieces. They don't need that kind of "bling".
I will go along with this on the Knight except they had it very detailed from a mechanical stand point with everything making it look like a working machine. I was almost sad to put all the armor plates over it all covering all this detail. Despite people's criticism of it, the Imperial Knight is an awesomely detailed kit and can come out pretty awesome if you know what you are doing. Might not be like the Leviathon, but it probably is my favorite model that I have done so far.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Envihon wrote:
I will go along with this on the Knight except they had it very detailed from a mechanical stand point with everything making it look like a working machine. I was almost sad to put all the armor plates over it all covering all this detail. Despite people's criticism of it, the Imperial Knight is an awesomely detailed kit and can come out pretty awesome if you know what you are doing. Might not be like the Leviathon, but it probably is my favorite model that I have done so far.
It's a great kit but another example that GW is incapable of creating a walker that actually looks like it can walk.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
The GW IK gets shown up by it's FW brothers too, they're infinitely more poseable than the plastic one, in a medium which is less suited to it.
78336
Post by: Envihon
agnosto wrote: Envihon wrote:
I will go along with this on the Knight except they had it very detailed from a mechanical stand point with everything making it look like a working machine. I was almost sad to put all the armor plates over it all covering all this detail. Despite people's criticism of it, the Imperial Knight is an awesomely detailed kit and can come out pretty awesome if you know what you are doing. Might not be like the Leviathon, but it probably is my favorite model that I have done so far.
It's a great kit but another example that GW is incapable of creating a walker that actually looks like it can walk.
Azreal13 wrote:The GW IK gets shown up by it's FW brothers too, they're infinitely more poseable than the plastic one, in a medium which is less suited to it.
The Questoris Knight Magaera is on the same chassis as the Errant and the Paladin so FW didn't change much with that one. The other three I see more as a light frame and can move quicker but none of the Knights do I ever get the impression that it can't walk...not in the same sense as the way a Dreadnought looks like it can't walk but I do get what you are saying. The knee joint on the Imperial Knight could of been done better and makes it look stiff, I get that but it doesn't spoil the model for me. I know people herald the Leviathan as this awesome thing but honestly, that exposed core torso area is a bigger distraction for me. It looks like a well placed shot of any heavy weapon could wreck that thing in a single shot, it screams "Shoot right here to disable me quick!" which is why I prefer the Imperial Knight. This is coming more down to personal aesthetics and preferences though and not an objective view of the subject but I guess this topic was going to be heavily opinionated.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Azreal13 wrote:The GW IK gets shown up by it's FW brothers too, they're infinitely more poseable than the plastic one, in a medium which is less suited to it.
It's things like these that make me feel they locked the sculptor in a room by themselves until they finish, unable to communicate with anyone who might offer suggestions on how to improve things That and Logan Claus...
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Azreal13 wrote:The GW IK gets shown up by it's FW brothers too, they're infinitely more poseable than the plastic one, in a medium which is less suited to it.
It's things like these that make me feel they locked the sculptor in a room by themselves until they finish, unable to communicate with anyone who might offer suggestions on how to improve things That and Logan Claus...
I think the main problem with the IK is that GW forced its designer to use as few sprues as possible, to save GW as much money as possible. If they had allowed just one more sprue's worth of parts to improve the model's articulation and equipment options, they would have had a far superior product.
89259
Post by: Talys
MWHistorian wrote:Talys wrote: MWHistorian wrote:I just have to jump in and say that Plum was claiming the IK as "vastly superior" while giving no reasons why or with little knowledge of the other model in question.
As for what else has amazing detail, highly posable, lots of options and comes in hard plastic?
I bought this bad boy for $35.00 in Japan. (It'll be about $50 or $60 in USA for shipping.)
This was designed by an American, btw, Syd Mead of Blade Runner and Alien fame.
That's a cool model, but I wouldn't compare it against something like an Imperial Knight (or a Crusader). It's not better; it's different. I for example, would never pay $50-$60 to model something like that, because Manga/Robotech-type models don't appeal to me (not even a tiny bit), while Eldar Wraithknights do. I guess, for the same reason, I have no desire to model a Tau Riptide. Though frankly, the IK is not one of my favorite models either.
Nothing against the model you linked, nor anyone who loves that kind of thing... all the power to you!
I think you missed the point. This thing is taller than a knight, FAR more posable, more parts, more detail and its cheaper. Aesthetics are secondary. (for the argument I was making.)
No, I understood, and I suppose it's fair enough. I still don't think Imperial Knights and Manga-style robots are a good comparison, but to reply to your point specifically:
If the model grows is bigger, it's only significantly more valuable if it's also more intricate (otherwise, it's only a little more valuable... or not really at all, since it just means I need to throw more paint at it). In other words, if on a 24 inch Millenium Falcon, I want to see TONS of detail, not just a blown up version of a 9 inch Millenium Falcon. The Manga-style model looks a little like it would look just fine shrunk down to 2 inches tall.
If a model is more posable, that's great, and certainly a plus; but having many equipment options and alternate builds is more valuable, and I wouldn't want to sacrifice model complexity or the ability to make a very cool pose, for a simpler model that was more like an action figure. In the case of many GW models, the studio poses are limited by highly complex (150+ piece) models that have a few cool positions and weapon options to choose from. For the daring, the sky is still the limit, if you're an expert level modeler.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote:AllSeeingSkink wrote: Azreal13 wrote:The GW IK gets shown up by it's FW brothers too, they're infinitely more poseable than the plastic one, in a medium which is less suited to it.
It's things like these that make me feel they locked the sculptor in a room by themselves until they finish, unable to communicate with anyone who might offer suggestions on how to improve things That and Logan Claus...
I think the main problem with the IK is that GW forced its designer to use as few sprues as possible, to save GW as much money as possible. If they had allowed just one more sprue's worth of parts to improve the model's articulation and equipment options, they would have had a far superior product.
Yeah, if they had added another sprue or two, it could have been a much cooler product. Plus, the price point on IK is so high that... well, why not? I find that on the cool, large models, some people buy multiples, to build them with different options (because it's neat, not because they want to field it).
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Allowing it to bend at the knees and hips would have required zero extra sprues, but perhaps required trimming of the hoses and cables to fit, which might have been too advanced for Timmy.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Ok since I still can't get behind my PC (it's packed and I find the amount of dust and crap still airborne due to my staircase in the works still too much to get it out), I'll make a long story short. I still would like to answer a few posts but fuk it now and let's get to dreamforge crusader vs imperial knight.
I go by what I read here about crusader and what I can see on their site and google pictures on 5cm squared screen so that's not exactly a final opinion. What I can say is that if you assume that the "slim" aesthetics of the crusader are on purpose and not because they couldn't do any better (because one vehicle I saw there on their site loked like glorified duplo toy and when your robot pretends to be knight already, why not give him just a little ornament or sth? Some of my clix battlemechs have more detail on armor plates), then indeed you can say the are close on quality - hard plastic, sturdy, well fitting, crusader is bigger and supposedly more posable but knight is a more sophisticated model. Aesthetics while objectvely measurable can't be taken into account here because of the lack of data (and please dont mistake something being better with somethng being better for target audience, I mean quality aesthetics in bussiness sense not art sense with the latter much harder to quantify) Crusader is cheaper so better value, what a swell guy that dreamforge guy is btw, when butique resin makers only match forge world sculpts they instantly set prices at or close to FW prices but this guy has GW quality, makes something that big, practicaly a titan if you go by warhound size, and still charges so little. Swell guy I tell you.
So I need to change my statement, from "GW make best plastics" to "GW make best plastics but are sometimes challeneged by an equaly good model or range so still generaly make best plastics".
Ofc it's great that there are companies challenging GW and especialy their pricing. I loved my troll forged zoanthrope and hope the plastic one is as nice as metal one. Still it takes a few looks at gw best plastic minis (not all as obviously some ranges are old and models failed) to see that they are best quality atm as most of the time they give their customers what they want and more, which when it comes to minis are insanely detailed crazy plastic models that are also usable gamng pieces. You can ofc call that fanboyish but sometimes the enthusiasm for pure crap just because it isn't GW shows that the bias goes both ways.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Look, you're still failing to support the original claim you made when first posting in this thread, namely
you compare price of same number of miniatures and their quality and as far as plastics go, GW are best. Quality as in level of detail and sturdines not design as I've already seen those 2 mistaken here. That Taurox is absolute ugly crap does not take away the top notch tech that went to manufacture it, cost, detail, consumer service etc.
You have still failed to provide a set of objective criteria by which this can be proven.
A substantial part of your most recent post is about how the Dreamforge stuff looks, the "slim" aesthetic, the absence of copious detail etc, etc..
This is irrelevant to an objective discussion, which I tried to set out some criteria for and you disagreed with.
You even claim aesthetics to be objectively measurable?
We're done here, you've no concept of what you're arguing, let alone the counter arguments.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
You keep using this word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Your whole review sounded a whole lot like a subjective opinion rooted in nothing but your own personal preference and bias coming into the thread.
Also, I support everything Azrael just said.
Maybe come back when you have something objective to add? Otherwise, just admit you prefer GW models because you think they look cooler and carry on.
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
Plumbumbarum wrote:...(because one vehicle I saw there on their site loked like glorified duplo toy and when your robot pretends to be knight already, why not give him just a little ornament or sth? Some of my clix battlemechs have more detail on armor plates),
First, will people please come up with a new insult regarding the Leviathan? I'm really getting tired of the word "toy" being used in a derogatory manner against it, when we're all playing with toys to begin with. And, second, for the love of God, please go look up the word greeble and learn the difference between greeble and real detail. Go look at vehicles in the real world and you will see lots of flat, unadorned surfaces, that are not covered in rivets or other useless stuff. And yet, not once have I ever heard someone say they don't want to buy a Mustang/Camaro/etc. because "it lacks detail."
34243
Post by: Blacksails
You don't understand - the busier the model, the more sophisticated it is.
Totally not subjective. Put forward as an objective truth.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Plumbumbarum wrote:What I can say is that if you assume that the "slim" aesthetics of the crusader are on purpose and not because they couldn't do any better
Sigh. Please spend a little time researching how these kits are designed. They're done entirely in digital form, and any digital sculptor capable of making a model like the Leviathan can easily copy/paste a bunch of skulls all over every surface. It's a trivially easy task, and your stubborn insistence otherwise just demonstrates that you have no clue how the design process works.
and when your robot pretends to be knight already, why not give him just a little ornament or sth
Because some people like clean, elegant designs and don't follow your standard where "skulls per square inch" is the most important factor in the quality of a design? Seriously, I really don't understand why you have so much trouble with this. It's a different aesthetic choice that many people like, and it has nothing to do with lack of skill.
So I need to change my statement, from "GW make best plastics" to "GW make best plastics but are sometimes challeneged by an equaly good model or range so still generaly make best plastics".
So let me get this straight:
The Leviathan is cheaper than the GW knight.
The Leviathan has better posing options than the GW knight.
The Leviathan has better weapon swap options than the GW knight.
The Leviathan has equal or better casting quality compared to the GW knight.
The Leviathan has equal or better detail compared to the GW knight (the only difference being subjective aesthetic preferences).
But yet somehow the Leviathan is only equal to the GW knight? It seems like, for anyone who isn't determined to "prove" how awesome GW is, this would be a compelling argument that the Levaithan is better than the GW kit. It has equal or better quality in every area and it costs less. The only way that the GW knight is a superior product is if you happen to prefer it for aesthetic reasons, but you claim to be talking only about objective quality, not subjective preferences. So how exactly does GW match it in quality instead of falling short?
Still it takes a few looks at gw best plastic minis (not all as obviously some ranges are old and models failed) to see that they are best quality atm as most of the time they give their customers what they want and more, which when it comes to minis are insanely detailed crazy plastic models that are also usable gamng pieces.
Remember how we just established that the Leviathan is better than the knight by every objective standard? Remember that F-104 I posted that makes a sad joke out of the level of detail on any GW vehicle, but costs less? So far the only area you've established a GW advantage in is "skulls per square inch", and that has nothing to do with the objective quality of a model. So what we're left with is nothing more than empty claims about how awesome GW is with no evidence to support them.
20913
Post by: Freman Bloodglaive
There are objective measures for establishing the quality of a moulded plastic structure. Material, material thickness, lack of deformation over an area, surface finish. Those are things that can be measured, and provide an objective standard.
How a structure looks, whether it composed of flat surfaces, or its surfaces are covered in bric-a-brac, are not an objective measure. They are a subjective measure.
Models made by Games Workshop can possibly be said to be better for playing Games Workshop games because they fit the overall style of the game.
Games Workshop do make good models in the Games Workshop "heroic" style but that doesn't mean those models are "objectively" better than other models. I'm sure some are, but some non-GW models are also very nice indeed.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Azreal13 wrote:You even claim aesthetics to be objectively measurable?
We're done here, you've no concept of what you're arguing, let alone the counter arguments.
You're quality department. You ask imperial players if they like the aesthetics of the Knight. Then you ask all 40k players if they like the aesthetics of the Knight. Then you ask 28mm wargamers if they like the aesthetics of the Knight. You use representatve samples.
You do the same for Dreamforge Crusader.
Bam, haleluyah, magic - hard data, objective assesment of aesthetics. Aesthetics quality in business sense, as I said in my post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:...(because one vehicle I saw there on their site loked like glorified duplo toy and when your robot pretends to be knight already, why not give him just a little ornament or sth? Some of my clix battlemechs have more detail on armor plates),
First, will people please come up with a new insult regarding the Leviathan? I'm really getting tired of the word "toy" being used in a derogatory manner against it, when we're all playing with toys to begin with.
How about a simpleton? I was probably going to use it sooner or later about Crusader anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Freman Bloodglaive wrote:There are objective measures for establishing the quality of a moulded plastic structure. Material, material thickness, lack of deformation over an area, surface finish. Those are things that can be measured, and provide an objective standard.
Yes and that's also what I mean when I say detail, not only how much of it there is but how well done it is, and both those things in conjunction. Sadly can't see any significant detail on Crusader to compare to but again, need better pics maybe. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:What I can say is that if you assume that the "slim" aesthetics of the crusader are on purpose and not because they couldn't do any better
Sigh. Please spend a little time researching how these kits are designed. They're done entirely in digital form, and any digital sculptor capable of making a model like the Leviathan can easily copy/paste a bunch of skulls all over every surface. It's a trivially easy task, and your stubborn insistence otherwise just demonstrates that you have no clue how the design process works.
Yeah design but don't you have to pull it off then with acceptable number of miscasts/ errors. Or GW has no advantage here at all again.
Peregrine wrote:and when your robot pretends to be knight already, why not give him just a little ornament or sth
Because some people like clean, elegant designs and don't follow your standard where "skulls per square inch" is the most important factor in the quality of a design? Seriously, I really don't understand why you have so much trouble with this. It's a different aesthetic choice that many people like, and it has nothing to do with lack of skill.
Skulls ok, I don't talk abut skulls. A lining on the armor plate maybe? Engraving, a small one? It's a robot with a knight head but wants to look like evangelion or eldar walker otherwise? It's plain like a plain plain.
Peregrine wrote:So I need to change my statement, from "GW make best plastics" to "GW make best plastics but are sometimes challeneged by an equaly good model or range so still generaly make best plastics".
So let me get this straight:
The Leviathan is cheaper than the GW knight.
The Leviathan has better posing options than the GW knight.
The Leviathan has better weapon swap options than the GW knight.
The Leviathan has equal or better casting quality compared to the GW knight.
The Leviathan has equal or better detail compared to the GW knight (the only difference being subjective aesthetic preferences).
But yet somehow the Leviathan is only equal to the GW knight? It seems like, for anyone who isn't determined to "prove" how awesome GW is, this would be a compelling argument that the Levaithan is better than the GW kit. It has equal or better quality in every area and it costs less. The only way that the GW knight is a superior product is if you happen to prefer it for aesthetic reasons, but you claim to be talking only about objective quality, not subjective preferences. So how exactly does GW match it in quality instead of failng short?
Yeah except
The Leviathan has worse or equal or better casting quality compared to GW knight.
The Leviathan has worse or equal or better detail compared to GW knight.
We still don't have data about which one is considered better aesthetic wise by majority of target audience.
So not having both models, plastic research lab and enough data, I say they are equal quality wise with levathan being a better value for your dollar. It's an imperfect evaluation without means to do it just like yours, but if it's a win for either side it's slim except the price maybe. Which btw suggests that Leviathan might be a much worse quality piece with the maker fully aware of it, unless he wants to catch consumers that aggresively. Or really is a swell guy.
Peregrine wrote:Remember how we just established that the Leviathan is better than the knight by every objective standard?
No we didn't.
90954
Post by: Torga_DW
Tannhauser42 wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:...(because one vehicle I saw there on their site loked like glorified duplo toy and when your robot pretends to be knight already, why not give him just a little ornament or sth? Some of my clix battlemechs have more detail on armor plates),
First, will people please come up with a new insult regarding the Leviathan? I'm really getting tired of the word "toy" being used in a derogatory manner against it, when we're all playing with toys to begin with.
Just thought i'd mention this one in relation to the original topic (costs of gw). Toys are generally something that children bash together while making "pew! pew!" noises. These may be toy soldiers, but for some of us they're game pieces (and rather expensive ones if they're from gw). I'm having a minor conniption here just thinking about a random stranger on the net bashing his two leviathans together and shouting pew pew! Somebody please think of the painters.
Back on topic: For what its worth, gw is more expensive than it should be. I can't honestly judge at this point exactly why gw fails because they seem to be trying to slyly be 'all things to all people' and price at the highest common denominator. On the game side, the pieces and rules cost way more than they should for whats required to make them, and thats objective (happy to elaborate on that one if people are interested). On the collectors side, the models are mass produced enough (from cheap materials) to have no long-term collection value. The price thing seems to be coming about to prop up their failing business model (such as a retail chain that by the numbers can't support itself in any given region). But hey, its their right to do so, and its the right of people who want to support and/or enjoy that to do so. But call a spade a spade.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Plumbumbarum wrote:Yeah design but don't you have to pull it off then with acceptable number of miscasts/ errors. Or GW has no advantage here at all again.
So are you going to provide any proof for your claim that adding more skulls per square inch to an injection-molded plastic kit increases the difficulty of successfully casting it without an unacceptable rate of miscasts and therefore requires an exceptionally skilled designer (which GW has and nobody else can match)? Or are you just going to, once again, make wild speculation about how GW's advantage in skulls per square inch must be a sign of superior skill rather than GW's competition favoring cleaner aesthetic choices? Because so far speculation and assumptions are all you've provided.
Skulls ok, I don't talk abut skulls. A lining on the armor plate maybe? Engraving, a small one? It's a robot with a knight head but wants to look like evangelion or eldar walker otherwise? It's plain like a plain plain.
What part of "some people like that aesthetic choice" is giving you so much trouble? If you actually look at the model you can see that it has small details where the designer decided to add them, so it isn't a skill issue. The obvious conclusion here is that the designer wanted a clean look, not GW's "skulls per square inch" appearance. IOW, it's a subjective aesthetic choice, no matter how many times you try to pretend that your preference for the GW style is objective superiority.
So not having both models, plastic research lab and enough data, I say they are equal quality wise with levathan being a better value for your dollar.
Only because you continue to reject the Leviathan's advantage in posing options and easy weapon swaps. The Leviathan indisputably wins on several factors, and the only area where the GW kit could possibly have any advantage is aesthetic preference. I really have no idea how you can continue to claim that this is mere "equality".
Which btw suggests that Leviathan might be a much worse quality piece with the maker fully aware of it, unless he wants to catch consumers that aggresively.
Oh good, more wild speculation about how there must be some hidden flaw, and a product can't possibly be better than GW's version (after all, you've already decided that GW's plastic kits are clearly superior to the competition). Maybe instead of wild speculation you could consider the more likely explanation: the manufacturer is going for sales volume over per-unit profit and GW's kits are overpriced.
No we didn't.
Yes we did. The Leviathan wins on price, posing options, and weapon swaps. And, based on the reports from happy customers who bought them, the kit at least ties GW on quality control. Meanwhile the GW kit has no objective advantages in any area. So I'd say that's a pretty clear victory for the Leviathan if you only consider objective standards and not personal preferences about aesthetic choices.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Peregrine wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:Yeah design but don't you have to pull it off then with acceptable number of miscasts/ errors. Or GW has no advantage here at all again.
So are you going to provide any proof for your claim that adding more skulls per square inch to an injection-molded plastic kit increases the difficulty of successfully casting it without an unacceptable rate of miscasts and therefore requires an exceptionally skilled designer (which GW has and nobody else can match)? Or are you just going to, once again, make wild speculation about how GW's advantage in skulls per square inch must be a sign o superior skill rather than GW's competition favoring cleaner aesthetic choices? Because so far speculation and assumptions are all you've provided.
As far as speculation go, kickstarter outsourced to China might be an indication of more limited possibilities vs a company with vast experience and much more money. But that's speculation. Thing is that I read about GW technological advantage in molding etc but NO DON'T ASK because even if I decided to search world wide basement for that extremly popular data just to prove a point on forum, I still don't even know how to post link from this fine piece of technology that requires multiple hits of a button to get a single letter and makes eyes burn after 15 minutes of use. Yes Ill search for it and post it as soon as I have time and means to. You people poking fun at it btw a few pages back, go be funny somewhere else because I log in and discuss here despite the big discomfort and that's respecting the disputants, something you don't do.
Peregrine wrote:Skulls ok, I don't talk abut skulls. A lining on the armor plate maybe? Engraving, a small one? It's a robot with a knight head but wants to look like evangelion or eldar walker otherwise? It's plain like a plain plain.
What part of "some people like that aesthetic choice" is giving you so much trouble? If you actually look at the model you can see that it has small details where the designer decided to add them, so it isn't a skill issue. The obvious conclusion here is that the designer wanted a clean look, not GW's "skulls per square inch" appearance. IOW, it's a subjective aesthetic choice, no matter how many times you try to pretend that your preference for the GW style is objective superiority.
No it's about you reffering to fine detail as skulls non stop. I only pointed out other kind of detail that could benefit the knightish idea of crusader, probably more than what they chose to go with, not essentialy gw level of bling but some middleground or sth. I already said I assume its clean look is choice for the sake of comparision. Looking at it Im not sure but whatever.
Peregrine wrote: So not having both models, plastic research lab and enough data, I say they are equal quality wise with levathan being a better value for your dollar.
Only because you continue to reject the Leviathan's advantage in posing options and easy weapon swaps. The Leviathan indisputably wins on several factors, and the only area where the GW kit could possibly have any advantage is aesthetic preference. I really have no idea how you can continue to claim that this is mere "equality".
For the 10th or so time, if you speak from perpective of quality, if people bought 10 times Knights over Crusaders because of the looks, the posability and swappable weapons would be almost irrelevant. But we dont know that (though might strongly suspect) and I only gave small nod to knight for being more complicated model, ok lets ditch that. Still the posability and swapable weapons would only tip the scale in favor of the crusader if the casting quality and detail were better which you decided out of your left pocket without any proof for that either. And even if you had one, you have a slim win for people that cant magnetise or work a bit more on a model and still you would have one model better than something similar (and still excelent) from GW, that can happen and doesn't change the trend. If theyre close to equal then clearly crusader wins on value, I said best not best and cheap. In fact I said overpriced 2 fold.
Peregrine wrote:Which btw suggests that Leviathan might be a much worse quality piece with the maker fully aware of it, unless he wants to catch consumers that aggresively.
Oh good, more wild speculation about how there must be some hidden flaw, and a product can't possibly be better than GW's version (after all, you've already decided that GW's plastic kits are clearly superior to the competition). Maybe instead of wild speculation you could consider the more likely explanation: the manufacturer is going for sales volume over per-unit profit and GW's kits are overpriced.
Your speculation is as good as mine. Wouldnt so supposedly good kit the size of warhound made of plastic still fly for $200? And I said might, bolded.
Peregrine wrote:No we didn't.
Yes we did. The Leviathan wins on price, posing options, and weapon swaps. And, based on the reports from happy customers who bought them, the kit at least ties GW on quality control. Meanwhile the GW kit has no objective advantages in any area. So I'd say that's a pretty clear victory for the Leviathan if you only consider objective standards and not personal preferences about aesthetic choices.
No we didn't. And I hope you don't mean the classy reports from dreamforge site like "best in the world so much better than gw crap" or "I need new plastic cutters for this masterpiece old ones are dirty from gw sprues. "
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
I'm just going to save myself any future wrist strain and not bother responding to Plum anymore. Peregrine, I think your efforts are better directed elsewhere at this point. We're just not getting through the Citadel™ Fine™Tinfoil™ Hat™.
34243
Post by: Blacksails
We should be content that we've proven him wrong on his original assertion that the Knight was vastly superior.
His argument now seems like its 'GW makes really good plastics, and other companies do as well now', which I don't think anyone is really against.
GW does make really good plastics. I just think its pretty biased and ignorant to say they're the best in the world, especially given the arguments presented to support that stance.
Finally, when you factor in cost, GW's stuff falls way behind.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
I'm still waiting for an explanation for how you can objectively assess the aesthetics of a mini, but agreed, I've already stated I don't believe he fully understands his own argument, let alone other people's, and I stand by that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tannhauser42 wrote:I'm just going to save myself any future wrist strain and not bother responding to Plum anymore. Peregrine, I think your efforts are better directed elsewhere at this point. We're just not getting through the Citadel™ Fine™Tinfoil™ Hat™.
It's amazing that it works, considering all the holes!
53939
Post by: vipoid
What would you prefer? Bling perhaps? Whatever word you use, the meaning is the same - we're referring to details that serve no purpose whatsoever.
- A hydraulic piston as part of an arm or leg serves a purpose, in that it is there to move said limb (or would if the knight was real).
- A skull, purity seal or other embellishment is just bling. It does nothing. It serves no purpose. Depending on your view, it may either make the model look more interesting or make it look more cluttered.
Plumbumbarum wrote: I only pointed out other kind of detail that could benefit the knightish idea of crusader, probably more than what they chose to go with, not essentialy gw level of bling but some middleground or sth.
But that's the thing - some people simply prefer the clean look. Or, perhaps they like having the option to add bells and whistles if they choose to - rather than having unwanted details sculpted onto the model. Maybe some would prefer more bling, but it isn't necessary to make the model good.
30143
Post by: Carnage43
vipoid wrote:
What would you prefer? Bling perhaps? Whatever word you use, the meaning is the same - we're referring to details that serve no purpose whatsoever.
In 3D modeling the term is "Greeble"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeble
A greeble or nurnie is a fine detailing added to the surface of a larger object that makes it appear more complex, and therefore more visually interesting. It usually gives the audience an impression of increased scale.
Works pretty well in this case I think.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Tannhauser42 wrote:I'm just going to save myself any future wrist strain and not bother responding to Plum anymore. Peregrine, I think your efforts are better directed elsewhere at this point. We're just not getting through the Citadel™ Fine™Tinfoil™ Hat™.
I had a few people refusing further discussion with me because I was a " GW hater" so imo your citadel tinfoil hat comment only proves both you and them wrong and rather that I do it right. I try to give credit where it's due.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote:We should be content that we've proven him wrong on his original assertion that the Knight was vastly superior.
Yes the leviathan box picture doesn't do it justice, it's significantly better when you give it a closer look. I still dont consider myself proven wrong, I' ll let you know though. Indeed dont bother trying it's now me only that can prove me wrong, heard it all.
Blacksails wrote:GW does make really good plastics. I just think its pretty biased and ignorant to say they're the best in the world, especially given the arguments presented to support that stance.
Well some argument could be the sheer number of great gw kits vs the number of kits from other companies that can withstand a comparision.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote:I'm still waiting for an explanation for how you can objectively assess the aesthetics of a mini, but agreed, I've already stated I don't believe he fully understands his own argument, let alone other people's, and I stand by that.
Man I did that, multiple times including few posts above answering you directly. I am only left to assume that we don't understand each other and that probably Im crap at explaining these things in English. I will only tell you, and don't take it as a brag or proof of anything but just context, that I am a quality director in my current company, have a degree in sociology and introduced quality systems quite succesfuly to multiple companes. Im talking about objective assesment of quality from a quality managment standpoint, and only that.
Azrael13 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote:I'm just going to save myself any future wrist strain and not bother responding to Plum anymore. Peregrine, I think your efforts are better directed elsewhere at this point. We're just not getting through the Citadel™ Fine™Tinfoil™ Hat™.
It's amazing that it works, considering all the holes!
You just can't see how detailed the holes are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote:
What would you prefer? Bling perhaps? Whatever word you use, the meaning is the same - we're referring to details that serve no purpose whatsoever.
- A hydraulic piston as part of an arm or leg serves a purpose, in that it is there to move said limb (or would if the knight was real).
- A skull, purity seal or other embellishment is just bling. It does nothing. It serves no purpose. Depending on your view, it may either make the model look more interesting or make it look more cluttered.
Plumbumbarum wrote: I only pointed out other kind of detail that could benefit the knightish idea of crusader, probably more than what they chose to go with, not essentialy gw level of bling but some middleground or sth.
But that's the thing - some people simply prefer the clean look. Or, perhaps they like having the option to add bells and whistles if they choose to - rather than having unwanted details sculpted onto the model. Maybe some would prefer more bling, but it isn't necessary to make the model good.
In the end, whether it's bling, fine detail, clutter, beauty or gribble, if vast majority of your consumers want gribble, GRIBBLE IS QUALITY. And I hate majority of recent GW sculpts for example crimson chosen, because they're TOO BUSY and I dont consider fuking eyes on a chestplate a good detail on a chaos space marine. Don't even start with Taurox where excessive detail is exactly what ruins the not that bad chasis. But, again, despite the fact that I consider my taste 1st class and vastly superior than one of average person, my opinion here is irrelevant.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Tannhauser42 wrote:I'm just going to save myself any future wrist strain and not bother responding to Plum anymore. Peregrine, I think your efforts are better directed elsewhere at this point. We're just not getting through the Citadel™ Fine™Tinfoil™ Hat™.
I think you're right. I think it's pretty well established now that his only argument consists of "GW makes the best plastic kits -> anything that seems to be better than GW's plastic kits must have flaws that make it worse, even if I have nothing more than wild speculation about those flaws as "proof" of my claim -> therefore GW makes the best plastic kits".
Plumbumbarum, feel free to come back to this discussion if you want to provide proof of your claims instead of just speculation about what flaws a kit must have so that it can fit into your assumptions of GW superiority, or attempts to turn your subjective aesthetic preferences for GW's "skulls per square inch" art style into objective quality.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Peregrine wrote: Tannhauser42 wrote:I'm just going to save myself any future wrist strain and not bother responding to Plum anymore. Peregrine, I think your efforts are better directed elsewhere at this point. We're just not getting through the Citadel™ Fine™Tinfoil™ Hat™.
I think you're right. I think it's pretty well established now that his only argument consists of "GW makes the best plastic kits -> anything that seems to be better than GW's plastic kits must have flaws that make it worse, even if I have nothing more than wild speculation about those flaws as "proof" of my claim -> therefore GW makes the best plastic kits".
Plumbumbarum, feel free to come back to this discussion if you want to provide proof of your claims instead of just speculation about what flaws a kit must have so that it can fit into your assumptions of GW superiority, or attempts to turn your subjective aesthetic preferences for GW's "skulls per square inch" art style into objective quality.
Yes I will at some point, or will be forced to back off with my claims, which ofc won't exactly mean Im wrong only that I cant prove it. You simplified my arguments beyond the point of fair discussion imo but again lets say it's on me and my inability to properly convey my thoughts. Sometimes I think I don't really understand English beyond some point.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
I think the IK looks better (opinion) but the Leviathan wins in every other category I could think of. I didn't really get it until I saw it in person and was blown away.
Sorry, Plum but Peregrine wins on this one.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
It's a niche of a niche product, if you think Gamesworkshop is expensive start collectings trains O_O that stuff is crazy expensive.
I mean this is actually a luxury hobby.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Care to define a non-luxury hobby?
The whole concept is fallacious.
6846
Post by: solkan
Making web comics. They would qualify as an anti-luxury for most of the people involved.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
 solkan wrote:
Making web comics. They would qualify as an anti-luxury for most of the people involved.
I get you're joking, but even that requires hundreds/thousands/millions of *insert currency here* in tech plus web access and the necessary spare time.
A hobby is, by definition, a luxury because it means you have time and money above that which is needed to ensure you can eat and not be homeless.
It is a daft argument made by people who don't really understand the issue at the heart of the debate, it isn't about the amount of cash spent, it is about whether the consumer feels they're getting a good return of enjoyment on their investment, and it is on that criteria that GW is starting to suffer in many people's eyes.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
 Carnage43 wrote: vipoid wrote:
What would you prefer? Bling perhaps? Whatever word you use, the meaning is the same - we're referring to details that serve no purpose whatsoever.
In 3D modeling the term is "Greeble"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeblei
A greeble or nurnie is a fine detailing added to the surface of a larger object that makes it appear more complex, and therefore more visually interesting. It usually gives the audience an impression of increased scale.
Works pretty well in this case I think.
Yeah except insane amount of detail was always in warhammers art and was added to everything not just larger objects ie Iann Miller, GW just seems to follow with the style, for better or worse. Not to mention I consciously like the style and models like for example Karamazov for its sheer ridiculousness and pointless decoration, it greatly fits the sheer ridiculousness and pointless direction of the whole universe. I appreciate the stupidity and insanity in the sea of "realistic" and "probable" sf which btw rarely succed in that anyway if you start to analyse. 40k as science fantasy can afford things without purpose, like church on Titans shoulders for example. I have other universes/games where I can look for logic, sense, sleek designs or mecha that could walk and work. So, me liking excessive detail is not because I fell for cheap illusion trick. Btw I'm a fan of battletech mechs also love Evangelion designs to death, hows that in the theory of my greeble love. Have that blue 20cm something Eva 00 figurine next to my pc and not a single 40k model.
So no it does not work pretty well "in this case" as you, with all the failed smartassery, put it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote:I think the IK looks better (opinion) but the Leviathan wins in every other category I could think of. I didn't really get it until I saw it in person and was blown away.
Sorry, Plum but Peregrine wins on this one.
Im fine with losing an argument, not to mention I dislike the notion of discussion as a competition. It happens to turn into one in my case quite often but rather because of my posting style or my dislike for certain posting techniques of others, or misundertstandings, not because my objective is to win so be always right, prove everyone wrong or other bs. Such attitude is kind of crap to be honest and internet tough guy stuff, the main objective of discussion is truth or getting as close to it as possible.
On the other hand, to admit being wrong I have to think I'm wrong. Nothing is proven either way yet, sure burden of proof is on me but that takes time, I don't remember the source of data and thought process of every opinion I've ever formed. Not to mention some ultimate conclusion might be impossible because we lack data.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Plumbumbarum wrote:So no it does not work pretty well "in this case" as you, with all the failed smartassery, put it.
No, you just don't understand that "greeble" is a factual description, not criticism. It simply refers to "complex detail with no function besides adding detail" and is neither good nor bad. When used well (the Star Wars ship models, for example) it is a legitimate aesthetic choice that can produce good results. Excessive greebling only becomes an issue when it's poorly done and just adds clutter to the model instead of being a coherent design. Whether 40k's models are on the good or bad side of that line is, yet again, subjective preference. Some people like it, some people think GW is too determined to maximize skulls per square inch and should get rid of some of the clutter. But either way the term definitely applies to GW's art style.
And, just to be clear, successfully putting greebles on everything is not a sign of skill. This kind of detail is usually composed of fairly simple shapes and the only real limiting factor on it is how much time you're willing to spend adding it.
62560
Post by: Makumba
Plumb don't you mean that GW models have a better mass product technology in their entire line of models compering to other firms plastic models, because that thing could be defended.
Other firms can do plastic models, what ever good looking or not is a matter of taste, but GW does produce the biggest number of different plastic kits with more options then other firms, what ever the options are needed or not is again a matter of taste. So under that point of view GW models or rather their model line is superior.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Makumba wrote:Plumb don't you mean that GW models have a better mass product technology in their entire line of models compering to other firms plastic models, because that thing could be defended.
Other firms can do plastic models, what ever good looking or not is a matter of taste, but GW does produce the biggest number of different plastic kits with more options then other firms, what ever the options are needed or not is again a matter of taste. So under that point of view GW models or rather their model line is superior.
Yes that too. Also Im not sure whether other companies would be able to make that much of intricate and complicated detail with such precision or not. I read somewhere that GW has the advantage like that but is that machines, experience, software or something added to polystyrene for better flow, I cant remember.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Plumbumbarum wrote:
In the end, whether it's bling, fine detail, clutter, beauty or gribble, if vast majority of your consumers want gribble, GRIBBLE IS QUALITY.
No it isn't. That's the whole point.
Plumbumbarum wrote:And I hate majority of recent GW sculpts for example crimson chosen, because they're TOO BUSY and I dont consider fuking eyes on a chestplate a good detail on a chaos space marine. Don't even start with Taurox where excessive detail is exactly what ruins the not that bad chasis. But, again, despite the fact that I consider my taste 1st class and vastly superior than one of average person, my opinion here is irrelevant.
Your responses confuse me. 
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
vipoid wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:
In the end, whether it's bling, fine detail, clutter, beauty or gribble, if vast majority of your consumers want gribble, GRIBBLE IS QUALITY.
No it isn't. That's the whole point.
Quality is meeting the requirements of the customer, that's a defnition I have to work with everyday in my line of work. I hate it because it allows to m stretch it into statements that bBieber is better than Bach. But the definition that I prefer,where quality is meeting the requirements of the customer that he/she is not aware of having is hardly applicable in real world, it's not your role to tech the customer. In short, if you target entire population and vast majority of it wants a fat beat and sugar sweet lyrics, you give them that but made good within required criteria. If your target audience is 40k wargamers and they want gribble, you give them gribble. Thats not an analgy heh.
Therefore dv chosen are quality producy also from that standpoint unless you have nukbers that a signficant part of customer base hate them like I do. Then we discuss set per entages for quality and see whats next.
vipoid wrote:Your responses confuse me.
Thats because I speak about objective comparision of minis quality. If you want to establish an objective way to compare minis and take the important part that is design into equation, you cant base it on single person taste but numbers. Funny part is that I dont even use it as argument pro knight be ause I dn't have that numbers but just mentioned assesing it and there you go. And you could spend a trillion, make a 60 question questionare about knight and ask whole western world plus Asia about it.
Ofc any method of comparision propised will be imperfect because everything is. We can try though.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Plumbumbarum wrote:Quality is meeting the requirements of the customer, that's a defnition I have to work with everyday in my line of work.
No, no it isn't.
Quality - "the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something."
I think you're confusing it with customer satisfaction, which is another matter altogether. e.g. Some people might end up buying a low-quality speaker system simply because, in their opinion, it looks nicer than the ones which produce better quality sound (or perhaps they're just cheaper). It still doesn't make those speakers high-quality.
Plumbumbarum wrote: In short, if you target entire population and vast majority of it wants a fat beat and sugar sweet lyrics, you give them that but made good within required criteria.
That's supply and demand, not quality. It *might* relate to the quality of a product, but this is far from certain. Sometimes it is even the opposite - where people buy something because it is cheap, even if it is of poor quality.
Plumbumbarum wrote: If your target audience is 40k wargamers and they want gribble, you give them gribble. Thats not an analgy heh.
As above, that's supply and demand - not quality.
Also, where did we establish that 40k gamers want gribble?
Plumbumbarum wrote:
Therefore dv chosen are quality producy also from that standpoint unless you have nukbers that a signficant part of customer base hate them like I do. Then we discuss set per entages for quality and see whats next.
Please provide the numbers proving a significant portion of the customer base does like that gribble.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Peregrine wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:So no it does not work pretty well "in this case" as you, with all the failed smartassery, put it.
No, you just don't understand that "greeble" is a factual description, not criticism. It simply refers to "complex detail with no function besides adding detail" and is neither good nor bad. When used well (the Star Wars ship models, for example) it is a legitimate aesthetic choice that can produce good results. Excessive greebling only becomes an issue when it's poorly done and just adds clutter to the model instead of being a coherent design. Whether 40k's models are on the good or bad side of that line is, yet again, subjective preference. Some people like it, some people think GW is too determined to maximize skulls per square inch and should get rid of some of the clutter. But either way the term definitely applies to GW's art style.
And, just to be clear, successfully putting greebles on everything is not a sign of skill. This kind of detail is usually composed of fairly simple shapes and the only real limiting factor on it is how much time you're willing to spend adding it.
It's you that reduced my point about detail to greeble, skulls per inch etc. I meant detail like lets say, leaves and small branches on a treefolk as in, GW probably has the capability to make it finer, more precise while maybe thinner etc. Automatically Appended Next Post: vipoid wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:Quality is meeting the requirements of the customer, that's a defnition I have to work with everyday in my line of work.
No, no it isn't.
Quality - "the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something."
I think you're confusing it with customer satisfaction, which is another matter altogether. e.g. Some people might end up buying a low-quality speaker system simply because, in their opinion, it looks nicer than the ones which produce better quality sound (or perhaps they're just cheaper). It still doesn't make those speakers high-quality.
As per my next quote, you have to make it good within required criteria which are inherent to the product, the closer you get the better. So, perfect sound comes first with speakers, just as material quality and casting in case of the mini. But then if you want to make quality design of the speakers, you gather data about your consumer's preference and define criteria by that. Ofc with the car, design would be related to many more things like aerodynamics or safety, you define it per product.
vipoid wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote: In short, if you target entire population and vast majority of it wants a fat beat and sugar sweet lyrics, you give them that but made good within required criteria.
That's supply and demand, not quality. It *might* relate to the quality of a product, but this is far from certain. Sometimes it is even the opposite - where people buy something because it is cheap, even if it is of poor quality.
Yes unless you already have a product and defined customer base. Then everything that is not inherent requirement becomes quality. If your cheap speakers buyers tell you they want them pink and you deliver, is that not an excellent product in design department? Who are we to say that pink speakers are ugly hehe. Ofc your cheap speakers will probably still have much to correct when it comes to inherent product requirements. Unless your dreamforge then you are value product but excellent all around, sorry just had to.
vipoid wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote: If your target audience is 40k wargamers and they want gribble, you give them gribble. Thats not an analgy heh.
As above, that's supply and demand - not quality.
As above, gw already produces 40k and sells it to 40k wargamers,established and incoming. Meeting their requirements in design would be quality, assuming you want to use quality measurement about design instead doing whatever the f you want and eat it or not.
vipoid wrote:Also, where did we establish that 40k gamers want gribble?
We didn't. I'd love to know myself. I guess 40k gamers do but never used it without "if" in the sentence.
vipoid wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:
Therefore dv chosen are quality producy also from that standpoint unless you have numbers that a signficant part of customer base hate them like I do. Then we discuss set per entages for quality and see whats next.
Please provide the numbers proving a significant portion of the customer base does like that gribble.
Didn't I say in that exact post that I don't have them and therefore don't use it as an argument pro knight etc. I only used it to suggest that you could possibly take design beyond personal taste towards objective data, if you obtained the numbers.
I sometimes feel like noone actualy reads my posts. Or theyre that bad, cant say.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Plumbumbarum wrote:So no it does not work pretty well "in this case" as you, with all the failed smartassery, put it.
No, you just don't understand that "greeble" is a factual description, not criticism. It simply refers to "complex detail with no function besides adding detail" and is neither good nor bad. When used well (the Star Wars ship models, for example) it is a legitimate aesthetic choice that can produce good results. Excessive greebling only becomes an issue when it's poorly done and just adds clutter to the model instead of being a coherent design. Whether 40k's models are on the good or bad side of that line is, yet again, subjective preference. Some people like it, some people think GW is too determined to maximize skulls per square inch and should get rid of some of the clutter. But either way the term definitely applies to GW's art style.
And, just to be clear, successfully putting greebles on everything is not a sign of skill. This kind of detail is usually composed of fairly simple shapes and the only real limiting factor on it is how much time you're willing to spend adding it.
It's you that reduced my point about detail to greeble, skulls per inch etc. I meant detail like lets say, leaves and small branches on a treefolk as in, GW probably has the capability to make it finer, more precise while maybe thinner etc.
But they don't!
Whether a company has in house machinery or not makes no odds to the overall capability for injection moulded hard plastic available.
In actual fact, last year at one of the events, having out dated tech was one of the reasons cited by the design team (it might have been Jes Goodwin himself) that SoB had yet to be made in plastic.
One of the downsides of owning your own machinery is that you have to ensure you get a return in that investment before upgrading, meaning sometimes you're actually behind the curve of what is technically possible. Using a third party company means you can choose to use one that has invested in the latest tech.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Azreal13 wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:So no it does not work pretty well "in this case" as you, with all the failed smartassery, put it.
No, you just don't understand that "greeble" is a factual description, not criticism. It simply refers to "complex detail with no function besides adding detail" and is neither good nor bad. When used well (the Star Wars ship models, for example) it is a legitimate aesthetic choice that can produce good results. Excessive greebling only becomes an issue when it's poorly done and just adds clutter to the model instead of being a coherent design. Whether 40k's models are on the good or bad side of that line is, yet again, subjective preference. Some people like it, some people think GW is too determined to maximize skulls per square inch and should get rid of some of the clutter. But either way the term definitely applies to GW's art style.
And, just to be clear, successfully putting greebles on everything is not a sign of skill. This kind of detail is usually composed of fairly simple shapes and the only real limiting factor on it is how much time you're willing to spend adding it.
It's you that reduced my point about detail to greeble, skulls per inch etc. I meant detail like lets say, leaves and small branches on a treefolk as in, GW probably has the capability to make it finer, more precise while maybe thinner et
But they don't!
Whether a company has in house machinery or not makes no odds to the overall capability for injection moulded hard plastic available.
In actual fact, last year at one of the events, having out dated tech was one of the reasons cited by the design team (it might have been Jes Goodwin himself) that SoB had yet to be made in plastic.
Well if that is so, that's one less, significant point I can make. But what about chemistry, designers experience, sheer advantage with resources? Idon't know now I ask.
Churn out DV chosen can't do sisters? I know monopose is easier but what's that about, hair in the wind, nails to paint? Weird.
And if true, could other companies make sister like GW wants them to be. Maybe they set the standard that high?
Azrael13 wrote:One of the downsides of owning your own machinery is that you have to ensure you get a return in that investment before upgrading, meaning sometimes you're actually behind the curve of what is technically possible. Using a third party company means you can choose to use one that has invested in the latest tech.
Thats a valid point but now the question is how it really is out there ie equipment avilable for sensible price vs what GW has etc. I welcome data if you have it. Wouldnt PP or FFG or someone outdone GW on their own turf already if there was nothing special about gw?
Also even if thats just money that prevents other companies to produce as many kits at comparable quality level, doesnt that still leave GW at best drastic plastic position?
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Well, chemistry is a nonsense, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say, that GW have a team of boffins spending their days engineering the perfect plastic?
No, they will most likely just buy in large quantities of plastic beads from a plastic manufacturer, which are melted down and injected into the sprue moulds - there are different forms of plastic in use by different manufacturers, but these are choices based on various criteria, not a secret recipe.
Why are DV Chosen so difficult to produce?
They're not. They just have a lot of greeble.
Why are sisters difficult to produce?
The distinctive features, such as the long, flowing fabrics and hair are difficult to reproduce in plastic, because of the limitations of casting in that medium (no undercuts) and GW have eliminated any alternate material from their mainstream lines.
I can't answer if other companies could do them like GW wants, because I have no idea what that is, do I think a company like Dreamforge could produce kick-ass looking female warriors in armour? Absolutely.
You're also correct that, within wargaming, GW is in the best position to produce plastic kits, because they have the highest sales volume and are able to leverage this against the high initial overheads of producing them and exploit the higher than average unit sales in comparison to their competition to maximise the long term return in those overheads.
This doesn't have any bearing on quality though, again, to use McDonalds as a comparison, does the fact that McDondalds are in a position to drive the cost of each individual burger they produce to the lowest level, and also spend large amounts of cash on developing new dishes every month mean that what they are producing is inherently better quality than the old fashioned, higher priced burger joint around the corner?
Possibly, but I'd expect the lower volume, more bespoke retailer to usually be able to make a better product.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
I think pertinent to this discussion is the new PP Convergance battle engine, in plastic like GW kits, looks to give them a run for their money detail wise and is also a pretty good price for the size kit it is.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
This?
That's probably a pretty good comparison, it is of a similar level of detail, similar price, and similar size (but slightly larger) than this..
But, subjectively, I don't like The Battle Engine, I mean, I'm not a huge fan of the spore either as I generally don't like the Nid aesthetic, but I'd be more likely to buy one some day.
So, objectively very similar, but subjectively, I don't much care for the PP model.
There will, of course, be people who feel the exact opposite way - that's the nature of subjectivity. However, nobody will be able to argue that the RRP of both is similar, because that's a matter of fact.
Which returns me to the original point I was making about a week ago, which, when you take subjectivity out of the equation and just factor in how much of a contribution the PP makes to the total of an average sized list in comparison to the Nidpod, that in gameplay terms, while having a similar Cost the Battle Engine poses much better Value.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Plumbumbarum wrote:It's you that reduced my point about detail to greeble, skulls per inch etc. I meant detail like lets say, leaves and small branches on a treefolk as in, GW probably has the capability to make it finer, more precise while maybe thinner etc.
Again with the speculation. GW "probably" has the ability to make better detail, but you don't provide any evidence of this claim. It seems like the only reason to make the claim in the first place is your assumption that GW somehow has to have better models.
Also, remember that F-104? GW's level of fine detail is not even close to the limits of injection-molded plastic kits.
Plumbumbarum wrote:Quality is meeting the requirements of the customer, that's a defnition I have to work with everyday in my line of work. I hate it because it allows to m stretch it into statements that bBieber is better than Bach. But the definition that I prefer,where quality is meeting the requirements of the customer that he/she is not aware of having is hardly applicable in real world, it's not your role to tech the customer. In short, if you target entire population and vast majority of it wants a fat beat and sugar sweet lyrics, you give them that but made good within required criteria. If your target audience is 40k wargamers and they want gribble, you give them gribble. Thats not an analgy heh.
The problem with your definition is that it it's incomplete. You define customer satisfaction based only on the people who buy the product, not the people who decided not to buy it because they didn't like it. That's a relevant way to look at it when the question is how frequently you have defective products (miscast rate, etc) that don't meet customer expectations, but it fails completely when you consider aesthetic factors because a customer that buys a model because they like how it looks is almost by definition going to be satisfied with it. But, for example, if I don't buy a Taurox because I think it's a terrible design then I don't count as a customer at all and that lost sale is never counted. You can have an ugly kit that only 10% of the potential customers buy, but as long as you don't have any miscasts that 10% will be happy and you can claim 100% satisfaction and awesome quality. But that's obviously not a successful product.
99
Post by: insaniak
Plumbumbarum wrote:Churn out DV chosen can't do sisters? I know monopose is easier but what's that about, hair in the wind, nails to paint? Weird.
It's down to the flappy fabric parts, mostly.
Companies with more advanced plastic moulding machinery might have a chance of replicating the current metal sisters (Japanese model companies have been producing plastic kits with undercuts, hollow weapon barrels ( without having to cut them in half like GW do with thei heavy weapons) and even parts cast in multiple layered colours for years now) but with the machinery that GW have on hand they would have to significantly redesign the sisters' armour, and supposedly Jes has consistently refused to do that.
And if true, could other companies make sister like GW wants them to be. Maybe they set the standard that high?
As above... yes, other model companies could probably make them in plastic as is.
Wouldnt PP or FFG or someone outdone GW on their own turf already if there was nothing special about gw?
Privateer very specifically focussed on metal production up until fairly recently. Their move into plastic has been a gradual affair... but even there, by choosing a different production method they managed to produce a first wave of kits in plastic that were virtually identical to the metal kits they replaced.
GW's move from metal to plastic has almost always resulted in a loss of detail.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Azreal13 wrote:Well, chemistry is a nonsense, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say, that GW have a team of boffins spending their days engineering the perfect plastic?
No, they will most likely just buy in large quantities of plastic beads from a plastic manufacturer, which are melted down and injected into the sprue moulds - there are different forms of plastic in use by different manufacturers, but these are choices based on various criteria, not a secret recipe.
Yes polystyrene is polystyrene but I have a vague recollection of something about improving the flow or sth. That's why I asked.
Azrael13 wrote:Why are DV Chosen so difficult to produce?
They're not. They just have a lot of greeble.
Why are sisters difficult to produce?
The distinctive features, such as the long, flowing fabrics and hair are difficult to reproduce in plastic, because of the limitations of casting in that medium (no undercuts) and GW have eliminated any alternate material from their mainstream lines.
I can't answer if other companies could do them like GW wants, because I have no idea what that is, do I think a company like Dreamforge could produce kick-ass looking female warriors in armour? Absolutely.
I have no idea what it is then either because there's plenty of fabric on their various plastics, gals on coven throne seem to have nice hair too. They must plan something far better than current metals. But Im not going to argue with mr. Goodwin obviously about his own production.
Azrael13 wrote:You're also correct that, within wargaming, GW is in the best position to produce plastic kits, because they have the highest sales volume and are able to leverage this against the high initial overheads of producing them and exploit the higher than average unit sales in comparison to their competition to maximise the long term return in those overheads.
This doesn't have any bearing on quality though, again, to use McDonalds as a comparison, does the fact that McDondalds are in a position to drive the cost of each individual burger they produce to the lowest level, and also spend large amounts of cash on developing new dishes every month mean that what they are producing is inherently better quality than the old fashioned, higher priced burger joint around the corner?
Possibly, but I'd expect the lower volume, more bespoke retailer to usually be able to make a better product.
You can make pretty strong case against quality of mcdonalds burgers, you can't make similarly strong case against quality of gw plastics. Making burgers is not making models either and eating burgers is not modelling. I understand why you use the analogy but the connotation is unfair for GW, a lot (Microsoft maybe for the bully attitude and monopolising tendencies if you really want to bash them) and does not reflect on gw vs small companies models quality. Not to mention low volume burger seller is much less controled and rats are not that differnt in taste from what Ive read.
That was a much better post and informative post from you than newsflash type smartassery, so thank you I guess. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:It's you that reduced my point about detail to greeble, skulls per inch etc. I meant detail like lets say, leaves and small branches on a treefolk as in, GW probably has the capability to make it finer, more precise while maybe thinner etc.
Again with the speculation. GW "probably" has the ability to make better detail, but you don't provide any evidence of this claim. It seems like the only reason to make the claim in the first place is your assumption that GW somehow has to have better models.
Also, remember that F-104? GW's level of fine detail is not even close to the limits of injection-molded plastic kits.
Yes I wanted to add Attention Speculation sign to that post and one to mr Azrael just for you. Im still on the crap phone and I know that reffering to vague old article or blog without link got cheap a page ago at least. I dare to speculate because I didn't see other plastic kits with that kind of detail GW puts on to compare and those that were close in style I saw were all worse. If talking about real things that were were comparable like model planes or tanks to vehicles, those of my friends I saw seemed worse too.
Ill look up the plane, I ignored it tbh. It's still not direct comparision imo.
Peregrine wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:Quality is meeting the requirements of the customer, that's a defnition I have to work with everyday in my line of work. I hate it because it allows to m stretch it into statements that bBieber is better than Bach. But the definition that I prefer,where quality is meeting the requirements of the customer that he/she is not aware of having is hardly applicable in real world, it's not your role to tech the customer. In short, if you target entire population and vast majority of it wants a fat beat and sugar sweet lyrics, you give them that but made good within required criteria. If your target audience is 40k wargamers and they want gribble, you give them gribble. Thats not an analgy heh.
The problem with your definition is that it it's incomplete. You define customer satisfaction based only on the people who buy the product, not the people who decided not to buy it because they didn't like it. That's a relevant way to look at it when the question is how frequently you have defective products (miscast rate, etc) that don't meet customer expectations, but it fails completely when you consider aesthetic factors because a customer that buys a model because they like how it looks is almost by definition going to be satisfied with it. But, for example, if I don't buy a Taurox because I think it's a terrible design then I don't count as a customer at all and that lost sale is never counted. You can have an ugly kit that only 10% of the potential customers buy, but as long as you don't have any miscasts that 10% will be happy and you can claim 100% satisfaction and awesome quality. But that's obviously not a successful product.
Exactly what you say and that's why I wrote in one of my posts earlier that you sample and ask imperial players, then 40k gamers, then wargamers. You can also ask teen or entire population of the world. Depends on your target audience, at given moment, if we wanted to compare the reception of knight to the reception of crusader, asking sf wargamers should be enough I guess.
btw wasnt dreamforge trying to do a churchy titan? Not that sleek then.
Fun fact is also that I wouldn't want company like gw to ask customers about designs, I hate the idea of artist driven by polls. But that's a different topic ofc.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Plumbumbarum wrote:
Azrael13 wrote:You're also correct that, within wargaming, GW is in the best position to produce plastic kits, because they have the highest sales volume and are able to leverage this against the high initial overheads of producing them and exploit the higher than average unit sales in comparison to their competition to maximise the long term return in those overheads.
This doesn't have any bearing on quality though, again, to use McDonalds as a comparison, does the fact that McDondalds are in a position to drive the cost of each individual burger they produce to the lowest level, and also spend large amounts of cash on developing new dishes every month mean that what they are producing is inherently better quality than the old fashioned, higher priced burger joint around the corner?
Possibly, but I'd expect the lower volume, more bespoke retailer to usually be able to make a better product.
You can make pretty strong case against quality of mcdonalds burgers, you can't make similarly strong case against quality of gw plastics. Making burgers is not making models either and eating burgers is not modelling. I understand why you use the analogy but the connotation is unfair for GW, a lot (Microsoft maybe for the bully attitude and monopolising tendencies if you really want to bash them) and does not reflect on gw vs small companies models quality. Not to mention low volume burger seller is much less controled and rats are not that differnt in taste from what Ive read.
This wasn't the comparison I was making, the point I was making was that ubiquity is no assurance of quality, that just because GW can and does put out and sell a lot of plastic kits, it doesn't automatically follow that they are the best at it.
That was a much better post and informative post from you than newsflash type smartassery, so thank you I guess.
Frankly, if that's what you class as gratitude, thank you, but you can keep it. I explained that i was merely attempting levity and meant no offence, if you choose to continue to call me a smartass then I can only begin to assume you're deliberately continuing to choose to attack me personally and act accordingly.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
 insaniak wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:Churn out DV chosen can't do sisters? I know monopose is easier but what's that about, hair in the wind, nails to paint? Weird.
It's down to the flappy fabric parts, mostly.
Companies with more advanced plastic moulding machinery might have a chance of replicating the current metal sisters (Japanese model companies have been producing plastic kits with undercuts, hollow weapon barrels ( without having to cut them in half like GW do with thei heavy weapons) and even parts cast in multiple layered colours for years now) but with the machinery that GW have on hand they would have to significantly redesign the sisters' armour, and supposedly Jes has consistently refused to do that.
And if true, could other companies make sister like GW wants them to be. Maybe they set the standard that high?
As above... yes, other model companies could probably make them in plastic as is.
Wouldnt PP or FFG or someone outdone GW on their own turf already if there was nothing special about gw?
Privateer very specifically focussed on metal production up until fairly recently. Their move into plastic has been a gradual affair... but even there, by choosing a different production method they managed to produce a first wave of kits in plastic that were virtually identical to the metal kits they replaced.
GW's move from metal to plastic has almost always resulted in a loss of detail.
Ok thanks. That PP thing changes things a bit though gw still has the sheer number of impresive kits behind them. Also if thats indeed true that gw has limited technology vs whats avilable then it just got significantly harder to defend best in the world, damn Jes Goodwin being frank and explaining himself to neckbeard fat whiny wargamer plebs. I can still wear you all down maybe heh. Automatically Appended Next Post: Azreal13 wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:
Azrael13 wrote:You're also correct that, within wargaming, GW is in the best position to produce plastic kits, because they have the highest sales volume and are able to leverage this against the high initial overheads of producing them and exploit the higher than average unit sales in comparison to their competition to maximise the long term return in those overheads.
This doesn't have any bearing on quality though, again, to use McDonalds as a comparison, does the fact that McDondalds are in a position to drive the cost of each individual burger they produce to the lowest level, and also spend large amounts of cash on developing new dishes every month mean that what they are producing is inherently better quality than the old fashioned, higher priced burger joint around the corner?
Possibly, but I'd expect the lower volume, more bespoke retailer to usually be able to make a better product.
You can make pretty strong case against quality of mcdonalds burgers, you can't make similarly strong case against quality of gw plastics. Making burgers is not making models either and eating burgers is not modelling. I understand why you use the analogy but the connotation is unfair for GW, a lot (Microsoft maybe for the bully attitude and monopolising tendencies if you really want to bash them) and does not reflect on gw vs small companies models quality. Not to mention low volume burger seller is much less controled and rats are not that differnt in taste from what Ive read.
This wasn't the comparison I was making, the point I was making was that ubiquity is no assurance of quality, that just because GW can and does put out and sell a lot of plastic kits, it doesn't automatically follow that they are the best at it.
That was a much better post and informative post from you than newsflash type smartassery, so thank you I guess.
Frankly, if that's what you class as gratitude, thank you, but you can keep it. I explained that i was merely attempting levity and meant no offence, if you choose to continue to call me a smartass then I can only begin to assume you're deliberately continuing to choose to attack me personally and act accordingly.
I wasnt offended it just winds me up when somene posts with zero constructive content. Other than that you can call me an idiot if you provide reasoning behind it and Im ok with that. No that was genuine gratitude and apologies for smartass.
9370
Post by: Accolade
Plumbumbarum wrote:[...] damn Jes Goodwin being frank and explaining himself to neckbeard fat whiny wargamer plebs. I can still wear you all down maybe heh.
I think this is the crux of the issue right here why you're not getting anywhere.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
 Accolade wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:[...] damn Jes Goodwin being frank and explaining himself to neckbeard fat whiny wargamer plebs. I can still wear you all down maybe heh.
I think this is the crux of the issue right here why you're not getting anywhere.
That would surely be the case if you took that sentence seriously. And while I understand that you could, given that when previewing the post I noticed a little vagueness in how the 2 sentences might be understood when taken together and left them like that on purpose, still the number of words you had to bold should be an indication that it's a parody rather than a serious insult.
Basicaly I tried to be funny, maybe I failed but for sure it was not meant as an insult to anyone here. And if it was then although I am neither fat nor have a neckbeard, I still am a whiny wargamer and would qualify for plebs too. That was also a loose reference to that GW former manager and his opinion about gw customers that he voiced on, was it facebook?
So attempt at humour and maybe a little trolling there but not the slightest attack or insult to anyone. And given that I practicaly lost the debate (I could pull Peregrine's previous point that it's the final product not technology that matters but my opinion is, that if you're limited in what you can provide to customers - in this case, sisters - it hurts quality. And you are not best in the world when others can just do better) then you can give me a pass on a subtle troll attempt.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Azreal13 wrote:Care to define a non-luxury hobby?
The whole concept is fallacious.
Playing Chess
Playing Bridge
Reading
Bird Watching
Playing Checkers
etc... etc...
There are hundreds of non Luxury Hobbies that do not require even close to what it costs to play 40k. The fact is 40k is most certainly a luxury hobby just like model trains , airplanes, etc.. are.
The prices reflect that, and as for a comparison to Privateer Press and others those are luxury hobbies aswell.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Plumbumbarum wrote: Accolade wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:[...] damn Jes Goodwin being frank and explaining himself to neckbeard fat whiny wargamer plebs. I can still wear you all down maybe heh.
I think this is the crux of the issue right here why you're not getting anywhere.
That would surely be the case if you took that sentence seriously. And while I understand that you could, given that when previewing the post I noticed a little vagueness in how the 2 sentences might be understood when taken together and left them like that on purpose, still the number of words you had to bold should be an indication that it's a parody rather than a serious insult.
Basicaly I tried to be funny, maybe I failed but for sure it was not meant as an insult to anyone here. And if it was then although I am neither fat nor have a neckbeard, I still am a whiny wargamer and would qualify for plebs too. That was also a loose reference to that GW former manager and his opinion about gw customers that he voiced on, was it facebook?
So attempt at humour and maybe a little trolling there but not the slightest attack or insult to anyone. And given that I practicaly lost the debate (I could pull Peregrine's previous point that it's the final product not technology that matters but my opinion is, that if you're limited in what you can provide to customers - in this case, sisters - it hurts quality. And you are not best in the world when others can just do better) then you can give me a pass on a subtle troll attempt.
I understood that you were being rude and condescending.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Plumbumbarum wrote:Ill look up the plane, I ignored it tbh. It's still not direct comparision imo.
I'll post it again for you: http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal11/10301-10400/gal10326-F-104-Oslizlo/00.shtm
And here's a picture in case you can't view the page on your phone:
Note the ridiculous level of fine detail even though the plane itself is as sleek and simple as the real one. All of the rivets and panel lines are included (and at the proper scale, not GW's giant rivets and gaping holes between armor plates), wires/hydraulic lines/etc are all included* and at the proper scale, etc. And this is a kit that costs $20-30, not the $40-50+ of an average GW vehicle, despite being roughly the size of a GW Valkyrie kit ($66!). Look at other real-world model kits and you'll see similar levels of detail and prices.
The ONLY objective advantage ( IOW, not subjective aesthetic preferences) GW's kits have over that F-104 is that they can be used in the tabletop game while the F-104 is just going to sit on your display shelf and look pretty. So essentially you're paying about double the cost and sacrificing detail in exchange for the 40k IP and some truly awful game rules.
*Some of this seems to be scatchbuilt or third-party upgrade sets, but if you look at the on-sprue pictures elsewhere the standard kit has the same kind of detail, the upgrade kits just add more of it and make sure everything is perfectly accurate for a specific version of the plane.
99
Post by: insaniak
Hollismason wrote:There are hundreds of non Luxury Hobbies that do not require even close to what it costs to play 40k. The fact is 40k is most certainly a luxury hobby just like model trains , airplanes, etc.. are.
So you're considering 'luxury' to be synonymous with 'expensive'?
Technically any hobby is a luxury. The hobbies you listed just require an expenditure of time rather than money.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Which I'd already expanded on in my very next post, but it must have been overlooked/ignored.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Or let's look at a tank. Sure, it's 1:35 instead of whatever 1:50ish scale 28mm is supposed to be, but it's about the same size as a GW LRBT. And the difference is just stunning:
Note the much smaller minimum feature size, proportions that aren't completely distorted, etc. And the cost? $35, compared to $50 for a GW LRBT.
89259
Post by: Talys
Azreal13 wrote:This?
That's probably a pretty good comparison, it is of a similar level of detail, similar price, and similar size (but slightly larger) than this..
But, subjectively, I don't like The Battle Engine, I mean, I'm not a huge fan of the spore either as I generally don't like the Nid aesthetic, but I'd be more likely to buy one some day.
So, objectively very similar, but subjectively, I don't much care for the PP model.
There will, of course, be people who feel the exact opposite way - that's the nature of subjectivity. However, nobody will be able to argue that the RRP of both is similar, because that's a matter of fact.
Which returns me to the original point I was making about a week ago, which, when you take subjectivity out of the equation and just factor in how much of a contribution the PP makes to the total of an average sized list in comparison to the Nidpod, that in gameplay terms, while having a similar Cost the Battle Engine poses much better Value.
This is actually a perfect example. While PP has many nice models, especially in the 28mm scale, many of their larger models are just not as exciting to me, objectively, as the larger GW models. There are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking, I like the GW sculpts more. Part of it is the weapons; I like GW weapons much, much more. Also, generally, PP models are nowhere near as customizable, which is a big feature of GW models for me.
@Peregrine -- I think it's perfectly fair to compare historical models to scifi/fantasy models for quality and sculpting detail. However, I don't think comparing price makes any sense, as one is based on real-life objects, while the other is sculpted from imagination. The intellectual property of the latter adds value, but more importantly, they're not really comparable in the same way that you could compare two Abrams tanks.
On the other hand, you could create the most stunning, perfectly detailed WW2 tanks, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, or JSF airplanes, and I would never, ever consider buying even one. On the other hand, I seem to be happy to collect, every year, thousands of dollars of dragons, giant robots, wizards, and Aether-sailing wyches. I would never paint a soldier in a gas mask with an M-16, but swap in a multi-melta or plasma pistol, and I can't wait.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Talys wrote:many of their larger models are just not as exciting to me, objectively, as the larger GW models.
I think you mean subjectively.
But yeah, Warmahordes has never had a terribly appealing aesthetic to me and that's why I've never gotten in to it. I've always preferred 40k's aesthetic even if I do hate the bobbleheadedness.
46305
Post by: Red_Starrise
Ok here's the thing I've noticed in my 21 years in the hobby. GW has as many die hard fans as die hard haters & neither camp likes to concede the other's point. After 7E hit I quit 40k for the most part. The new IG dex was the true death knell for me. This is because gw basically admitted that 6th was just... bad & instead of saying as much & doing a revision & letting us trade in our now useless rulebooks for the new ones they upped the price & then made the game worse by creating a greater way to make $ off the power gamers. Then the tidal wave of dataslates that are massively over priced for what they are & the monopose plastic characters being sold for more than a metal blister I just started to feel like I was doing business with Bernie Madoff. When the new codex for IG hit & I saw that half the arty & several of our more characterful units were now gone & things that gw needs to just let die (ogryns & ratlings) were still there & the catastrophe that was LE order cards (I mean wtf dumbass thought up this limited run crap for things they could sell lots of anyway?) I just decided to move on to greener pastures. The need to constantly buy a new hard cover codex for $50 & rulebook for $80 every two years or so just isn't worth it to me anymore. I think it's ignorant to act like gw are the greatest company ever still (they aren't, but they were) & 40k is the best game ever made (it's not, but it WAS one of the best) & it's just plain stupid to assume that anyone who isn't gw or doesn't mimic their business model will fail because gw is a failure by far compared to what they were when I started.40k & gw are vastly overpriced & under quality compared to what they could be today. Space marines are, in my opinion, boring models that have actually lost a lot by going to all plastic.
Flame me if you want but I don't like this game or this company any longer because compared to FFG or Mantic, or Corvus Belli they don't hold up when it comes to value per $1 spent for gameplay fun. When it comes to model quality gw is looking very dated in a lot of areas. Compare a plastic cadian to a resin CDF trooper by Mad Robot Miniatures. Both are meant to capture the same aesthetic but plastic cadians are a failure in terms of kit design. Compare danamians to plastic catachans. The catachans have very little of redeeming value to them & tbh gw should give those away they're so poor. Plus I can get a squad of either of the above for $39.99 with a choice of sw, an additional "heavy weapon" that's meant to go with the unit & a fair amount of customizability (choice of head, gun, torso, & arm sets within the unit).
X-Wing is expensive per ship but the value is higher in that I can go buy 5 TIEs & 3 X-Wings & have a TON of variability in those 8 models even though they're exactly the same. Plus they are complete armies if I choose. The starter set is perfectly legal immediately. I can't recall when I have ever been able to say the same about 40k.
Infinity is vastly superior in gameplay to 40k in that it actually engages both players regardless of whose turn it is. That's huge. Many are the times when I'd end up conversing or walking away to get a soda or move my car (parking tickets) during my ork opponent's long & boring turn. Do that with infinity & you probably missed several very real chances to foil his plans.
Wild West Exodus is a very fun game that's very intense & bloody that scales well & has vastly superior minis to gw. The starter set is pricy but considering that it's the equivalent of buying 2 gw battle forces plus the rules & dice & codices vs dark vengeance which is cheaper for more models (which are snap-fit & only of moderate use). Additionally, the company releases new figs for every faction regularly & the game offers a different feel & theme than 40k.
Malifaux doesn't have a 2player starter set but each crew is about on par with a gw battle force plus codex for the price of a 40k heavy infantry squad. The models are much nicer & you need far fewer of them.
All of the above mentioned games are cheaper overall with lower model count & nicer figures. Each offers a more unique gameplay experience than just simply "you go I go" & none use the limited d6.
I find that Malifaux & wild west exodus minis scale well together & look alright side by side. In fact I think the Freikorps match WWX very well.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
MWHistorian wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote: Accolade wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:[...] damn Jes Goodwin being frank and explaining himself to neckbeard fat whiny wargamer plebs. I can still wear you all down maybe heh.
I think this is the crux of the issue right here why you're not getting anywhere.
That would surely be the case if you took that sentence seriously. And while I understand that you could, given that when previewing the post I noticed a little vagueness in how the 2 sentences might be understood when taken together and left them like that on purpose, still the number of words you had to bold should be an indication that it's a parody rather than a serious insult.
Basicaly I tried to be funny, maybe I failed but for sure it was not meant as an insult to anyone here. And if it was then although I am neither fat nor have a neckbeard, I still am a whiny wargamer and would qualify for plebs too. That was also a loose reference to that GW former manager and his opinion about gw customers that he voiced on, was it facebook?
So attempt at humour and maybe a little trolling there but not the slightest attack or insult to anyone. And given that I practicaly lost the debate (I could pull Peregrine's previous point that it's the final product not technology that matters but my opinion is, that if you're limited in what you can provide to customers - in this case, sisters - it hurts quality. And you are not best in the world when others can just do better) then you can give me a pass on a subtle troll attempt.
I understood that you were being rude and condescending.
Towards whom?
Jes Goodwin, guy behind so many great sculpts? Ignorance 11
Mod who offered nothing but polite explanation? Extremly boorish
Opposing disputants ie Azrael13 to whom I apologise almost in the same post? Bipolar
Wargaming community? Schisophrenia
Im nothing of the above. But please actualy tell me towards whom you thought I was condescending and rude.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:Ill look up the plane, I ignored it tbh. It's still not direct comparision imo.
I'll post it again for you: http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal11/10301-10400/gal10326-F-104-Oslizlo/00.shtm
And here's a picture in case you can't view the page on your phone:
Note the ridiculous level of fine detail even though the plane itself is as sleek and simple as the real one. All of the rivets and panel lines are included (and at the proper scale, not GW's giant rivets and gaping holes between armor plates), wires/hydraulic lines/etc are all included* and at the proper scale, etc. And this is a kit that costs $20-30, not the $40-50+ of an average GW vehicle, despite being roughly the size of a GW Valkyrie kit ($66!). Look at other real-world model kits and you'll see similar levels of detail and prices.
The ONLY objective advantage ( IOW, not subjective aesthetic preferences) GW's kits have over that F-104 is that they can be used in the tabletop game while the F-104 is just going to sit on your display shelf and look pretty. So essentially you're paying about double the cost and sacrificing detail in exchange for the 40k IP and some truly awful game rules.
*Some of this seems to be scatchbuilt or third-party upgrade sets, but if you look at the on-sprue pictures elsewhere the standard kit has the same kind of detail, the upgrade kits just add more of it and make sure everything is perfectly accurate for a specific version of the plane.
Well that looks good. Not sure the phone is jab or not but unnecessary, obviously I can view pages just reading through walls of text like for example million similar threads on tmp tg or somewhere else where I could have read about gw vs others does not sound like a great experience. I see things like on haloperidol taking my eyes up just after reading or writing posts and my head hurts like sinuses inflamation.I tried a few quick searches ofc but failed. I already have dry eyes syndrome or however they call it I guess and try to limit time spend reading super tiny letters to minimum.
What you get with GW vehicle is multiplied thickness of the material therefore sturdiness. Im not saying in any way that it justifies even a tiny fraction of price difference but it is objectively an advantage for dedicated gaming piece.
Also in case you missed it, I already admitted being wrong as I can't even undermine the source when it's Jes Goodwin heh. Still GW is doing incredible job with plastic having many top notch quality kits and Im not ashamed to admit that when I open a kit I drink koolaid for a moment and even forgive them random tables and forge the narrative for a while. Anyway Im still going to try finding that link I mentioned multiple times here.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Plumbumbarum wrote:What you get with GW vehicle is multiplied thickness of the material therefore sturdiness. Im not saying in any way that it justifies even a tiny fraction of price difference but it is objectively an advantage for dedicated gaming piece.
And now we're back to the durability argument I already addressed. Both of those historical models would be durable enough for gaming use, as long as you treat your models properly. So by sacrificing detail and realism to thicken all of their parts to survive abuse from careless children GW is reducing the quality of their product for older customers like me.
Also, GW's thick detail issues aren't just in places where the thickness is necessary for durability. For example, compare the width of the panel lines on a GW Valkyrie to the F-104. These aren't structural elements and making the lines thinner wouldn't in any way reduce durability, but GW's panel lines are still much wider and completely out of scale. Granted, this does make the model easier to paint if you have limited painting talent (and don't own an airbrush), but it's still a case of reducing the level of detail. And you'll see the same things repeated on other GW kits: lots of skulls per square inch, but the minimum feature size is huge and realism is limited.
Still GW is doing incredible job with plastic having many top notch quality kits
But as I've pointed out GW's kits aren't top-notch. They're decent gaming pieces and fun to build and paint if you enjoy the 40k IP but they're nowhere near pushing the limits of quality for injection-molded plastic kits and GW's prices are just ridiculous for what you get. If a LRBT cost the same $20 as a mid-tier historical kit and not the $50 of a high-end display piece there wouldn't be nearly as many complaints. But as it is now GW is charging high-end prices for models that are best described as "good enough for the job but nothing special".
99
Post by: insaniak
Plumbumbarum wrote:What you get with GW vehicle is multiplied thickness of the material therefore sturdiness. Im not saying in any way that it justifies even a tiny fraction of price difference ...
It doesn't. Kirby has said in his financial reports in the past that materials account for around 2% of the cost of production.
So making everything chunkier than it needs to be doesn't really have a direct impact on price.
...but it is objectively an advantage for dedicated gaming piece.
Only if it's actually necessary.
62560
Post by: Makumba
So making everything chunkier than it needs to be doesn't really have a direct impact on price.
It does. Your paying for the fact that they make them thicker, not for the material cost of actualy doing it. It is like taxs you pay them not because they will help goverment do better, but because a goverments trait is that it can gather taxs.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
Peregrine wrote:Also, GW's thick detail issues aren't just in places where the thickness is necessary for durability. For example, compare the width of the panel lines on a GW Valkyrie to the F-104. These aren't structural elements and making the lines thinner wouldn't in any way reduce durability, but GW's panel lines are still much wider and completely out of scale. Granted, this does make the model easier to paint if you have limited painting talent (and don't own an airbrush), but it's still a case of reducing the level of detail.
That's all subjective though as I've always considered the larger details to be an aesthetic design choice rather than a lack of ability to do it. It's GW's aesthetic choice to go with big heads and over accentuated details.
And you'll see the same things repeated on other GW kits: lots of skulls per square inch, but the minimum feature size is huge and realism is limited.
I've always considered GW's minimum feature size to be pretty good. Edges are sharp and details are crisp. A lot of the fine scale models you buy (model planes and such) often have smaller details which are actually quite soft. You get people using panel line scribers to make them better defined. It also should be noted that fine scale models are a designed with a completely different goal in mind, your average wargamer wants to get a tank together in an afternoon, a fine scale modeller will build a tank over several days if not weeks. For a fine scale modeller, hundreds of parts is a boon, for a wargamer it's a nightmare.
89259
Post by: Talys
 Red_Starrise wrote:
Flame me if you want but I don't like this game or this company any longer because compared to FFG or Mantic, or Corvus Belli they don't hold up when it comes to value per $1 spent for gameplay fun. When it comes to model quality gw is looking very dated in a lot of areas. Compare a plastic cadian to a resin CDF trooper by Mad Robot Miniatures. Both are meant to capture the same aesthetic but plastic cadians are a failure in terms of kit design. Compare danamians to plastic catachans. The catachans have very little of redeeming value to them & tbh gw should give those away they're so poor. Plus I can get a squad of either of the above for $39.99 with a choice of sw, an additional "heavy weapon" that's meant to go with the unit & a fair amount of customizability (choice of head, gun, torso, & arm sets within the unit).
40k is NOT a cheap game to get into. I love the 40k universe, the 40k models, and even the 40k game, with all of its flaws. However, I would never recommend it to someone looking for an "affordable" wargaming experience, or who would like to play casual games against a wide spectrum of strangers and have a chance of winning.
40k is a massively complex game with many of units and factions -- more than any other tabletop miniature game -- and an infinite number of ways of building a gimped army, with few ways to fix it other than to spend money (on units) and time (building and painting). Even the modelling aspect is daunting as all but the starter box are far more work to assemble than, for instance Warmahordes models. The simplest infantry units have 8+ pieces to assemble and pose, and vehicles pretty much all have more than a hundred pieces. Plus, you have many equipment -- you can easily lock yourself into a poor choice by selecting the cool looking weapon that ends up being inferior. The fix? Buy another box, build that one unit with a blaster instead of a shredder, if that's what you want. Want Druthu, or a Nephalim configuration and you didn't build it that way? Buy another model.
Plus, for someone who doesn't really enjoy army building, there are TONS of rules. And, let's be honest: if you want to be competitive, you have to buy all the codices, or at least the codices of your principle opponents, because you really do need to know what's possible for each army to develop strategies (or at least, understand their weaknesses, and appreciate your strengths).
On the other hand, 40k is the perfect game for someone who loves modelling (because of the massive configurability), and for people who really enjoy building armies, and LIKE that building an optimal army will yield a significant (perhaps unsurmountable) advantage. It is also a game for people who want to buy, build, and field LOTS of units. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:
But as I've pointed out GW's kits aren't top-notch. They're decent gaming pieces and fun to build and paint if you enjoy the 40k IP but they're nowhere near pushing the limits of quality for injection-molded plastic kits and GW's prices are just ridiculous for what you get. If a LRBT cost the same $20 as a mid-tier historical kit and not the $50 of a high-end display piece there wouldn't be nearly as many complaints. But as it is now GW is charging high-end prices for models that are best described as "good enough for the job but nothing special".
I think you should accept that "top notch" is a subjective, qualitative decision that people individually make. I happen to think that most of GW plastic kits are better than other plastic kits. I have not seen any models that come close to the cool factor of Nagash, the Mortgasts, or Treeman Ancient for instance. Now, I didn't say that nobody else has more intricate plastic. Frankly, I don't care if something is really intricate, if I don't find it appealing to model. And, I doubt I'm alone in being one who is unlikely to ever assemble and paint a historical model... if it doesn't have a mythical creature, a futuristic weapon, or something that triggers my imagination of another world, it's won't appeal to me.
Other people don't agree with me? That's quite ok with me. I respect their opinion, appreciate their aesthetic, and I am certainly happy to buy cool models from other companies.
In the same vein, someone could make the absolute best role playing game, but if it's set in a real period in history (remember Boot Hill?) I will have no interest in playing it. Add on dragons, halflings, and demons, and what the heck, I'll play suffer the crapiest, most arcane rules spread out in twenty volumes, as long as the storytelling is superior.
GW can charge what it does for models, because there are people who say, "wow, Aether sails, MUST HAVE".
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
Talys wrote: Azreal13 wrote:This?
That's probably a pretty good comparison, it is of a similar level of detail, similar price, and similar size (but slightly larger) than this..
But, subjectively, I don't like The Battle Engine, I mean, I'm not a huge fan of the spore either as I generally don't like the Nid aesthetic, but I'd be more likely to buy one some day.
So, objectively very similar, but subjectively, I don't much care for the PP model.
There will, of course, be people who feel the exact opposite way - that's the nature of subjectivity. However, nobody will be able to argue that the RRP of both is similar, because that's a matter of fact.
Which returns me to the original point I was making about a week ago, which, when you take subjectivity out of the equation and just factor in how much of a contribution the PP makes to the total of an average sized list in comparison to the Nidpod, that in gameplay terms, while having a similar Cost the Battle Engine poses much better Value.
This is actually a perfect example. While PP has many nice models, especially in the 28mm scale, many of their larger models are just not as exciting to me, objectively, as the larger GW models. There are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking, I like the GW sculpts more. Part of it is the weapons; I like GW weapons much, much more. Also, generally, PP models are nowhere near as customizable, which is a big feature of GW models for me.
@Peregrine -- I think it's perfectly fair to compare historical models to scifi/fantasy models for quality and sculpting detail. However, I don't think comparing price makes any sense, as one is based on real-life objects, while the other is sculpted from imagination. The intellectual property of the latter adds value, but more importantly, they're not really comparable in the same way that you could compare two Abrams tanks.
On the other hand, you could create the most stunning, perfectly detailed WW2 tanks, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, or JSF airplanes, and I would never, ever consider buying even one. On the other hand, I seem to be happy to collect, every year, thousands of dollars of dragons, giant robots, wizards, and Aether-sailing wyches. I would never paint a soldier in a gas mask with an M-16, but swap in a multi-melta or plasma pistol, and I can't wait.
Yeah that's fair enough if you prefer the aesthetics of a 40k kit but in terms of detail, material, and price it's pretty much a spot on match for 40k kits. If they continue like this then any arguments about detail, material etc will be pretty null between PP and 40k. The only thing it comes down to really are aesthetics. And maybe customisability, but we haven't seen new 'jack kits in it yet, they will make more than one option, and I'm hoping they're more posable. Even price, they're similar prices but the battle engine is like 1/4-1/6 of a normal sized WMH army. And it's actually cheaper than the other battle engines, rather than using it as an excuse for a price hike like GW.
9370
Post by: Accolade
Plumbumbarum wrote: Accolade wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:[...] damn Jes Goodwin being frank and explaining himself to neckbeard fat whiny wargamer plebs. I can still wear you all down maybe heh.
I think this is the crux of the issue right here why you're not getting anywhere.
That would surely be the case if you took that sentence seriously. And while I understand that you could, given that when previewing the post I noticed a little vagueness in how the 2 sentences might be understood when taken together and left them like that on purpose, still the number of words you had to bold should be an indication that it's a parody rather than a serious insult.
Basicaly I tried to be funny, maybe I failed but for sure it was not meant as an insult to anyone here. And if it was then although I am neither fat nor have a neckbeard, I still am a whiny wargamer and would qualify for plebs too. That was also a loose reference to that GW former manager and his opinion about gw customers that he voiced on, was it facebook?
So attempt at humour and maybe a little trolling there but not the slightest attack or insult to anyone. And given that I practicaly lost the debate (I could pull Peregrine's previous point that it's the final product not technology that matters but my opinion is, that if you're limited in what you can provide to customers - in this case, sisters - it hurts quality. And you are not best in the world when others can just do better) then you can give me a pass on a subtle troll attempt.
I didn't truly take the statement seriously, I know you were making a joke and being lighthearted, slightly trollish and all that.
I just think this view often incorporates into those who staunchly defend GW. People make negative statements about the company or its product and there is this tendency to characterize those making the complaints as fat neckbeards, thereby ignoring their arguments and trivializing the complainers themselves. I think you understand the complaints people are making, but you seem loathe to agree with them. It's this idea that GW can do no wrong, they have this cult-of-personality where you disagree with their practices and you become a prime target for personal insults, as if you've attacked something holy.
Again, I know you understand what people are talking about in this thread, and I've seen a number of people who staunchly defend GW with the belief that the complaints are all mindless. After a while in the threads people voice all the reasons for *why* the complaints are occurring, and we all end up on the same page. But why is this always the cycle? Why are people who are big proponents of GW so absolutely refusing to listen to the issues people have? And why is it always necessary to attack people for having problems with the company?
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Peregrine wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:What you get with GW vehicle is multiplied thickness of the material therefore sturdiness. Im not saying in any way that it justifies even a tiny fraction of price difference but it is objectively an advantage for dedicated gaming piece.
And now we're back to the durability argument I already addressed. Both of those historical models would be durable enough for gaming use, as long as you treat your models properly. So by sacrificing detail and realism to thicken all of their parts to survive abuse from careless children GW is reducing the quality of their product for older customers like me.
Also, GW's thick detail issues aren't just in places where the thickness is necessary for durability. For example, compare the width of the panel lines on a GW Valkyrie to the F-104. These aren't structural elements and making the lines thinner wouldn't in any way reduce durability, but GW's panel lines are still much wider and completely out of scale. Granted, this does make the model easier to paint if you have limited painting talent (and don't own an airbrush), but it's still a case of reducing the level of detail. And you'll see the same things repeated on other GW kits: lots of skulls per square inch, but the minimum feature size is huge and realism is limited.
You adressed it but I disagree. I'd say that for a game played in the shops and on tourneys, where you transport big amount of models and yes is played by kids too that you can end up playing against, accidents in general are inevitable and durability is inherent requirement. Your attitude does not change it by a slightest bit. If you only used you car driving through absolutely plain fields on an ideal road that is always empty and never went more than 40km/h, it still wouldnt change the fact that safety is currently considered an inherent requirement for a car. You can sarifice it for other things but still the more of it, the better.
Fun fact is also, going by your claim of GW sacrificing detail and realism to make thickier parts, if that is a general rule we can only conclude that the kits can't be compared outside ther categories. F104 has better detail only if it can keep it being as thick as a GW plane and the same time we can't say GW is incapable of it unless we see their realistic showpiece F104 model, unless ofc you have technical data about both companies processes that prove it. Thanks for proving one of my earlier point for me.
Peregrine wrote:Still GW is doing incredible job with plastic having many top notch quality kits
But as I've pointed out GW's kits aren't top-notch. They're decent gaming pieces and fun to build and paint if you enjoy the 40k IP but they're nowhere near pushing the limits of quality for injection-molded plastic kits
Yes but you pointing out doesn't make it so. I was proven wrong about pushing the boundaries and can no longer claim they are "best plastics in the world" but going back to their niche, "top notch quality gaming pieces made of plastic" is practicaly obvious given that they make lots of various sizes, detailed, durable, well made and rarely outmatched kits. You can revisit that argument when PP has multiple ranges in plastic, for majority of GW plastics there are better or similar quality plastic replacements from other companies (ie for chaos daemons dreadnoughts, dark eldar flyers etc, Tau arguably already have ones for example) and you can show me that other gaming companies push the boundaries of plasic injection molding more. Because a few equal or theoreticaly slightly slightly better gaming plastic kits from other companies do not suddenly make GW ones "good enough for the job but nothing special".
Peregrine wrote:and GW's prices are just ridiculous for what you get. If a LRBT cost the same $20 as a mid-tier historical kit and not the $50 of a high-end display piece there wouldn't be nearly as many complaints. But as it is now GW is charging high-end prices for models that are best described as "good enough for the job but nothing special".
Yes but price is not quality. You can say that you can get the same quality for much less somewhere else but that doesn't remove quality from GW piece, only makes the other thing better value.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
But value is the whole point of this thread...
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
That's what I understood as well, but perhaps different people are on different pages? (metaphorically)
There are some other companies with equal to higher prices than GW, but the argument is that you get a lot more for the same money with the other companies than you do with GW.
And I'll just leave this here...
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Accolade wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote: Accolade wrote:Plumbumbarum wrote:[...] damn Jes Goodwin being frank and explaining himself to neckbeard fat whiny wargamer plebs. I can still wear you all down maybe heh.
I think this is the crux of the issue right here why you're not getting anywhere.
That would surely be the case if you took that sentence seriously. And while I understand that you could, given that when previewing the post I noticed a little vagueness in how the 2 sentences might be understood when taken together and left them like that on purpose, still the number of words you had to bold should be an indication that it's a parody rather than a serious insult.
Basicaly I tried to be funny, maybe I failed but for sure it was not meant as an insult to here. And if it was then although I am neither fat nor have a neckbeard, I still am a whiny wargamer and would qualify for plebs too. That was also a loose reference to that GW former manager and his opinion about gw customers that he voiced on, was it facebook?
So attempt at humour and maybe a little trolling there but not the slightest attack or insult to anyone. And given that I practicaly lost the debate (I could pull Peregrine's previous point that it's the final product not technology that matters but my opinion is, that if you're limited in what you can provide to customers - in this case, sisters - it hurts quality. And you are not best in the world when others can just do better) then you can give me a pass on a subtle troll attempt.
I didn't truly take the statement seriously, I know you were making a joke and being lighthearted, slightly trollish and all that. [/qoute]
Thats a relief. I wasnt sure for the moment if I didnt come across as complete idiot that cant take being proven wrong in internet debate.
Accolade wrote:I just think this view often incorporates into those who staunchly defend GW. People make negative statements about the company or its product and there is this tendency to characterize those making the complaints as fat neckbeards, thereby ignoring their arguments and trivializing the complainers themselves. I think you understand the complaints people are making, but you seem loathe to agree with them. It's this idea that GW can do no wrong, they have this cult-of-personality where you disagree with their practices and you become a prime target for personal insults, as if you've attacked something holy.
On the other hand, you like GW you are a called kid, you dismiss the notion of balance because you forge the narrative as per their rulebook, you are sent to go do pew pew and mindlessly push models off the table (my personal favourite, I threw it at people countless time.)
Also I am vicious towards gw, to the point I regret some things I said. I bash their painters and say the ruin half the codieces to me art wise, ridicule models nd rules etc. And sure I dont post enough to be known enough but please do notice how entering this thread to defend gw I was automaticaly assumed fine fanboy etc. In short, it goes both ways.
Accolade wrote:Again, I know you understand what people are talking about in this thread, and I've seen a number of people who staunchly defend GW with the belief that the complaints are all mindless. After a while in the threads people voice all the reasons for *why* the complaints are occurring, and we all end up on the same page. But why is this always the cycle? Why are people who are big proponents of GW so absolutely refusing to listen to the issues people have? And why is it always necessary to attack people for having problems with the company?
It's an old and bloody war and hatred has rooted deep into people's heart. Too much was lost on both sides.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want to compare value of models, which makes much more sense than comparing value of entire, different scale games btw, you need to try to establish methods to compare their quality. And gw is overpriced yes but not because in other game you need 2 models only that cost the same but because the models are much too expensive. The rest of the industry seems to follow though.
89259
Post by: Talys
ImAGeek wrote:Yeah that's fair enough if you prefer the aesthetics of a 40k kit but in terms of detail, material, and price it's pretty much a spot on match for 40k kits. If they continue like this then any arguments about detail, material etc will be pretty null between PP and 40k. The only thing it comes down to really are aesthetics. And maybe customisability, but we haven't seen new 'jack kits in it yet, they will make more than one option, and I'm hoping they're more posable. Even price, they're similar prices but the battle engine is like 1/4-1/6 of a normal sized WMH army. And it's actually cheaper than the other battle engines, rather than using it as an excuse for a price hike like GW.
Frankly, I think *new* Privateer Press models are just as good as, or superior to, Citadel models in terms of detail and material. They are a long shot away in customizability, but this isn't always a minus, as there are times when I want to paint without having to think too hard about what configuration I want to build something.
However, new PP releases are also no cheaper than new Citadel releases. The list price of Borka is $60, Mountain King is $125. The list price for a Morghast is $59, and Nagash or Glottkin are both just under $110.
I think "value" in terms of the model, they're close enough. Value in terms of game usefulness, PP has the upper hand, because typical Warmahordes games and armies require less variety and models; by that metric, X-wing models give even more "game value", because you don't have to buy as many game pieces. I'm just not sure that's a good way to measure value of a piece, because what if you prefer a miniature wargame where you field 100 game pieces, or fight a battle of 100 cheaper pieces versus 50 more expensive ones?
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Isn't the Mountain King resin and metal though?
If that's the case, the production costs are higher, and don't have the same rule of increasing returns that a plastic kit does (resin and metal moulds wear and need replacing, HIP moulds not so much.)
Given it is becoming increasingly apparent that new HIP moulds are not as expensive to produce now as they were historically, the overhead on a Nagash/Glotkin kit is going to be much lower, and will reduce with each one sold, whereas the costs on the Mountain King won't necessarily be as high initially, but will be higher per unit and won't reduce.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
The mountain king, and Borka are both metal and resin yeah. And the MK is significantly bulkier than Nagash, probably not as tall but in terms of volume it's much more I think (I haven't seen them next to each other). But I meant that the PLASTIC release (there's only been one so far) is cheaper than the equivalent in their own line, where as GW probably would've bumped the price up, and cheaper or comparable to GW products, AND is better value in terms of percentage of a force.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
Oh yes, I'm well aware that PP have a track record of lowering prices when migrating a kit to a cheaper material, whereas GW have apparently done the exact opposite on two occasions (old metal to "white metal" and metal to finecast.)
It's just important not to compare prices across materials, because initial and ongoing costs are very different and don't compare well.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
I might be the only one but I find the lack of customization to be a good thing, since it means you don't need extra crap on the sprues (yes I know PP things are sprueless) like GW likes to toss on. Do you really need four different types of shoulder pads or three helmet variants, especially when that and small bits (grenades, purity seals, etc.) take up valuable sprue space that could be used for additional models?
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
WayneTheGame wrote:I might be the only one but I find the lack of customization to be a good thing, since it means you don't need extra crap on the sprues (yes I know PP things are sprueless) like GW likes to toss on. Do you really need four different types of shoulder pads or three helmet variants, especially when that and small bits (grenades, purity seals, etc.) take up valuable sprue space that could be used for additional models?
Or fitting in every weapon option you could use as opposed to one of each...
3750
Post by: Wayniac
ImAGeek wrote:WayneTheGame wrote:I might be the only one but I find the lack of customization to be a good thing, since it means you don't need extra crap on the sprues (yes I know PP things are sprueless) like GW likes to toss on. Do you really need four different types of shoulder pads or three helmet variants, especially when that and small bits (grenades, purity seals, etc.) take up valuable sprue space that could be used for additional models?
Or fitting in every weapon option you could use as opposed to one of each...
Exactly. That in particular is a pet peeve because it showcases the notion that they think people who buy their figures buy it to collect and not to game, because a collector would appreciate having different weapons for different looking models, while a gamer would want to specialize for a particular role.
89259
Post by: Talys
WayneTheGame wrote: ImAGeek wrote:WayneTheGame wrote:I might be the only one but I find the lack of customization to be a good thing, since it means you don't need extra crap on the sprues (yes I know PP things are sprueless) like GW likes to toss on. Do you really need four different types of shoulder pads or three helmet variants, especially when that and small bits (grenades, purity seals, etc.) take up valuable sprue space that could be used for additional models?
Or fitting in every weapon option you could use as opposed to one of each...
Exactly. That in particular is a pet peeve because it showcases the notion that they think people who buy their figures buy it to collect and not to game, because a collector would appreciate having different weapons for different looking models, while a gamer would want to specialize for a particular role.
That is not fair. Most 40k groups require wysiwyg, so of a model has a bolter, you know it has a bolter, and not plasma rifle. If it has a heavy plasma, you know it isn't a missile launcher.
Since force design is absolutely critical in 40k, the customization is also critical.
From a modeling perspective, I understand it both ways, and sometimes I prefer PP because I can just paint, while other times, I like that my squads can be significantly differentiated - one squad with helmets looking down gun sights, another relaxed with helmets off. Or, one squad of male dark eldar, another of female.
3488
Post by: jah-joshua
well, i am one of those collectors, and i love the variety in the Space Marine kits...
i don't see purity seals, grenades, and pouches as taking up valuable sprue space at all...
in a five man kit, taking away those three things would net you maybe one more model...
i have enough spare torsos and legs to get that one model anyway, and i can use the spare cool bits to make another cool model...
so, personally, i love the extras in kits like the Sternguard and Vanguard kits...
as for value, that is completely personal...
like Talys, i have zero interest in historical kits, so they have zero value to me, even if they are cheaper than Space Marine kits...
i love Infinity minis, but they don't inspire me to paint like a Space Marine does, nor do they bring me the same income for painting (they bring me 3/4 less money on average), so the value is not equal to GW, for me...
it's a shame, as the setting and sculpts are incredible...
i do own a big selection of their minis, though, and would be very happy if they brought in the same money that a painted Marine does...
Warmahordes is in exactly the same boat as Infinity value-wise...
love the art, fluff, and minis, but can't get the same return out of my investment...
i own a ton of their metal minis, but rarely get a chance to paint them...
Mantic is not even on the radar, as i think most their sculpts are horrible...
the fact that their PVC minis are poorly cast takes them even further out of the equation, for me, but then i am not a fan of Finecast or any other PVC casts either...
i am willing to give the proper plastic Enforcers a chance, when they hit retail, but i don't know what the market will be like for painted versions...
we'll see...
Wild West Exodus is also not even on the radar...
Romeo will never see a cent of my money...
plus, the western theme is not really my thing compared to Sci-Fi...
pretty much every other company is in the same boat versus GW...
the value is just not there, for me...
while my collection includes some incredible minis from Ilyad, Rackham, Studio McVey, Freebooter, PP, CMON, CB, and many others, it is painting GW minis that pays the bills...
i know i am only one guy, but i am just trying to make the point that there is nothing any other company produces that matches the value of GW minis, for me...
Space Marines are not only my favorite models to paint, but they also pay the bills....
until another line of minis can match that, i am more than happy to carry on painting Marines, and getting a great return on my investment of money and time, plus getting immense enjoyment, and inspiration, out of the art and fluff of GW's settings...
cheers
jah
89259
Post by: Talys
Azreal13 wrote:Isn't the Mountain King resin and metal though?
If that's the case, the production costs are higher, and don't have the same rule of increasing returns that a plastic kit does (resin and metal moulds wear and need replacing, HIP moulds not so much.)
Given it is becoming increasingly apparent that new HIP moulds are not as expensive to produce now as they were historically, the overhead on a Nagash/Glotkin kit is going to be much lower, and will reduce with each one sold, whereas the costs on the Mountain King won't necessarily be as high initially, but will be higher per unit and won't reduce.
Mountain King and Borka are both resin + metal (I own both).
On small 25-40mm base minis, metal feels really nice, and there are many advantages; the only disadvantage, for some people who enjoy modelling, is that there is no such thing as 25mm multipart metal  So, no posablility or weapon swaps without a hacksaw and a lot of work. Still, I happily buy metal 25-40mm base miniatures. Plus they're easy to strip (though I so rarely do this that I'm not sure it matters to me). Incidentally, I hate PP 28mm plastic miniatures like stormblade infantry & gunners. That's a 9 miniature, $45 box that's pitiful in value compared to 10-miniature MPP boxes of about the same price from Games Workshop like Kabalites, Wyches, or Space Wolves.
On 60-120mm base minis, metal is a pain in the ass. Models MUST be pinned, or they won't even survive being carried from one room to another, or even being picked up the wrong way. I can't imagine putting together of something like a Wraithknight made entirely out of metal. There are models like Nagash and Treeman Ancient that would be impossible (or at least highly impractical) with metal -- basically, any large model with tons of hollowed-out gaps that allow you to see from one layer of the model to the layer below, and of course, there is no chance of a large vehicle like a Predator or Voidraven being made out of metal. There are no companies that do that.
Does it make sense for some of a large model to be made out of metal? I don't know. For MK or a Colossal, I wouldn't mind the whole thing made out of resin or plastic. I don't think it would devalue the model, anyhow.
Now, if the conversation is, "Resin or Plastic" -- I say Plastic almost every time. Yes, some of the really nice resin models have a little sharper detail (crisper small details), but resin is way, way more difficult to work with, not to mention less consistent, and more difficult to remediate.
I believe I read that the material cost for GW is 2%; metal isn't THAT expensive, but even if it were 5%, you'd be talking about $2-$5 out of a $100 model. Even if you knocked off TEN dollars from either model, they'd still both be very expensive, which was kind of my original point
32159
Post by: jonolikespie
I don't think anyone is arguing extra bits on the sprue is a bad thing, what people are saying is that if one piece of armour has tiny rivets and gaps in armour plates it is a technically superior model to one with oversized rivets and huge gaps that just happens to have a skull on it.
The skull is a purely aesthetic choice, but the finer detail work requires more advanced machining tools to create.
89259
Post by: Talys
jah-joshua wrote:Warmahordes is in exactly the same boat as Infinity value-wise...
love the art, fluff, and minis, but can't get the same return out of my investment...
i own a ton of their metal minis, but rarely get a chance to paint them...
Mantic is not even on the radar, as i think most their sculpts are horrible...
the fact that their PVC minis are poorly cast takes them even further out of the equation, for me, but then i am not a fan of Finecast or any other PVC casts either...
So true, and I am not really sure why. I have boatloads of Warmahoardes miniatures that are brand new in blister/box, that I don't get around to painting. I don't really have a great explanation.
I am not a fan of PVC minis. Reaper Bones falls into the same category, and to me, the only reason to buy Finecast is so that you can play with a specific, very good model (like Eldar Fire Dragons). I can't wait til Finecast dies.
jonolikespie wrote:I don't think anyone is arguing extra bits on the sprue is a bad thing, what people are saying is that if one piece of armour has tiny rivets and gaps in armour plates it is a technically superior model to one with oversized rivets and huge gaps that just happens to have a skull on it.
The skull is a purely aesthetic choice, but the finer detail work requires more advanced machining tools to create.
A bunch of people were arguing exactly that. There are two camps: some feel the extra bits pose a build dilemma -- they don't want to spend the time to pick, or be stuck with the wrong build, because they just want a gaming piece; the other thing I saw was that some people would rather see an extra model on the sprue than parts that they won't use.
I guess, in response to that, the game maker is selling what they figure is the optimal number of models for a squad, so if you took out all the extra bits, instead of 10 multipart space marines, you'd have 10 snapfit marines, not 15 snapfit marines. Not wanting to be stuck with the wrong weapon is a very legitimate issue, because what looks good on paper may be a poor choice in play. But army-building and WYSIWYG is a core part of 40k, love it or hate it.
59981
Post by: AllSeeingSkink
jonolikespie wrote:I don't think anyone is arguing extra bits on the sprue is a bad thing, what people are saying is that if one piece of armour has tiny rivets and gaps in armour plates it is a technically superior model to one with oversized rivets and huge gaps that just happens to have a skull on it. The skull is a purely aesthetic choice, but the finer detail work requires more advanced machining tools to create.
Except the oversized rivets and huge gaps are more than likely aesthetic choices too. They COULD be because of technical limitations, but given how sharp the details are I think it's an aesthetic choice (the gaps are huge, but they are sharp edged and deep, which to me suggests it's not a technical limitation, if they wanted to make shallow scribe lines like scale models instead of deep crevices I think they could). GW have been all about the comical scale for years. The mid 90's Bretonnians actually had smaller and more realistic features than the current ones (early 00's I think?). A lot of the plastics in the LOTR range have small and realistically proportioned features. I don't think GW plastics are "the best" by any measure, but people keep comparing subjective and/or aesthetic choices as if they're objective measures of quality.
90954
Post by: Torga_DW
Talys wrote:
A bunch of people were arguing exactly that. There are two camps: some feel the extra bits pose a build dilemma -- they don't want to spend the time to pick, or be stuck with the wrong build, because they just want a gaming piece; the other thing I saw was that some people would rather see an extra model on the sprue than parts that they won't use.
I guess, in response to that, the game maker is selling what they figure is the optimal number of models for a squad, so if you took out all the extra bits, instead of 10 multipart space marines, you'd have 10 snapfit marines, not 15 snapfit marines. Not wanting to be stuck with the wrong weapon is a very legitimate issue, because what looks good on paper may be a poor choice in play. But army-building and WYSIWYG is a core part of 40k, love it or hate it.
I don't think the bits for the weapon & equipment options are so much the issue, as is the useless gubbins like extra scopes and ammo pouches, half a torsos for the 'alternate model' kits, miniature pipeholder for the model to hold, etc etc. When they start adding up to the size/space of entire models, thats when you get two camps. A lot of the 'get more use of out them' fallacy comes from the assumption you will spend more on other kits or have already done so. As a self-contained box set, anything that gives me double the legs to torsos because one set is an alternative - thats not a great deal of value.
I've got nothing against the bling, but maybe make it an upgrade sprue or something. Not that i think that would work from a financial perspective (i don't think enough people would buy them).
3488
Post by: jah-joshua
i use the grenades, purity seals, scopes, and pouches on my minis, so for me it does have value...
i have plenty of spare legs...
i enjoy alternate helmets, heads, shoulder pads, and torsos...
so, obviously, some modelers do get more use out of them...
i would be sad to see kits get more sparse when it comes to alternate bits...
as i said earlier, i consider boxes like the Vanguard, Sternguard, Space Wolves, Grey Knight PA, and Death company to be a treasure trove of bits that i can use to spruce up all of the regular Marines with...
conversion and kit bashing is part of the appeal of GW models, to me...
i don't get the same feeling from any other company's models when it comes to wanting to create characters from the stories or art...
the depth is just not there yet versus over 25 years of 40K characters in the background...
like i've said in other topics like this, even if GW died tomorrow, and there was nothing new, i could spend the rest of my life creating the Space Marine characters that i daydream about doing, just from the collection i have now...
of course, it helps that i'm a slow builder and painter ...
cheers
jah
22639
Post by: Baragash
Those are the Mantic equivalent of Black Knights, Mantic's Soul Reaver vampire knights are more expensive, though not in the same country as the infamous Blood Knights (and also AWOL from the Mantic webstore, but IIRC £24.99/€34.99/US$44.99 compared to £61.50/€80.00/US$99.00)
89259
Post by: Talys
 Torga_DW wrote:
I don't think the bits for the weapon & equipment options are so much the issue, as is the useless gubbins like extra scopes and ammo pouches, half a torsos for the 'alternate model' kits, miniature pipeholder for the model to hold, etc etc. When they start adding up to the size/space of entire models, thats when you get two camps. A lot of the 'get more use of out them' fallacy comes from the assumption you will spend more on other kits or have already done so. As a self-contained box set, anything that gives me double the legs to torsos because one set is an alternative - thats not a great deal of value.
I've got nothing against the bling, but maybe make it an upgrade sprue or something. Not that i think that would work from a financial perspective (i don't think enough people would buy them).
The half torsos are great, especially when you get a male/female option (like Kabalites). The "bling" like knives, weapon attachments, beltpacks are awesome -- not to mention extra heavy weapons. You can use them for things like banners and bases, and as Jah said, certain kits are a treasure trove of bits for kitbashing.
As I mentioned before, GW is selling you a squad -- 5 man scouts, 10 man troops, 3 elites (like centurion), 1 vehicle or independent character... whatever is the standard, playable unit size. There is zero chance they'll give you a 12 man tactical unit, and even less of a chance they'd reduce the price of the kit by 20%, instead of extra bits, so you might as well take the extra bits
I think it's actually the other way around: they design the sprue with all the selectable variations, then fill the extra space with do-dads. The selectable variations is a huge moneymaker, because for instance, you can build a Deathwing OR a Command Squad, so if you want both, buy two boxes. But for GW, they only have to make 1 SKU. Or, if you find your dark lance sucks and you want a splinter cannon, congratulations, you get to buy 10 more units for $25 just to replace 1 heavy weapons guy.
62560
Post by: Makumba
as i said earlier, i consider boxes like the Vanguard, Sternguard, Space Wolves, Grey Knight PA, and Death company to be a treasure trove of bits that i can use to spruce up all of the regular Marines with...
And don't give you enough combi weapon, heavy weapons or specials weapons to make 1 unit. Who cares about cosmetic stuff , if to buy one squad you have to buy two boxs.
How does one get more set of legs then torsos
89259
Post by: Talys
Makumba wrote:as i said earlier, i consider boxes like the Vanguard, Sternguard, Space Wolves, Grey Knight PA, and Death company to be a treasure trove of bits that i can use to spruce up all of the regular Marines with...
And don't give you enough combi weapon, heavy weapons or specials weapons to make 1 unit. Who cares about cosmetic stuff , if to buy one squad you have to buy two boxs.
How does one get more set of legs then torsos
Now, there's one I'll second. I hate when there aren't enough plasma weapons, or whatever. Mostly, it happens with the specials, and then you have to get creative
Or, if you're lucky, there's an upgrade pack; if not, and you can't make a modification, you can always break down and recast one of the pieces... or at least, recast the weapon, and work that into a compatible arm.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
It happens a lot. Like Devastators, you get 2 of most weapons and 1 of a couple. Do people even run mixed weapon Devastators squads? At least give enough guns to outfit every model. Same with DE Scourges, and pretty much every equivalent kit. That's what I think we mean with the sprue being wasted on cosmetics (it's what I mean at least). By all means, chuck some purity seals in there, but AFTER you've put in every option you might need. Automatically Appended Next Post: Talys wrote:
Or, if you're lucky, there's an upgrade pack; if not, and you can't make a modification, you can always break down and recast one of the pieces... or at least, recast the weapon, and work that into a compatible arm.
Really though you shouldn't have to do that. You're already paying a premium, part of which is justified because of 'all these extra pieces!' But they don't give you all ththe pieces you need!
3488
Post by: jah-joshua
Makumba wrote:as i said earlier, i consider boxes like the Vanguard, Sternguard, Space Wolves, Grey Knight PA, and Death company to be a treasure trove of bits that i can use to spruce up all of the regular Marines with...
And don't give you enough combi weapon, heavy weapons or specials weapons to make 1 unit. Who cares about cosmetic stuff , if to buy one squad you have to buy two boxs.
How does one get more set of legs then torsos
obviously, i care about the cosmetic stuff, or i wouldn't be participating in this debate...
i am a painter, not a gamer...
i am the guy GW is making the extras for, so you can blame me for the bling on the sprues ...
i should make it clear that i always buy from the discounters...
i am not walking into a GW store on release day, or pre-ordering these kits at full retail...
i may be crazy, buying full kits just to make one or two awesome models, but i'm not stupid ...
also, i never said i had more legs than torsos...
i said i have plenty of legs, and that i like alternate torsos...
a few of the ones from the Death Company box, and the Black Templars upgrade sprue are too awesome to pass up...
cheers
jah
90954
Post by: Torga_DW
Makumba wrote:as i said earlier, i consider boxes like the Vanguard, Sternguard, Space Wolves, Grey Knight PA, and Death company to be a treasure trove of bits that i can use to spruce up all of the regular Marines with...
And don't give you enough combi weapon, heavy weapons or specials weapons to make 1 unit. Who cares about cosmetic stuff , if to buy one squad you have to buy two boxs.
How does one get more set of legs then torsos
I was thinking of the fantasy line when i wrote that, high elf shadow somethings / sisters of something dual kit. Only i think its enough legs and double torsos, but still you get the point. I guess a good example for 40k would be necron deathmarks / immortals. You build one variant from the kit, and the rest are just parts that can't be glued onto other parts - worse than cosmetic bits, really.
61618
Post by: Desubot
Play Tau
62560
Post by: Makumba
Realy? They put additional legs sets in to any of the usable unit sets. Who would have known. There were few people playing here in 6th.People couldnt get their hands on enough riptides. And 7th kind of killed them as an army with their battle brother deficiency.
. You build one variant from the kit, and the rest are just parts that can't be glued onto other parts - worse than cosmetic bits, really.
yeah but you won't have legs to build them or bases. You would have to either buy extra sets of both, or buy the bases AND do recasts of legs.
61618
Post by: Desubot
Fire warriors have 5 legs on a spur of 4 bodies.
Anyway So what in the world are we discussing again?
62560
Post by: Makumba
GW being the uk child of Satan and w40k having a price entry range closer to golf, then other table top systems.
44272
Post by: Azreal13
 Desubot wrote:Fire warriors have 5 legs on a spur of 4 bodies.
Anyway So what in the world are we discussing again?
In essence, the OPs original post was "we complain that GW's are expensive, but other things cost money too."
89259
Post by: Talys
jah-joshua wrote:
i should make it clear that i always buy from the discounters...
i am not walking into a GW store on release day, or pre-ordering these kits at full retail...
i may be crazy, buying full kits just to make one or two awesome models, but i'm not stupid ...
also, i never said i had more legs than torsos...
i said i have plenty of legs, and that i like alternate torsos...
The price difference his huge. I get between 15%-20% off at one FLGS, and 20%-25% off at another one. I have no idea why anyone buys at the GW shop, especially since the GW store has nothing that's NOT made by GW, and there are so many hobby tools, paints, and so forth that GW just doesn't make. However, a GW store is the only place I have ever seen the new GW knife out of the box (and boy, is it a piece of crap )
Almost every sprue gives you exact number of legs you need, and more options for everything else (arms/weapons, torso fronts especially, and heads). However, many lower torsos for multiunit squads are very easy to recast And, usually, the back upper torso is a simple piece as well.
ImAGeek wrote:It happens a lot. Like Devastators, you get 2 of most weapons and 1 of a couple. Do people even run mixed weapon Devastators squads? At least give enough guns to outfit every model. Same with DE Scourges, and pretty much every equivalent kit. That's what I think we mean with the sprue being wasted on cosmetics (it's what I mean at least). By all means, chuck some purity seals in there, but AFTER you've put in every option you might need.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote:
Or, if you're lucky, there's an upgrade pack; if not, and you can't make a modification, you can always break down and recast one of the pieces... or at least, recast the weapon, and work that into a compatible arm.
Really though you shouldn't have to do that. You're already paying a premium, part of which is justified because of 'all these extra pieces!' But they don't give you all ththe pieces you need!
You are right -- devastator squads are terrible for this. They should at least give allow a full squad with the most popular weapon choices. Usually the upgrade pack gives you a whole bunch of very cool bits, but the price is silly for, well, extra bits.
Makumba wrote:GW being the uk child of Satan and w40k having a price entry range closer to golf, then other table top systems.
I wish Satan would have another child, so that they could get into competition, make better models, and charge us less! World domination is fine, but better and cheaper 40k models first.
Frankly, if you want to really get into 40k, I think you have to spend more than you would on golf clothing and a set of great golf clubs and accessories suitable for an amateur. On the plus side, FLGS are free, while green fees are not. And, my FLGS gives me free membership, discounts, and unlimited play privileges, whereas most of my golf courses with membership want thousands.. or tens of thousands... every year. Plus the FLGS pro is more fun to talk to than the golf pro
62560
Post by: Makumba
I have no idea why anyone buys at the GW shop,
Well imagine GW makes all the B&M retailers sign an agreement that they won't undercut the GW prices by more then 5% or GW will stop selling them stuff. Imagine a lot of B&M stores going down or droping the support for GW stuff, because they can't get their hands on models people realy want to buy day 1. Suddenly the only GW store in your country is the only place where you can buy all the GW stuff and only other option is to wait till your 21-22 get a full paid job a bank account and buy online. For people under 18 the prospect of waiting for 4-5 years to buy those 3 WK they need for their army is bad enough to make them pay full price.
|
|
