Just been looking through the recent new releases over the past say 8 months and GWs models have become terrible! There clunky and goofy looking, details haven't been picked out properly. They have really let their game slide! They were producing better models 5 years ago then they are now. Then I saw the new HE release and nearly wept... For those who haven't seen it, their terrible. Seems like forge world is the only one producing good models these days...

I'm not a massive fan of GW's huge monsters/war machine kits these days (though in recent months I've liked the Skycutter and Vortex Beast), but their infantry kits are still pretty good IMHO.

Shadow Warriors this month are very nice (apart from waving swords and bows around, but this is fixable) and I loved the plastic Pathfinders last month.

I just wish they'd go back to focusing on infantry releases.

For me i used to love Games Workshop models, and they still do some beautiful stuff, but every new release army wise seems to have more in it that i dislike then like.

i think for me the sculptors seem to do very little research, and as such a lot of models look a little goofy just because poses are so ridiculous, i would like fantasy models in decent fighting stances for example.

For me the more plastics i buy from other companies, Perry, Warlord and even gripping beast all of whoms models are nicely proportionate and look human the more stupid half of games workshops stuff looks in terms of bulkiness and generally badly done proportions.

Though still GW does produce enough good miniatures to nearly tempt me back into the game consistently, the plastic grey knights i particularly like.

Now if only they would produce a good set of plastic imperial guard who are not rambos or do not have utterly stupid oversized helmets.

A lot of GW's recent stuff looks like it has been styled on overinflated children's happy meal toys.

There are now a lot of companies making very nice models on a reasonably large scale that make GW's stuff look like pants.

It's always been hit and miss in my opinion. I personally think the New high elf Stuff is pretty cool, from what I've seen of it. Wasn't a huge fan of the New chaos/ dark angels stuff though, too clunky.

Thanks to advancements in molding technology GW can produce bigger kits for less money than ever before. THis means EVERY release needs something on a 100x150mm base or an oval base no matter how stupid those models look next to everything else from the faction they are being forced into.

As for the infantry, GWs sculptors seem to be either rushed or all the good ones have left. What we are getting now are not detailed models but rather models with lots of skulls/eagles/etc added all over them and GW are calling that detail despite hair being a single large blob.

The move to 3D modeling software instead of just sculpting it seems to have impacted them as well.

I think the sculters try to make the most of poor concept choices. Look at this guy:



That'd probably be pretty cool if it weren't for the giant paper airoplane going up that eagle's arse.

True alot of horrible concepts :(

I really like the Maidenguard mini (shame she's finecast) and the Sisters are ok as is the guy with the trident.

Eagles are quite nice but alot (like with the recent Tau) I just don't want in my collection

yeah its well wierd that the models are becoming more cartoony (just look at old necrons vs new ones), while they are trying to make the fluff more serious (eg getting rid of squats, using less cartoony art for the black library books, getting rid of most references to orks being mushrooms etc)

I don't think I have anything bad to say about the quality of the plastic or metal molds that I've gotten, generally they're really great looking. Tanks, as much as they used to suck to put together, aren't all that bad anymore (from my perspective anyway).

I have however, never liked how they designed their infantry kits, Space Marines in particular. I get that they're supposed to have a degree of customization to them, which is fine. But as far as a GOOD kit to put together, most of the infantry in 40k have pretty poor design.

Although, I do get the thing with the new giant kits. To me anyway, it gives off a feeling that they're trying to hard to get people to like them. *shrug*

The big model kits depend entirely on the range in question.

The Riptide looks great. The Dreadknight does not. The Valkyrie, Dakkajet and Razorwing fighter look amazing (in fact, most of the Dark Eldar range does), but the shortbus, Storm Talon and Tau aircraft do not. I don't think you'd find many people unhappy with the Tyranid gribblies.

Like Loki says, it's all very varied.

As for the High Elf releases this month, I think the new Shadow Warriors look fantastic. Like Flashman says, they are oddly posed in the pictures, but since they're plastic that's easy to fix. I also really like the Pheonixes - despite GW's rather annoying monster policy these days. The other sculpts don't please me that much. I'm a little disappointed by the Loremaster (the fireball looks more like a squid to me) but, again, being plastic, that should be easy to convert. To end at the bottom of the scale, Alarielle is, ironically, an awful looking model in my opinion.

@jonolikespie, I agree rushed is the word, when i saw the chaos plaguebearers, really?

The models as a whole have only improved. They are better looking now than they were 10 years ago, and they were better then than when GW first hit the scene. You can point at some of those old models and call them "classic", but by today's standards they are poor models.

Most of the time, when someone dislikes a model, it is for the concept, not the model itself. Not saying this is always the case, but much of the time. Take the much-maligned Dreadknight. Is there anything wrong with the actual kit?

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
@jonolikespie, I agree rushed is the word, when i saw the chaos plaguebearers, really?

I maintain that, having a bought a box myself, you need to see the Plague Bearers first hand to appreciate them. The GW paint jobs did them no favours, but they really are nice models (in a gruesome kind of way).

I'm finding that new plastic versions of previously metal minis (Pathfinders, Black Knights, Raptors, Stormboyz) are usually pretty good, probably because they are based at least in part, on existing concepts.

Kits for brand new unit types have been very hit and miss though, as if the design team aren't really thinking things through.

GW has had some damned stupid ideas, each new release always has 1-3 "giant plastic kit of some horribly bad idea".

Meanwhile, the core infantry is left to rot with model kits that are 15 years old and look like crap.

HE are the perfect example, this release could have been new archers and spearmen instead of stupid eagle chariot and shadow warriors plastic kit that doesn't look much different to the old metals and is the same price.

I don't know how GW have managed to constantly and completely screw up the HE release.. this edition they've both been in the starter, and gotten an army book but they're still stuck with the same old goofy as hell hamfist core plastics.

Even the Mantic elves look better than those ancient minis. Seriously, I own both the GW and Mantic ones. And I don't really like the mantic ones all that much, but the GW ones are just atrocious and need to be sent to go live on a farm pronto.

They're so bad I couldn't even give the models away to someone with a 4th edition HE army, he flat-out refused. :p

 scarletsquig wrote:
GW has had some damned stupid ideas, each new release always has 1-3 "giant plastic kit of some horribly bad idea".

Sixth edition 40K started off well with the Dark Vengeance box set. The models in the set are great with good designs and very innovative mold design. The chaos figs in particular are really nice figures.

Then came my two main 40K armies, Chaos and Dark Angels. The chaos Raptors are nice but the dino bot and the Helturkey? WTF are those things? They are certainly not going into my army. These turkeys were followed immediately by the Dark Angel Landspeeder Escalade variants, scrawny thigh Deathwing and yet another Chibi flyer toy. Am VERY disappointed. Will have to kitbash/scratchbuild my way around these really bad models because I'm certainly not going to BUY any of them...

T

 scarletsquig wrote:
GW has had some damned stupid ideas, each new release always has 1-3 "giant plastic kit of some horribly bad idea".

Meanwhile, the core infantry is left to rot with model kits that are 15 years old and look like crap.

HE are the perfect example, this release could have been new archers and spearmen instead of stupid eagle chariot and shadow warriors plastic kit that doesn't look much different to the old metals and is the same price.

I don't know how GW have managed to constantly and completely screw up the HE release.. this edition they've both been in the starter, and gotten an army book but they're still stuck with the same old goofy as hell hamfist core plastics.

Even the Mantic elves look better than those ancient minis. Seriously, I own both the GW and Mantic ones. And I don't really like the mantic ones all that much, but the GW ones are just atrocious and need to be sent to go live on a farm pronto.

They're so bad I couldn't even give the models away to someone with a 4th edition HE army, he flat-out refused. :p

That's been a problem with most of GWs latest releases imo.
Tau troops were fine asaik.
Deamons didn't need the big new stuff but had plenty of older stuff that needed fixing (greater daemons mostly).
Warriors of chaos didn't really need the slaughterbrute thing but their warriors are still pretty much snap fit models and only offer half the available options for them.
DA didn't really need their troops fixed.
Chaos marines were given dino-bots despite their basic box missing options and still looking like marines with spikes despite all the recent stuff (raptors and chosen from DV) being much more mutant marines, ruining any sort of cohesive look there.

When I got into the HHHobby I didn't notice any misses. I suspect that's the rose colored shades of nostalgia though - those sepia-toned days of 2008; when I was young and innocent.

Now though I've notice they either have a release where all the models kinda suck (CSM) or where all the models are pretty awesome (GK, Necrons, Tau)

However, in the cases of the awesome releases, they always feel compelled to add a single truly awful model. I half-suspect for the otherwise-perfect releases, this is intentional, much like how in antiquity muslim rugmakers would put a single intentional flaw in their work, believing perfection to be the purview of God alone. "Great work, Jes. Now make a Dreadknight, or it's blasphemous".

I still think GWS is capable of absolutely amazing works, I think they just do so less consistently; but again, maybe nostalgia.

BaconUprising wrote:
Just been looking through the recent new releases over the past say 8 months and GWs models have become terrible! There clunky and goofy looking, details haven't been picked out properly. They have really let their game slide! They were producing better models 5 years ago then they are now. Then I saw the new HE release and nearly wept... For those who haven't seen it, their terrible. Seems like forge world is the only one producing good models these days...

What makes you say the HE are terrible? HE have always had huge hats and flamboyant weapons. They've always been busy with baubles and details. The new release seems to fit that perfectly. The flame phoenix and the great eagle look better than previous large bird models, and fit right next to the dragon lord on the design scale. The flying chariot could work better as its own piece, but that just means the eagle is a bonus.

Is this whole complaint about the Sisters of Avalorne? GW is famously bad at displaying model women, so maybe wait on the hate until a third party gets to them.

For those putting on their rose tinted glasses of nostalgia, there have been plenty of poor sculpts in the past.

I present Exhibit A...

I'm not a fan of some of the more cartoony models (the already-posted eagle chariot is well sculpted, but I think the concept is silly as it gets) but the artistry in the plastic tooling these days is insane. The quality of the stuff in Dark Vengeance is kind of mind blowing. I don't think GW's hit/miss ratio has really changed at all, people are mostly just finding things to complain about and clinging to nostalgia.

I quite like some of the new HE releases. I think I'm going to convert some of the models for my Wood Elves, before I get started on my Cernunnos Spellsinger.

 -Loki- wrote:
The big model kits depend entirely on the range in question.

The Riptide looks great. The Dreadknight does not. The Valkyrie, Dakkajet and Razorwing fighter look amazing (in fact, most of the Dark Eldar range does), but the shortbus, Storm Talon and Tau aircraft do not. I don't think you'd find many people unhappy with the Tyranid gribblies.

See that's because with nidz, the designers and sculpters did a huge amount of research into bugs and insects and drew on the concepts of other alien films such as AvP to create what are beautiful models. I can't help but feel that the current team is neglecting to do this and it really shows in their final products.

 Brother SRM wrote:
I'm not a fan of some of the more cartoony models (the already-posted eagle chariot is well sculpted, but I think the concept is silly as it gets) but the artistry in the plastic tooling these days is insane. The quality of the stuff in Dark Vengeance is kind of mind blowing. I don't think GW's hit/miss ratio has really changed at all, people are mostly just finding things to complain about and clinging to nostalgia.

I think it's more that GW's poor sculpts used to mostly be just that - technically deficient. Whereas more and more often now, their misses actually miss because of awful design decisions, despite being extremely proficient technically. Look at the phoenix model, the fire one is pretty nice looking, but the variant is trailing bloody magic-star-sparkles like something out of a Saturday morning kids cartoon. Now, the actual sculpting of the model looks very well done, and no doubt it's impressive from a technical perspective that GW can put out dual-kits like these, but what use is all that talent and technical skill if it's being hamstrung by design choices that seem to be trying to pay homage to My Little Pony and Dinobots?

BaconUprising wrote:
Just been looking through the recent new releases over the past say 8 months and GWs models have become terrible! There clunky and goofy looking, details haven't been picked out properly. They have really let their game slide! They were producing better models 5 years ago then they are now. Then I saw the new HE release and nearly wept... For those who haven't seen it, their terrible. Seems like forge world is the only one producing good models these days...

I think a lot of the "clunkiness" comes down to paintjob. GW love to paint things with hard edges even where no hard edges exist. This is a huge detractor for things like Maiden Guard, any chance they might have had of NOT looking like transvestites has gone out the window with the sharp lines used for painting the faces which simply do not suit female models well (they don't suit male models well IMO either, but DEFINITELY not female ones).

But yeah, other than that, GW sure do have some stupid concepts.... flying boat towed by an eagle... seriously? Which 3 year old thought that one up?

 scarletsquig wrote:
GW has had some damned stupid ideas, each new release always has 1-3 "giant plastic kit of some horribly bad idea".

Meanwhile, the core infantry is left to rot with model kits that are 15 years old and look like crap.

HE are the perfect example, this release could have been new archers and spearmen instead of stupid eagle chariot and shadow warriors plastic kit that doesn't look much different to the old metals and is the same price.

I don't know how GW have managed to constantly and completely screw up the HE release.. this edition they've both been in the starter, and gotten an army book but they're still stuck with the same old goofy as hell hamfist core plastics.

Even the Mantic elves look better than those ancient minis. Seriously, I own both the GW and Mantic ones. And I don't really like the mantic ones all that much, but the GW ones are just atrocious and need to be sent to go live on a farm pronto.

They're so bad I couldn't even give the models away to someone with a 4th edition HE army, he flat-out refused. :p

Exactly, if they re-did the spearmen, archers, and silver helms I would've bought bucket loads of them and started an army, I love the High Elves. They are the army that got me into GW and war-gaming in the first place.

Instead they released two kits that are basically the same thing (a flying eagle boat is mind-bogglingly stupid) which you will never use more than two of, and another kit of a chaff/skirmishing unit which you will also probably never need more than two boxes of.

Consider selling two $60 kits and two $50 kits over selling me 4-6 boxes of $35 spearmen, 2-4 Boxes of $35 bowmen, and 4-6 boxes of $25 Silver Helms in addition to all the other stuff I'd need starting a new army.

The worst part is, they make their outdated core infantry kits look even more dated because the detail on the new stuff is so much better by comparison. I can't wait for the day when a company finally gets the balls to compete with Fantasy and 40k directly and completely wrecks them. Privateer Press already makes much better models. Still, the market is flooded with a thousands of small scale skirmish games that nobody plays for more than a couple of weeks.

Griever wrote:
Instead they released two kits that are basically the same thing (a flying eagle boat is mind-bogglingly stupid) which you will never use more than two of, and another kit of a chaff/skirmishing unit which you will also probably never need more than two boxes of.

Consider selling two $60 kits and two $50 kits over selling me 4-6 boxes of $35 spearmen, 2-4 Boxes of $35 bowmen, and 4-6 boxes of $25 Silver Helms in addition to all the other stuff I'd need starting a new army.

Feeling a touch optimistic about the hypothetical pricing, aren't you?

 Dysartes wrote:

Griever wrote:
Instead they released two kits that are basically the same thing (a flying eagle boat is mind-bogglingly stupid) which you will never use more than two of, and another kit of a chaff/skirmishing unit which you will also probably never need more than two boxes of.

Consider selling two $60 kits and two $50 kits over selling me 4-6 boxes of $35 spearmen, 2-4 Boxes of $35 bowmen, and 4-6 boxes of $25 Silver Helms in addition to all the other stuff I'd need starting a new army.

Feeling a touch optimistic about the hypothetical pricing, aren't you?

Possibly, but that actually only helps make my argument stronger.

Griever wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
GW has had some damned stupid ideas, each new release always has 1-3 "giant plastic kit of some horribly bad idea".

Meanwhile, the core infantry is left to rot with model kits that are 15 years old and look like crap.

HE are the perfect example, this release could have been new archers and spearmen instead of stupid eagle chariot and shadow warriors plastic kit that doesn't look much different to the old metals and is the same price.

I don't know how GW have managed to constantly and completely screw up the HE release.. this edition they've both been in the starter, and gotten an army book but they're still stuck with the same old goofy as hell hamfist core plastics.

Even the Mantic elves look better than those ancient minis. Seriously, I own both the GW and Mantic ones. And I don't really like the mantic ones all that much, but the GW ones are just atrocious and need to be sent to go live on a farm pronto.

They're so bad I couldn't even give the models away to someone with a 4th edition HE army, he flat-out refused. :p

Exactly, if they re-did the spearmen, archers, and silver helms I would've bought bucket loads of them and started an army, I love the High Elves. They are the army that got me into GW and war-gaming in the first place.

Instead they released two kits that are basically the same thing (a flying eagle boat is mind-bogglingly stupid) which you will never use more than two of, and another kit of a chaff/skirmishing unit which you will also probably never need more than two boxes of.

Consider selling two $60 kits and two $50 kits over selling me 4-6 boxes of $35 spearmen, 2-4 Boxes of $35 bowmen, and 4-6 boxes of $25 Silver Helms in addition to all the other stuff I'd need starting a new army.

The worst part is, they make their outdated core infantry kits look even more dated because the detail on the new stuff is so much better by comparison. I can't wait for the day when a company finally gets the balls to compete with Fantasy and 40k directly and completely wrecks them. Privateer Press already makes much better models. Still, the market is flooded with a thousands of small scale skirmish games that nobody plays for more than a couple of weeks.

why would they redo those? there's absolutely nothing wrong with them. what exactly do you not like about them? Do you need more feathers? Or do you need sparkly snow flakes on your core troops?

speaking of the sparkly snowflake thing... damn, that is one of the dumbest models iv seen. GW really needs to stop trying to sculpt fire onto everything. The flames one looks terrible, the sparkly snowflake thing is even more dumb.

on the other hand the shadowwarriors look awesome.

kb305 wrote:

Griever wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
GW has had some damned stupid ideas, each new release always has 1-3 "giant plastic kit of some horribly bad idea".

Meanwhile, the core infantry is left to rot with model kits that are 15 years old and look like crap.

HE are the perfect example, this release could have been new archers and spearmen instead of stupid eagle chariot and shadow warriors plastic kit that doesn't look much different to the old metals and is the same price.

I don't know how GW have managed to constantly and completely screw up the HE release.. this edition they've both been in the starter, and gotten an army book but they're still stuck with the same old goofy as hell hamfist core plastics.

Even the Mantic elves look better than those ancient minis. Seriously, I own both the GW and Mantic ones. And I don't really like the mantic ones all that much, but the GW ones are just atrocious and need to be sent to go live on a farm pronto.

They're so bad I couldn't even give the models away to someone with a 4th edition HE army, he flat-out refused. :p

Exactly, if they re-did the spearmen, archers, and silver helms I would've bought bucket loads of them and started an army, I love the High Elves. They are the army that got me into GW and war-gaming in the first place.

Instead they released two kits that are basically the same thing (a flying eagle boat is mind-bogglingly stupid) which you will never use more than two of, and another kit of a chaff/skirmishing unit which you will also probably never need more than two boxes of.

Consider selling two $60 kits and two $50 kits over selling me 4-6 boxes of $35 spearmen, 2-4 Boxes of $35 bowmen, and 4-6 boxes of $25 Silver Helms in addition to all the other stuff I'd need starting a new army.

The worst part is, they make their outdated core infantry kits look even more dated because the detail on the new stuff is so much better by comparison. I can't wait for the day when a company finally gets the balls to compete with Fantasy and 40k directly and completely wrecks them. Privateer Press already makes much better models. Still, the market is flooded with a thousands of small scale skirmish games that nobody plays for more than a couple of weeks.

why would they redo those? there's absolutely nothing wrong with them. what exactly do you not like about them? Do you need more feathers? Or do you need sparkly snow flakes on your core troops?

speaking of the sparkly snowflake thing... damn, that is one of the dumbest models iv seen. GW really needs to stop trying to sculpt fire onto everything. The flames one looks terrible, the sparkly snowflake thing is even more dumb.

on the other hand the shadowwarriors look awesome.

You must be joking. If you can't see those are horrible models, you have no room to comment on this thread.

Stand a Phoenix Guard next to a Spearmen. Stand a Wood Elf Glade guard next to an Acher. Stand a Dragon Prince next to a Silver Helm. It's incredible how bad those sculpts are. Little variation in pose, massive gorilla hands, the archers look like monkeys.

I have to laugh at the guy saying Necrons are an example of the models getting more cartoony. I guess there had to be SOMEONE out there who thought the recliner of doom and giant pharaoh hats were a good thing.

 Flashman wrote:
For those putting on their rose tinted glasses of nostalgia, there have been plenty of poor sculpts in the past.

I present Exhibit A...

Those Scorps are not the oldest versions of these models.

These are the originals.



The Striking Bunnies are from around 2001 when codex Craftworld Eldar was released. They're not really something someone would put into the "nostalgia era" IMO.

Honestly, if you don't like the look of the High Elf Spearmen, get some of the IoB Sea Guard from eBay. Even if GW had re-released the Spearmen, I reckon the IoB Sea Guard would still look better and would definitely be cheaper to get your hands on.

Besides, wasn't there some rumour a while back of a HE Second-Wave which would contain new spearmen models?

 Bookwrack wrote:
I have to laugh at the guy saying Necrons are an example of the models getting more cartoony. I guess there had to be SOMEONE out there who thought the recliner of doom and giant pharaoh hats were a good thing.

Whereas I'll just laugh at the guy who apparently forgot there have been three waves of Necron models, not two.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Bookwrack wrote:
I have to laugh at the guy saying Necrons are an example of the models getting more cartoony. I guess there had to be SOMEONE out there who thought the recliner of doom and giant pharaoh hats were a good thing.

Whereas I'll just laugh at the guy who apparently forgot there have been three waves of Necron models, not two.

Bookwrack is referring to the range of Necrons that came at the tail-end of 2nd edition.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Flashman wrote:
For those putting on their rose tinted glasses of nostalgia, there have been plenty of poor sculpts in the past.

I present Exhibit A...

Those Scorps are not the oldest versions of these models.

These are the originals.



The Striking Bunnies are from around 2001 when codex Craftworld Eldar was released. They're not really something someone would put into the "nostalgia era" IMO.

I'm sure he meant to say "Nagash".

GW has become a strict "Sir, yes, Sir" company with bean counters deciding everything without any feedback.
They say "We need more expensive kits", designers have to struggle to make flyers and monsters for every army.
To maximize profit, those have to be 2-sprue models for the price of 3-sprue models, so only chibi-flyers possible.
They say "We need more double kits", designers have to shoehorn any two units into one kit.
They say, "New ideas are risky, stay with old concepts", designers have to copy-paste old models into bigger new ones.
One manager said, "hey I liked He-Man and Dinobots in my youth, why not make something like this?" And the designers said "Yes, Master. Good idea, Master."

I think production capacity has increased creative capacity with GW. Years ago a release would either be much smaller, or would include units for many different armies. Unsurprisingly what was released was nearly always a hit. Now there's still always 1 or 2 good kits, but the rest is absolute dross, more like filler than anything else.

 Kroothawk wrote:
GW has become a strict "Sir, yes, Sir" company with bean counters deciding everything without any feedback.
They say "We need more expensive kits", designers have to struggle to make flyers and monsters for every army.
To maximize profit, those have to be 2-sprue models for the price of 3-sprue models, so only chibi-flyers possible.
They say "We need more double kits", designers have to shoehorn any two units into one kit.
They say, "New ideas are risky, stay with old concepts", designers have to copy-paste old models into bigger new ones.
One manager said, "hey I liked He-Man and Dinobots in my youth, why not make something like this?" And the designers said "Yes, Master. Good idea, Master."

The sad/funny thing is, this is probably all true.

I happen to like all of the new HE kits.

You're also wrong if you've convinced yourself that PP is making consistently better models than GW. At least all of GWs stuff is in scale with one another. Hello Black 13th.

You can choose not to like them, but to say they're poorly done is wrong.

 cincydooley wrote:
I happen to like all of the new HE kits.

You're also wrong if you've convinced yourself that PP is making consistently better models than GW. At least all of GWs stuff is in scale with one another. Hello Black 13th.

You can choose not to like them, but to say they're poorly done is wrong.

*Looks at the scale of dwarfs from the '80s, the '90s, the '00s, and the '10s.*

*Starts laughing.*

*Looks at that post.*

*Keeps laughing....*

Seriously, GW's scales are all over the freakin' place. Sometimes they are consistent in a range for an edition, but look at the Dark Eldar of 3e....

Not saying that other companies don't have scale problems, but saying that GW doesn't? Oy! They are not the worst, but they are not above the middle of the field in regards to accurate scale.

The Auld Grump - that said, some of their sculptors are excellent about keeping to scale. The Perry twins, Goowin, a few others....

Laugh all you want. Show me any of their modern plastics (the topic of this discussion) that are out of scale with one another.

 cincydooley wrote:
Laugh all you want. Show me any of their modern plastics (the topic of this discussion) that are out of scale with one another.

Gee... did you say modern plastics, or are you just now cutting the field to allow for an obvious misstatement?

As for more modern models... look at the Empire line for Fantasy - the infantry are fine, the plastic cav are fine, the folks on monsters...? What?

The models that are included with terrain?

A whole freakin bunch of the current Chaos range? Consistent within units, yes, across the range?

Tell you what... I will keep on laughing, and let you do your own digging....

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Bookwrack wrote:
I have to laugh at the guy saying Necrons are an example of the models getting more cartoony. I guess there had to be SOMEONE out there who thought the recliner of doom and giant pharaoh hats were a good thing.

Whereas I'll just laugh at the guy who apparently forgot there have been three waves of Necron models, not two.

Opinions are like donkey-caves, and you really need to learn how to wipe.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Laugh all you want. Show me any of their modern plastics (the topic of this discussion) that are out of scale with one another.

Gee... did you say modern plastics, or are you just now cutting the field to allow for an obvious misstatement?

As for more modern models... look at the Empire line for Fantasy - the infantry are fine, the plastic cav are fine, the folks on monsters...? What?

The models that are included with terrain?

A whole freakin bunch of the current Chaos range? Consistent within units, yes, across the range?

Tell you what... I will keep on laughing, and let you do your own digging....

Did you read the whole thread? In the intro post he very specifically says 8 months and then focuses on the High Elf releases.

That's what I focused on.

And all that empire stuff is still in scale with one another. As is the Chaos stuff. The new chaos models are certainly more detailed, but they're not out of scale.

Reading comprehension FTW.

I agree with the several posters who have noted that technical proficiency and, heck, I would say, artistic detail, have gone up, but fundamental design decisions have dropped precipitously.

I think the phrase is 'polishing a turd'.

GW has some fantastic sculptors and designers, who do some really amazing work. However, I honestly think that they are being hamstrung by 'design decisions' made by marketing (as noted by others):

Mandatory 'big monster' kits. Sometimes, these are great models, which also fit in with the established background (Arachnarok). Other times, they are totally stupid ideas, but even then, are beautifully sculpted. It's fething stupid that Imperial Griffons are huge, massive beasts while High Elf Griffons are lean, acrobatic predators. Both sculpts are technically accomplished, but one guy was forced to make a 'big monster'.

Mandatory 'dual use' kits. Dual use kits are a great idea, IF both uses of the kit make sense, and it doesn't just shoehorn two variants into one box. The Ork plane is a beautiful kit with three variant builds which are all great (not necessarily great rules for all three, but I digress). Other kits are 'fake variants', like the Grey Knights Terminators. Please. You have two different Terminator units. The kit just has a bunch of variant stuff. It's not two separate builds. Then, you have the stuff which is just stupid, because you HAVE TO HAVE TWO BUILDS. The Ogre Stonehorn and Thundertusk. Ugh. So, the Stonehorn slowly turns into stone, which is why patches of his fur are missing and exposing stone. So, why does the Thundertusk have the same patches, again?

Mandatory monstrous cavalry, on a particular base size. I'm not saying I hate the Demigryph Knights, but really, they are just there because Empire was required to have a monstrous cavalry box set. Ogres had an awesome, characterful monstrous cavalry unit, the Rhinox riders, but instead, GW puts out these Flintstones looking goofy cats (whose tusks grow in different directions?) because they are what would fit in a box set at the price point indicated.

GW should be making new models when they have a good idea for a new model, and a good design, and a good place in the range. Instead, they are forcing arbitrary 'slots' in the range to be filled with something, anything. The sculptors and designers overall, are working really hard, but they are working under an arbitrary and counter-productive series of directives, in my opinion.

GW just digging its bottomless pit of a grave even deeper.

In some cases you can blame the studio paintjobs for highlighting the goofy cartoony ridiculousness of the plastic kits.

I'M LOOKING AT YOU, CHAOS.

BaconUprising wrote:
Just been looking through the recent new releases over the past say 8 months and GWs models have become terrible! There clunky and goofy looking, details haven't been picked out properly. They have really let their game slide! They were producing better models 5 years ago then they are now. Then I saw the new HE release and nearly wept... For those who haven't seen it, their terrible. Seems like forge world is the only one producing good models these days...

It seems to me you are in ignorance of reaper and privateer press. The problem with GW is that they are losing money, and trying to shore up the losses by stifling their own market, and using less experienced writers and designers to develop their games and products,mwgile at the same time trying to switch their entire metal production line into resin( this may be done), and resin to plastic, while nuzzling into the pants of those who currently hold the rights to LOTR. Add to that the PR debacle that's been ongoing for the past few years, and my belief that they are exclusively comparing themselves against mantic in terms of competition( who put out a visually inferior product, at darn good prices, not to mention the fact that the case is actually reusable for army transport...) ..... That and it's called growing up. I can tell you that when I encountered space smurfs, they looked like sex machines. Now thy look to me like darth vader's macho, angry and less suave pant-wetting second-cousin. Your expectations climb, and GWs policy decisions of the pas 10 years are the result.

All that said,MIT hasn't been all doom and gloom. GWs line of terminators--Erm, Necrons--, are actually quite well done, and the emo space dominatrix elves were also a smashing success, and the tyranid additions were sexy too... Their entire product line has not been up to snuff, And I imagine it's because of the factors I outlined above, but then the Necrons and dark Elgar could have been smashingly well done specifically because so much time was spent on their update, since they were among the oldest of the books...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da betcha, I read, and I like what you have to say, but it made apparent to me what I notice now and again as a glaring problem in games, because I have not found a system that does not do what you pointed out.

Herpmerdepers have thunder badger cavalry, which are monstrous cavalry units with x y z characteristics, hence derpingtonites must have a comparable unit, wich is monstrous cavalry with characteristics x y z, and we shall call it the camel cougar chargers.

Its off topic at this point, but I wonder if that trap is responsible for a lot of stifling across many brands, and not just GW, because each force has to have the same charts, and the same units in each chart entry, with some variance....

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Flashman wrote:
For those putting on their rose tinted glasses of nostalgia, there have been plenty of poor sculpts in the past.

I present Exhibit A...

Those Scorps are not the oldest versions of these models.

These are the originals.



The Striking Bunnies are from around 2001 when codex Craftworld Eldar was released. They're not really something someone would put into the "nostalgia era" IMO.

He never said they were the originals. He said there have been plenty of old sculpts in the past, and used them as an example.

I think that, after Dark Eldars release, they started to ruin their plastic kits.

GK had goofy PA models (and that stupid thing called dreadknight). Necrons became "tomb kings in space", instead of "terminator meet matrix in 40k" (seriously, why pilots in the machines?). The starter refreshed my hopes, with some outstanding models (to much wings here and there, but those chaos champions!!!), just to the chaos release itself come with dinobots (and nice looking raptors, i must admit). Dark Angels give me nothing i could say "great".
Tau i have not seen any at person, but they look strange, the new designs are overexagerated (riptide), and "not better than the old" (broadside).
Flyers have just been a bad ideia, only the orks and dark eldars have good flyer models, other armies have stocky ridiculous things (flying bricks, croisants and dinobots).

GW lose its visual identity, replacing it with something they feel as more comercial and sale friendly. But have done that in a bad moment, as a lot of other companies are making their own (most time better) plastic miniatures.

As an example: for me comparing Mantic Enforcers with Dark Angels Paladins is much like to compare the Avengers Movies with the League of Justice Animated serie. Booth are cool, call me good memories, but the first is epic, the second is just an animated series...

I happen to like both of those sets of striking scorpions. exhibit a conveys that they are about to leap on their prey , looks good i think.
the 2nd lot kick arse , but look alot chunkier than the first lot. Same scale? i have no idea.

Bullockist wrote:
I happen to like both of those sets of striking scorpions. exhibit a conveys that they are about to leap on their prey , looks good i think.

Until you look closer and see the rabbit teeth, which completely destroys the look of the model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:
Tau i have not seen any at person, but they look strange, the new designs are overexagerated (riptide), and "not better than the old" (broadside).

... how is the new Broadside not better than the old? The old Broadsides were the terrible Crisis Suits with shoulder guns glued on top. The new broadside actually looks like a heavy combat suit.

I don't think anyone's saying that GW hasn't had bad models in the past, but those models (like Nagash) stood out as bad. There were anomalies, so much so that when some sort of abomination came out (Pumbagore, metal Chaos Possessed, etc.) it drew attention to itself. But now they have seemingly become the norm.

It's sad.

 -Loki- wrote:
Until you look closer and see the rabbit teeth, which completely destroys the look of the model.

Ahh! Can't unsee!

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:
GK had goofy PA models (and that stupid thing called dreadknight).

One good thing that I can say about the Dreadknight - it is a treasure trove of parts for steampunk modeling.

As itself... yeah, crap. Broken down for parts.... Much better....

The Auld Grump

I dont agree with the OP. The quality is variable and it always has been. Usually more hit than miss.

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:
GK had goofy PA models (and that stupid thing called dreadknight). Necrons became "tomb kings in space", instead of "terminator meet matrix in 40k" (seriously, why pilots in the machines?).

See, for me, this detail works. Necrons aren't sophisticated cyborgs that integrate themselves into machinery. They're the sad, pathetic remnants of a dead race engaging in the futile mockery of their past lives by pretending they're still alive, adhering to ancient creeds and religions whose significance they can no longer recall. Destroyers are seen as an anomaly because they're the only part of the race that's not held back by nostalgia.

My bigger gripe with GWs models has to do with the way they assemble. I take the entire line of tau vehicles as a degenerate failure, because there are so many ugly things to fix in every kit to get the smooth seamless tau look.

don't even get me started about the thunderbrick or the storm guppy. Two brilliant pieces of designmanship right there. All I ask from this game is to convince me... just... convince me. Those things are not convincing.

As to the necron pilots.... I'm fine with it. Yes, they look silly, more thinking should have been done, using the same kind of pilot as for the ghost arc, but I'm perfectly fine with pilots. Essentially what Agamemnon said.

 poda_t wrote:

BaconUprising wrote:
Just been looking through the recent new releases over the past say 8 months and GWs models have become terrible! There clunky and goofy looking, details haven't been picked out properly. They have really let their game slide! They were producing better models 5 years ago then they are now. Then I saw the new HE release and nearly wept... For those who haven't seen it, their terrible. Seems like forge world is the only one producing good models these days...

It seems to me you are in ignorance of reaper and privateer press.

I don't think he is. Privateer Press releases of late suffer from exact same case of cartoony execution than GW models.

It's just that when designers come up with a model which is great, execs go all "Wow!! This is really outrageous! Now you must make the next one even more outrageous, otherwise it doesn't stand out!!" Repeat this over few cycles and you get stuff like Pumbagors.

And then there's simply matter of running out of ideas, and nature of committee work producing boring, unimaginative concepts. "So what we're gonna do for next WoC release? -I dunno. Maybe some you know, big red scary monster? Maybe Khorne affiliated? -Ok, I draw a quick concept sketch on this napkin. What we're going to call it? -Oh...maybe...Slaughter...Fiend? Have we combined those word elements yet? We haven't used 'brute' for a while. So it's Slaughterbrute, that OK with everyone? -Yeah. Lets get some coffee."

Haven't PP models always been like that though? I mean, the Jacks have always had over-exaggerated features and size ratios. Isn't that kinda their "style", in the same way that anime style is Soda Pop's?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Haven't PP models always been like that though? I mean, the Jacks have always had over-exaggerated features and size ratios. Isn't that kinda their "style", in the same way that anime style is Soda Pop's?

No, it's getting worse with them too. Pauldrons have got so big they aren't even comical anymore, and their output has become more cartoony as well: look at for example new Tharn Ravagers, particularly their Simpsonesque expressions.

Yeah, can't wait to nostalgia our way back to the late 80s with all those fantastic multipose minis that were available.

Oh.

Some new units look screwy, you don't have to buy them. Some look awesome. But don't let that stop you making empty I'll move to warmahordes you watch me *shakes fist* threats.

I actually like most of the models in the new high elf release.

The flamespyre phoenix, sky cutter, loremaster, shadow warriors and sisters of avelorn are personal favourites.

Not so keen on the frost phoenix though.

rohansoldier wrote:
I actually like most of the models in the new high elf release.

The flamespyre phoenix, sky cutter, loremaster, shadow warriors and sisters of avelorn are personal favourites.

Not so keen on the frost phoenix though.

I'm not keen on the phoenix minis - the wing joins are clearly visible and its a very flat two dimensional mini. Could probably make a press mold of one very easily.

Backfire wrote:

 poda_t wrote:

BaconUprising wrote:
Just been looking through the recent new releases over the past say 8 months and GWs models have become terrible! There clunky and goofy looking, details haven't been picked out properly. They have really let their game slide! They were producing better models 5 years ago then they are now. Then I saw the new HE release and nearly wept... For those who haven't seen it, their terrible. Seems like forge world is the only one producing good models these days...

It seems to me you are in ignorance of reaper and privateer press.

I don't think he is. Privateer Press releases of late suffer from exact same case of cartoony execution than GW models.

To be fair, poda_t does have a point. BaconUprising thinks only Forgeworld makes good models... yeah, no. Reaper and PP were just bad examples.

I would love to see some of GWs basic kits redone. There is lots of stuff that needs it in my opinion, such as the TK horsemen and infantry. However, I cannot blame GW for their strategy. If they redid kits there would be people saying that GW just wants them to replace their old stuff. Some people would be left with mixed armies. There would also be people who say the old stuff looks better than the new stuff. (Some of its does. Just look at the old plastic multi part skeles from the 90s, versus the TK ones.)

They have decided to make new large kits. Few game manufacturers are making such kits. Thus, GW has less competition in terms of alternative kits. The fact that they are new unit types 'forces' vets to buy them to stay in the game.

I absolutely hate the old High Elf core troops.

Their hands are fething massive. It's like they've got elephantiatis on their hands or something, and the faces on the Silver Helms makes it look like they're constipated or something. The spears are also too thick. Imagine fighting with that!

They should have re-done them.

I think the main issue with GW is that they want to increase unit diversity in an army, and make loads of new kits. This, however, means that older kits are neglected. It also makes less sense from a cost point of view - if it costs, say, 20,000 dollars to produce the things needed to make one kit (from concept art, design and mould making), why make a unit that everyone has anyway?

Before long all armies will be made from a single £100 kit, each kit making half a unit.

Ok scaremongering and snide remarks aside, i'm with the "their a bit hit and miss" camp. Say what you want about the GK, their PA are no more ridiculous than regular marines, and their termi armour looks nicer than the mainstream ones to me. Same with alot of the newer kits not looking all that bad, better than the old WoC. The new ones may be monopose, but its better than this

http://i458.photobucket.com/albums/qq305/GrumpyKiwi/ChaosWarriorTzench01.jpg

I actually quite like that model. It has a certain charm to it.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
I actually quite like that model. It has a certain charm to it.

Fair enough, and that's your opinion that you're entitled to. Which brings the other point, what I consider a dodgy looking model, and what you consider "The latest GW gak letdown" are two different things. I'm sure there's some out there who love the chaos dinobots or the tiny little riptide head, same as there's probably someone who likes the HE eagle kite.

Here's my conjecture on what's been happening lately.

1. Why is stuff getting 'weird' and looking outlandish?

IP and alternative companies making counts-as kits has produced wacky stuff like the flying chariot and the other weird looking kits. This ensures that what GW is making is very 'out there' and that by imitating it, you make it clearer that you're potentially infringing IP. They are widening the 'moat' by making their stuff as distinctive as possible. Distinctive is not always good and in the rush to combine this with more rapid releases, odd looking stuff is getting through faster. Remember that the design studio is considerably smaller these days and that plus increased pressure for deadlines is possibly creating /approved results instead of /the feth were you thinking results. That and then the stuff is being finally approved for production by a senior management brought in from other retail arenas, not hobbyist savvy, instead of back in the day when it was all being bounced around the design studio by people with degrees in greek mythology, historical reenactors and classically trained illustrators. New models no longer face the crucible of critique from the gestalt of the design team, they now face the demand of the suits and the accountants.

2. Why are they ignoring the infantry that needs redoing instead of releasing bizarre gak and giant monsters???

Cash. Profit. There are already existing models, don't need redoing in the current grab for a maximized bottom line. Folks who already have a high elf army already have huge amounts of those 'old spearmen that need redoing' and given GW's penchant for prices, many would balk at new infantry and just decide to keep the old minis. But if they release a brand new kit, a big expensive one that becomes a must have, then old and new gamers will 'need' it for their games and have no older mini to rely on. So a novel unit with a novel kit sells to more people = higher profit. + no wasted monies on R&D for GW on something that's already been done.

Personally i am getting rather fed up with all these shiny new "big toy" releases. Now i know that some of them are good and all have rules its just i do feel that things such as the catachans, the chaos warriors and the marines are in need of a re-sculpt. And as for models being in scale? To all those people whom worship GW and say that all the models are in scale with each other and how dare we say otherwise i have but 2 words to say to you: Space Marines

Yeah? What about them?

I think the HE eagle kite looks fine. The concept of it may be a touch off, but the model looks fantastic.

I also think all of the new Tau stuff looks great.

I think the DA speeders with the lame cupola for the weapons look bad.

I think the dread knight looks like its carrying a baby.

JWhex wrote:
I dont agree with the OP. The quality is variable and it always has been. Usually more hit than miss.

This. The earlier post of, 'Opinions are like-' although rudely put (and amusingly altered by the word filter), is kind of apt. Necrons have always been Tomb Kings in Space (even in 3rd edition, the Eypatian themes were there), and at least now they have character - and if you don't like it, it perfectly easy to just use the models that let you build your legion of identical robots.

The new Tau models are another good example. I always liked the underslung FW broadsides, because that made what was supposed to be a heavier battlesuit distinctly different than GW's 'crisis suits with shoulder guns,' so the new design really works for me.

Anyways, there are ups and down for every release by every company, so for me the level of model quality is same as it ever was.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Here's my conjecture on what's been happening lately.

1. Why is stuff getting 'weird' and looking outlandish?

IP and alternative companies making counts-as kits has produced wacky stuff like the flying chariot and the other weird looking kits. This ensures that what GW is making is very 'out there' and that by imitating it, you make it clearer that you're potentially infringing IP.

If this is actually the reason, they're just tilting at windmills (which makes me believe it's not actually the reason). They have no way to stop an Asia-based recaster from duplicating their stuff, and some of those Asian recasts are actually pretty good. There's no way they can stop those guys, and increasingly it looks like they can't even stop a Chapterhouse-type aftermarket parts dealer either.

Bottom line, they'd probably make a lot more money just producing better product that there was customer demand for rather than creating weird, outlandish stuff that could theoretically limit copycat knockoffs (but probably won't). At this point, looks like they're really catering to that 'tweens' demographic at risk of cannibalizing their own player base, selling expensive crap that the fanbois will buy because they're fanbois.

Starting roughly with the Dreadknight, and I'm thinking in particular about the flying metal chaos Dragon and the DA land speeder with WAY MORE SKULLS, it seems like they ask a twelve year old what would be 'really awesome and amazingballs in 6 words or fewer' and then make whatever he describes exactly as he describes it.

'Flying metal dragon monster--with spikes!'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Haven't PP models always been like that though? I mean, the Jacks have always had over-exaggerated features and size ratios. Isn't that kinda their "style", in the same way that anime style is Soda Pop's?

There are a tiny handful of very old models in PP's current line that are obviously not made to the same scale as others. The only reason anybody really cares is because one of those sets is the character Cygnaran gunmages, who are incredibly versatile and on-table good. The Trollbloods line has also had a few problems with recent 'cartoony' additions, but these are all very much the exception rather than the norm.

I've actually been amazed at the quality of PP's recent releases from both an aesthetic and execution standpoint. Google 'Mountain King' or 'Archangel' to see some really amazing sculpts.

For every mountain king and archangel, there's Lelyth Claus

Two to one ration certainly isn't bad.

 -Loki- wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 poda_t wrote:

BaconUprising wrote:
Just been looking through the recent new releases over the past say 8 months and GWs models have become terrible! There clunky and goofy looking, details haven't been picked out properly. They have really let their game slide! They were producing better models 5 years ago then they are now. Then I saw the new HE release and nearly wept... For those who haven't seen it, their terrible. Seems like forge world is the only one producing good models these days...

It seems to me you are in ignorance of reaper and privateer press.

I don't think he is. Privateer Press releases of late suffer from exact same case of cartoony execution than GW models.

To be fair, poda_t does have a point. BaconUprising thinks only Forgeworld makes good models... yeah, no. Reaper and PP were just bad examples.

I don't think only GW and forge world models that's why I titled the thread "what has happened to GW models" not what has happened to all models I agree many independent smaller companies make great models like avatars of war. Just out of interest what is tha model in the picture?

That is the Tohaa faction's "Gao-Tarsos Unit"(specifically it is one model, armed with a Combi Rifle) by Corvus Belli for their "Infinity" game.

That model is beautiful. Corvus Belli make fantastic models. Remind me why I haven't started playing?

BaconUprising wrote:

I don't think only GW and forge world models that's why I titled the thread "what has happened to GW models" not what has happened to all models I agree many independent smaller companies make great models like avatars of war. Just out of interest what is tha model in the picture?

welllll, here's the trick right, it's only GW and FW that make models for their game right, so saying that FW knows what it's doing and GW doesn't, stacks the argument already. You're not stopped from using exclusively GW models to play their game (unless you play under their roof). For instance I found some nice models from reaper, that with two mods turned them into decent replacements for characters in my 40k armies. The difference is $6 with reaper, or $30 with GW for a character? yeah, yeah no. 1 cubic inch of resin is not worth $30 to me, especially as it's a game piece, not a show piece.

There are a number of other manufacturers that make good looking things. Take for instance, Anvil Industry. I'm not overly fond of the way some of their gear looks, but they do make a lot of good looking gear. Then there's also puppetswar, scibor... I'd love to list more, but I''ve noticed a bias toward 40k, so I'm not sure what alternatives there are to fantasy, but if this are among the comparisons you want to make, it'd be worthwhile mentioning them, because looking at only one line

as and aside, I disagree that PP and Reaper don't make good models. Look at the price. Comparing the price against what you get, against GW, looks to me like reaper and PP look to offer better models for a better cost. To each their own though.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Flashman wrote:
For those putting on their rose tinted glasses of nostalgia, there have been plenty of poor sculpts in the past.

I present Exhibit A...

Those Scorps are not the oldest versions of these models.

These are the originals.



The Striking Bunnies are from around 2001 when codex Craftworld Eldar was released. They're not really something someone would put into the "nostalgia era" IMO.

He never said they were the originals. He said there have been plenty of old sculpts in the past, and used them as an example.

Thank you Loki It was indeed just an example and given that they are over 10 years old, I think it qualifies.

Personally I think its pretty hard to make many of the original ideas look less "cartoony" no matter how hard you try.

Sticking a hang glider on the back of a giant flying eagle isn't going to work no matter how you slice it, and birds fly relatively gracefully sure, but certainly not enough for that concept to even work in any form.. I think the core ideas are broken, not really the models.

For example, the DV was almost all awesome, especially the chosen and the cultists, I dont think its all of their models, just a few ideas that I think would be really difficult to sculpt and execute no matter who you are.

I disagree, The older models look add to me. The look like they tried to hard to give them awesome poses. Barahath for example looks hideous.
Many of the older models look that way. Would anyone seriously today consider buying an old raider if it was released today?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I disagree, The older models look add to me. The look like they tried to hard to give them awesome poses.

But many of the newer models have same problems. If you look at Storm of Magic monsters, they are all in very aggressive poses. It gets tiresome real fast. Another example are Slaughterbrute and Helbrute (what's with all the brutes?): when you release something which players are going see by the dozens, don't give them stiff, but aggressive pose! Now Riptide, there's a good model from posing perspective. You can pose it in number of different ways. Or then you can have models like Sphinxes, which aren't as flexible but have sufficiently neutral poses. But things like Slaughterbrute, all which of are stuck in same pose with raised hand, that's no good. Another example are new Crisis Enforcer Commanders. Pose in itself isn't bad, it's dynamic at all, but when you have every damn Enforcer in same 'unique' pose, it just looks silly.

 cincydooley wrote:
For every mountain king and archangel, there's Lelyth Claus

What exactly is wrong with Lylyth3? Looks perfectly fine to me, a little 2D in places; but still a great model.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:
GK had goofy PA models (and that stupid thing called dreadknight). Necrons became "tomb kings in space", instead of "terminator meet matrix in 40k" (seriously, why pilots in the machines?).

See, for me, this detail works. Necrons aren't sophisticated cyborgs that integrate themselves into machinery. They're the sad, pathetic remnants of a dead race engaging in the futile mockery of their past lives by pretending they're still alive, adhering to ancient creeds and religions whose significance they can no longer recall. Destroyers are seen as an anomaly because they're the only part of the race that's not held back by nostalgia.

A sensible comment about Necrons in this thread at last. There's nothing wrong with the newer Necrons, and the Codex is also not bad either. Considering Mat Ward wrote it that is. The only models from the Necrons I take issue with are the Tomb Blades.
The Dark Eldar codex was pretty spectacular also, they were fleshed out very well.

 poda_t wrote:

as and aside, I disagree that PP and Reaper don't make good models. Look at the price. Comparing the price against what you get, against GW, looks to me like reaper and PP look to offer better models for a better cost.

Do they? Comparing aforementioned Ravagers with GW Terminators, Ravagers are six models for $55, Terminators are five for $50. Material is same, Ravagers seem bit bigger so you could argue that PP kit offers somewhat more for cost. However, Ravagers are monopose with just three individual sculpts, Terminators are multipose with tons of options. So it doesn't really look like big difference.

Backfire wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I disagree, The older models look add to me. The look like they tried to hard to give them awesome poses.

But many of the newer models have same problems. If you look at Storm of Magic monsters, they are all in very aggressive poses. It gets tiresome real fast. Another example are Slaughterbrute and Helbrute (what's with all the brutes?): when you release something which players are going see by the dozens, don't give them stiff, but aggressive pose! Now Riptide, there's a good model from posing perspective. You can pose it in number of different ways. Or then you can have models like Sphinxes, which aren't as flexible but have sufficiently neutral poses. But things like Slaughterbrute, all which of are stuck in same pose with raised hand, that's no good. Another example are new Crisis Enforcer Commanders. Pose in itself isn't bad, it's dynamic at all, but when you have every damn Enforcer in same 'unique' pose, it just looks silly.

Erm. They're monsters? They're supposed to be angry beasts, they're not going to be just passive looking lol. As for the Helbrute-great model. Loving it. Bear in mind they haven't gotten around to casting a new kit for the Helbrute. Only what they've got in Dark Vengeance. The Slaughterbrute is fantastic also, I'm sure GW is aware people want to tinker and adjust the positions of limbs etc. That's surely what being in the hobby is about isn't it? To unleash your creative potential and whatnot?

One, they are still better than PP's large kits (and far easier to assemble...grumble). Two, I think a part of the poses on the larger kits has to do with fitting a certain footprint (for Fantasy), and trying to cut it to fit a sprue frame in a very specific way. While it aids with ease of assembly, it does tend to limit conversion options, and the poses can be a little...too dynamic, if that's possible.

The Thundertusk/Stonehorn was great, and I like the High Elves phoenix kits. Tervigon was excellent, and as for detail, the models in Dark Vengeance were crisp. And I'm sorry, but the Riptide Battlesuit is amazing. Apparently lots of people thought so too, as the model sold out faster than any in recent history.

Right now, the big kits are in style from both GW and PP. There's a bit of a double-edged sword there. People complained about having to buy too many models to play these games, and so these big kits come out that cost more points and fill up lists. Now we are sad about the big kits and we want them to focus more on infantry. GW makes infantry better than anyone, and I doubt that will just go away.

it will once they price people out, and they will, the only question is time, how long will it take

Backfire wrote:

 poda_t wrote:

as and aside, I disagree that PP and Reaper don't make good models. Look at the price. Comparing the price against what you get, against GW, looks to me like reaper and PP look to offer better models for a better cost.

Do they? Comparing aforementioned Ravagers with GW Terminators, Ravagers are six models for $55, Terminators are five for $50. Material is same, Ravagers seem bit bigger so you could argue that PP kit offers somewhat more for cost. However, Ravagers are monopose with just three individual sculpts, Terminators are multipose with tons of options. So it doesn't really look like big difference.

depends on the terminators, and by and large, the 10 degrees of movement afforded by the parts, is that really worth the money? it isn't for me, because in the end the models get posed more or less identically, so your complaint against the static appearance of the monopose models is weak, because while the standardized multipart plastic kits give you more permutations of poses, there really are only so many poses to choose from. I'll grant that you do have more options with multi-parts, but I find that monopose models are better posed than component models. The real advantage comes with kitbashing, bitfarming and magnetizing, though that benefit is limited only to few characters and special weapons. In one sense, there is a convenience afforded by mono-posed models in that cleaning is a snap, and there's no assembly required. There is a lesser time investment, which makes it easier for me to get the army done, and not get bogged down and bored with it half-way through, and then there's also considerably less waste to think about or dispose of. While I'm sure that GW adds nice bits in for options, do I really need the servo skulls included in the kit? do I really need the melta bombs and extra ammo hoppers which just clutter up the models and make them look more ridiculous with this weird gear already stretching the hard to believe proportions? aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah I don't, so there's a lot of waste in plastic kits as I'm concerned, that I can't even sell off because of established bits dealers and the ability to pillage a friend's bit box.

Also, my dreadnoughts are $63 for 5, and the tharn ravegers are $62.85. As an aside, I've always had problems with the CSM terminators: the pauldrons have a terrible habit of not wanting to fit, without liberal filing of elbow contact points, or the rim where it comes into contact with the trophy rack.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
it will once they price people out, and they will, the only question is time, how long will it take

Did you go to Adepticon? Miniatures are expensive period. Every single miniatures company has expensive stuff. There wasn't a booth with a reasonably priced game, nor an artistic company with reasonably priced single minis. Jérémie Bonamant Teboul was promoting a few 75mm figures that were going to be the last of their kind because it's expensive to produce them.

It's a niche market within a niche market. Privateer is more expensive, model-for-model, than Games Workshop. GW just requires a larger upfront investment.

 brassangel wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
it will once they price people out, and they will, the only question is time, how long will it take

Did you go to Adepticon? Miniatures are expensive period. Every single miniatures company has expensive stuff. There wasn't a booth with a reasonably priced game, nor an artistic company with reasonably priced single minis. Jérémie Bonamant Teboul was promoting a few 75mm figures that were going to be the last of their kind because it's expensive to produce them.

It's a niche market within a niche market. Privateer is more expensive, model-for-model, than Games Workshop. GW just requires a larger upfront investment.

no I don't live in the states and not allowed to go there as I lack a passport, not that I'd want to
yes miniatures are expensive, but GW is really a cut above the rest. in upfront investment and long term play
No book that will be utterly useless in a few years is worth 100 dollars (or 50 for the codex's)
there's reasonable prices and then there's what GW charges

 poda_t wrote:

Backfire wrote:

 poda_t wrote:

as and aside, I disagree that PP and Reaper don't make good models. Look at the price. Comparing the price against what you get, against GW, looks to me like reaper and PP look to offer better models for a better cost.

Do they? Comparing aforementioned Ravagers with GW Terminators, Ravagers are six models for $55, Terminators are five for $50. Material is same, Ravagers seem bit bigger so you could argue that PP kit offers somewhat more for cost. However, Ravagers are monopose with just three individual sculpts, Terminators are multipose with tons of options. So it doesn't really look like big difference.

depends on the terminators, and by and large, the 10 degrees of movement afforded by the parts, is that really worth the money? it isn't for me, because in the end the models get posed more or less identically, so your complaint against the static appearance of the monopose models is weak, because while the standardized multipart plastic kits give you more permutations of poses, there really are only so many poses to choose from. I'll grant that you do have more options with multi-parts, but I find that monopose models are better posed than component models. The real advantage comes with kitbashing, bitfarming and magnetizing, though that benefit is limited only to few characters and special weapons. In one sense, there is a convenience afforded by mono-posed models in that cleaning is a snap, and there's no assembly required. There is a lesser time investment, which makes it easier for me to get the army done, and not get bogged down and bored with it half-way through, and then there's also considerably less waste to think about or dispose of. While I'm sure that GW adds nice bits in for options, do I really need the servo skulls included in the kit? do I really need the melta bombs and extra ammo hoppers which just clutter up the models and make them look more ridiculous with this weird gear already stretching the hard to believe proportions? aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah I don't, so there's a lot of waste in plastic kits as I'm concerned, that I can't even sell off because of established bits dealers and the ability to pillage a friend's bit box.

Also, my dreadnoughts are $63 for 5, and the tharn ravegers are $62.85. As an aside, I've always had problems with the CSM terminators: the pauldrons have a terrible habit of not wanting to fit, without liberal filing of elbow contact points, or the rim where it comes into contact with the trophy rack.

So Mulg the Ancient vs. say...a Hive Tyrant for the same price. I can make a Hive Tyrant, a Flying Hive Tyrant, or a Swarmlord for the same price as one, single pose metal clunky Mulg. The Tyrant will be plastic as well, so it won't shatter when it tips, no pinning required, easy to assemble, and easier to transport as a result. Oh, and the details are miles sharper.

Or for the same price as a jack, I could get a GW tank that makes 2 or 3 variants.

Or how about the price of Chaos Knights versus any cavalry in PP's line? 1/3 of the price.

Have you assembled a Colossal or Gargantuan? $120 for a single-pose, awkwardly posed, miscast lump of junk with oddly placed metal bits. For $120 I can buy 2 giant monster kits from GW - which will likely be a hybrid kit, mind you - and I can magnetize it to represent different things for different games. Or I can get almost 3 Night Scythes for that, or a Night Scythe, the accompanying Immortals, and still have money left over.

How about tournament play? At a PP sanctioned event or painting competition, if they so much as recognize a BIT from GW's line on a mini, you get disqualified.

Look, GW is far from perfect, and leaves a lot to be desired. But their FAQ's, frequent army releases, and the improvements to White Dwarf have been a godsend the past 12 months. If they keep it up, it's all roses. Privateer is just as profit-seeking, just as expensive (more per model).

And really, PP is still behind GW in terms of the cool factor on their models.

We can drag this game on all we want, but all that's happening is people trying, desperately, to hate GW's models by justifying their alternative purchases.

I am all for people buying whatever models they want. I encourage the hobby as a whole; but don't pretend GW is any more expensive for it's content than anyone else. Upfront investment? Sure. But model-for-model, they are actually rather moderate by comparison.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

Erm. They're monsters? They're supposed to be angry beasts, they're not going to be just passive looking lol. As for the Helbrute-great model. Loving it. Bear in mind they haven't gotten around to casting a new kit for the Helbrute. Only what they've got in Dark Vengeance. The Slaughterbrute is fantastic also, I'm sure GW is aware people want to tinker and adjust the positions of limbs etc. That's surely what being in the hobby is about isn't it? To unleash your creative potential and whatnot?

Slaughterbrute is terrible, with way too much gak, tentacles, spikes, tongues and whatnot, to say nothing about the pose. Storm of Magic monsters wouldn't be bad as such, in fact singularly they're rather good, but when you have many models in aggressive dynamic ninja poses, it just loses effectiveness and looks silly when your army is assembled on the tabletop, with everyone leaping or swinging etc. They also make conversions more difficult.

MInd you, I like most of the GW's large monsters and I also like dynamic poses when they're used in moderance, for example in some unique Special character etc. However as with everything, too much of a good thing is a bad thing.

I have purchased, New Daemons, Tau, and Dark Angels armies. I think the models look great. even the Chaos space marines look fine. As for fantasy, all the new warriors of chaos look fine IMO, VC, and empire look great also imo.

What happened to GW models?

They are becoming bigger and bigger and they forgot that even if the monsters are huge the texture work needs to be worked in accordance with the 28mm scale... As such big monster look more and more like happy meal toys with little to no texture, as for concepts... the hit and miss is becoming miss and miss.

If I had to say in one sentence the actual state of GW minis I would say that they stripped the wargaming out of the minis and dressed them with shallow toys instead.

But when they manage to make nice things they still rock, sad is not as often as it used to be.

 brassangel wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
it will once they price people out, and they will, the only question is time, how long will it take

Did you go to Adepticon? Miniatures are expensive period. Every single miniatures company has expensive stuff. There wasn't a booth with a reasonably priced game, nor an artistic company with reasonably priced single minis. Jérémie Bonamant Teboul was promoting a few 75mm figures that were going to be the last of their kind because it's expensive to produce them.

It's a niche market within a niche market. Privateer is more expensive, model-for-model, than Games Workshop. GW just requires a larger upfront investment.

Really? You're not looking too hard, I just ordered a pair of Stephane Simon's "Sinister" sculpts, they cost less together including shipping than most GW character models, they're cast in hard resin, and they're more Blanchian-grimdark than almost anything GW sell plus are fantastic quality. Statuesque Miniatures do packs of four "Resistance Fighter" female troopers for £11, they're perfectly proportioned, the faces are some of the nicest female ones I've ever seen on a mini, they're cast in metal and come with separate heads and weapons.

There are loads of small companies and individuals out there producing incredibly high quality sculpts in great materials at prices that put GW to shame, and these days they're only a crowd funding campaign away from pissing all over GW's corn flakes. Raging Heroes are gearing up for a kickstarter to fund three full armies of all-female sci-fi soldiers, with another planned later on for what sound suspiciously like not-Sisters of Battle. Warthrone dwarves make GW's look comical, if they could sort out their fulfillment issues there'd be no reason whatsoever to buy GW's dwarf range unless you play in one of their stores.

GW requires a larger up-front investment due to a combination of continual year-on-year above-inflation price rises and the continual drive by the suits at HQ to make people buy bigger and bigger armies with more and more large-scale expensive kits, and that's a policy that's no more sustainable than any of their other recent business practices.

 brassangel wrote:


So Mulg the Ancient vs. say...a Hive Tyrant for the same price. I can make a Hive Tyrant, a Flying Hive Tyrant, or a Swarmlord for the same price as one, single pose metal clunky Mulg. The Tyrant will be plastic as well, so it won't shatter when it tips, no pinning required, easy to assemble, and easier to transport as a result. Oh, and the details are miles sharper.

Or for the same price as a jack, I could get a GW tank that makes 2 or 3 variants.

Or how about the price of Chaos Knights versus any cavalry in PP's line? 1/3 of the price.

Have you assembled a Colossal or Gargantuan? $120 for a single-pose, awkwardly posed, miscast lump of junk with oddly placed metal bits. For $120 I can buy 2 giant monster kits from GW - which will likely be a hybrid kit, mind you - and I can magnetize it to represent different things for different games. Or I can get almost 3 Night Scythes for that, or a Night Scythe, the accompanying Immortals, and still have money left over.

text removed.
Reds8n

If you extend it to vehicles and to gargantuan scale models, sure, plastics will win out. I notice you completely ignored my praise of GW's models two pages ago, but let's not let that get in the way of your pompous ego shall we? We can go on about the sharpness of the models details, though I'm having trouble seeing what kits you have problems with. I've noticed myself that GW's kits have a lot of sharp detail, though I fail to see how it's good to have a really sharply detailed skull covering every facet of every surface on half the product line, or the growing problem that as many of the monsters are getting bigger, the details are not remaining constrained to 28mm. I am wiling to bet I can come up with plenty of problems with GW's "sharpness" even point out that GW's tau vehicles are disasters when it comes to assembly (I've never assembled a tau vehicle or suit that didn't need extensive work to deal with the seams). The only issues I've had to date with PP models was the disastrous alignment of the hands/arms/shoulder sockets of the steelhead helbardiers, which I still found easier to deal with than the half-melted slag that habitually comes out of the finecast process. Yeah, I bought a number of metal models, and I've gotten around to pinning them, and I find I don't actually mind it. I haven't actually had a pinned model fall apart on me ever, and I've had plastic models suffer the same kind of catastrophic damage that you accuse only metal models capable of.

How about tournament play? At a PP sanctioned event or painting competition, if they so much as recognize a BIT from GW's line on a mini, you get disqualified.

the pot calls the kettle black...
I'm well aware of the fact that PP would drop the boot on anyone using third party resources in their events, but then this makes sense given that the event is hosted by PP. I urge you to walk into a GW store and play on their tables with models that are obviously not GW's. Actually no, I dare you to play on GW's tables with parts that are obviously manufactured by CHS, or use a model with CHS parts in a golden daemon competition. They will boot you just as readily as PP will boot you from their event. The reason people get away with using non GW parts in tournaments, is because there's really only one or two tournaments that GW runs (which are strict about what can be used on the table), so other TO's can pick whatever rules they want.

Look, GW is far from perfect, and leaves a lot to be desired. But their FAQ's, frequent army releases, and the improvements to White Dwarf have been a godsend the past 12 months. If they keep it up, it's all roses. Privateer is just as profit-seeking, just as expensive (more per model).

Have you ever had to assemble a titan or a thunderhawk from FW? Read anything about the horror stories that people had to deal with to fix those models? I'm sure that those particular pieces are incredibly easy to transport, and there isn't the slightest concern that the resin will snap in the unfortunate event the model should tip over. Or how about the illustrious history of GW's finecast production line. You complain that PP is just a greedy profit seeking company, completely ignoring GW's annual price increases. Let's also completely discard the fact that starting a playable army for GW costs something in the area of $200 if you didn't get the DV starter set, and considerably more if you go the hard-cover rulebook route. GW's rulebooks alone will swallow $120 if you are getting a current 6th edition army. OH YEAH! and then lets disregard the fact that GW's latest trade policy decisions means that FLGS can't carry the fliers rulebook, which is needed to field the flier models at their stores. The same financial commitment with PP gets you a large army. Yeah, i see clearly how privateer press is an arrogant company solely directed toward profiteering off of the misfortunes of those that make the grave mistake of straying into their product line, ESPECIALLY by giving customers the option of buying just specific parts without having to buy the entire kit.

And really, PP is still behind GW in terms of the cool factor on their models.

Let's get your head out of your ass for a minute. Your own lack of preference for the steam-punk aesthetic does not reflect as a ubiquity of your opinion. I'm not overly fond of their fantasy line of stuff. In fact I'm not fond of anyone's line of fantasy stuff. Just isn't my thing, as such I haven't touched on them, I've stuck mostly to 40k. 40k's design aesthetic is starting to get annoying with the goofy cartoony proportions on many of the models. GW wants us to believe that humans are gangly apes with shoulders as wide as the human body is tall. In case you are too lazy to look back at my previous remarks, which I assume you are given the pompous remarks you've made, I will mention it again here, that I find the necrons and dark eldar to be particularly well executed product lines. There are things I like from GW (I think the incubi in particular are very well done were it not for the fact that they are finecast), and there are things that look like utterly terrible, which is almost the entire line of space marines.

We can drag this game on all we want, but all that's happening is people trying, desperately, to hate GW's models by justifying their alternative purchases.

I am all for people buying whatever models they want. I encourage the hobby as a whole; but don't pretend GW is any more expensive for it's content than anyone else. Upfront investment? Sure. But model-for-model, they are actually rather moderate by comparison.

And why should i confine myself to buying exclusively from GW when I feel that another model from a different line has a more aesthetically pleasing effect for the army theme? And here we go again with what I said earlier of asking you to not misrepresent my comments. The up-front investment isn't a one-time fee. I have several versions of several different rulebooks from my time with GW. I don't have to justify a damn thing, though I am pointing out that if someone doesn't like the design produced by GW, the person is not constrained to buying those models from GW. There's no justification necessary, to each their own. The bulk of my response to OP is to point out that the product line has not been sliding as badly as OP would believe, and nor is OP restricted to buying GW's toys to play GW's games. But hey, let's not let all of that get in the way of your egomania.

Y'know, PP does big kits well, Like really well, But i clearly see they struggle with smaller kits, Infantry look horrid in my opinion, Heck, even in the opinion of many PP lovers at my FLGS.
Thing is, Other then poses, I can be sure GW will make a kit that will atleast have good detail and good assembly, I hear horror stories of older ones, but new models i hear are as easy as snap and fit models.

Poda, I hate to call you out on your rant there, but I own two titans and they're an absolute blast to assemble. Very easy if you're even a moderately skilled modeler.

I've personally never had a any problem with a tau vehicle and I've assembled two devilish and a pirana this week. I guess I have to surmise that you're not a very skilled modeler, especially if you've had a plastic model suffer the same "catastrophic" damage of which you speak. Assemble them with a decent plastic cement and there should be no problem.

Also, my LGS had a copy of Death from the Skies in it today. So, yeah, you're wrong there too.

I suggest you go smoke or have a beer, friend, because you need to mellow out.

 poda_t wrote:

How about tournament play? At a PP sanctioned event or painting competition, if they so much as recognize a BIT from GW's line on a mini, you get disqualified.

the pot calls the kettle black...
I'm well aware of the fact that PP would drop the boot on anyone using third party resources in their events, but then this makes sense given that the event is hosted by PP. I urge you to walk into a GW store and play on their tables with models that are obviously not GW's. Actually no, I dare you to play on GW's tables with parts that are obviously manufactured by CHS, or use a model with CHS parts in a golden daemon competition. They will boot you just as readily as PP will boot you from their event. The reason people get away with using non GW parts in tournaments, is because there's really only one or two tournaments that GW runs (which are strict about what can be used on the table), so other TO's can pick whatever rules they want.

This is actually incorrect. While you need to use at least 50% of the original model, there's a hell of a lot of stunningly converted armies using a wide amount of GW parts in official Privateer tournaments. Just look at Aduro's Cryx and MattieK's Retribution.

 cincydooley wrote:
Poda, I hate to call you out on your rant there, but I own two titans and they're an absolute blast to assemble. Very easy if you're even a moderately skilled modeler.

I've personally never had a any problem with a tau vehicle and I've assembled two devilish and a pirana this week. I guess I have to surmise that you're not a very skilled modeler, especially if you've had a plastic model suffer the same "catastrophic" damage of which you speak. Assemble them with a decent plastic cement and there should be no problem.

Also, my LGS had a copy of Death from the Skies in it today. So, yeah, you're wrong there too.

I suggest you go smoke or have a beer, friend, because you need to mellow out.

1.) there is variance in the resin parts, and some require more effort in straightening than others, and on the scale of a titan still require pinning for a strong hold. The correlation here is that metal models do not have unique problems.
2.) I try to go for the perfect clean aesthetics. I would love to know what my skill as a modeler has to do with a sprue desgin that habitually yields warped hulls, and puts seams in places that are difficult to deal with. My case in point is the tau riptide, and the fact that you can pick out the seams despite GW's professional team having gone over it. This is the kind of flaw endemic of tau models. I've assembled plenty of tau vehicles as well as imperial vehicles, and even my most badly warped rhino and leman russ could still be made to have the seams align without any effort.
3.) the catastrophic damage i speak of is the kind that happens with tipping and falling, or, contact with children. The only thing that can protect your larger models from sustaining damage is a carpeted floor, or a lock to keep children out. I would love to know just how what decent plastic cement has to do with the tolerance of plastic. You are making mistaken assumptions that the only place a model can sustain any kind of damage is where two pieces meet.
4.) and that one single copy of death from the skies ate up almost 1/10th of your FLGS allotted $500 to purchase direct order only products, of which death from the skies is a part, which explains why they will have just the one copy for the remainder of the month. You will of course be forgiven for not being aware of GW's trade policy, and the fact that it's making retailers irate to the point where they have actually banned the use of this book in their stores. You can read more on that here

 Laughing Man wrote:

 poda_t wrote:

How about tournament play? At a PP sanctioned event or painting competition, if they so much as recognize a BIT from GW's line on a mini, you get disqualified.

the pot calls the kettle black...
I'm well aware of the fact that PP would drop the boot on anyone using third party resources in their events, but then this makes sense given that the event is hosted by PP. I urge you to walk into a GW store and play on their tables with models that are obviously not GW's. Actually no, I dare you to play on GW's tables with parts that are obviously manufactured by CHS, or use a model with CHS parts in a golden daemon competition. They will boot you just as readily as PP will boot you from their event. The reason people get away with using non GW parts in tournaments, is because there's really only one or two tournaments that GW runs (which are strict about what can be used on the table), so other TO's can pick whatever rules they want.

This is actually incorrect. While you need to use at least 50% of the original model, there's a hell of a lot of stunningly converted armies using a wide amount of GW parts in official Privateer tournaments. Just look at Aduro's Cryx and MattieK's Retribution.

Aside from just being wrong, at a GW-sanctioned event or tournament... oh, wait, I have to stop right there, don't I? At least PP has events.

 sourclams wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 poda_t wrote:

How about tournament play? At a PP sanctioned event or painting competition, if they so much as recognize a BIT from GW's line on a mini, you get disqualified.

the pot calls the kettle black...
I'm well aware of the fact that PP would drop the boot on anyone using third party resources in their events, but then this makes sense given that the event is hosted by PP. I urge you to walk into a GW store and play on their tables with models that are obviously not GW's. Actually no, I dare you to play on GW's tables with parts that are obviously manufactured by CHS, or use a model with CHS parts in a golden daemon competition. They will boot you just as readily as PP will boot you from their event. The reason people get away with using non GW parts in tournaments, is because there's really only one or two tournaments that GW runs (which are strict about what can be used on the table), so other TO's can pick whatever rules they want.

This is actually incorrect. While you need to use at least 50% of the original model, there's a hell of a lot of stunningly converted armies using a wide amount of GW parts in official Privateer tournaments. Just look at Aduro's Cryx and MattieK's Retribution.

Aside from just being wrong, at a GW-sanctioned event or tournament... oh, wait, I have to stop right there, don't I? At least PP has events.

GW still hands out their golden demon to someone, i assume they have to have an event for that, and then there is the the throne of skulls. So. Yes. GW does actually have events.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Y'know, PP does big kits well, Like really well, But i clearly see they struggle with smaller kits, Infantry look horrid in my opinion, Heck, even in the opinion of many PP lovers at my FLGS.

There are some absolute dog PP kits, especially older ones. Thing is, PP does update this stuff and the new plastics generally are great for assembly, and I think they look pretty good as well. I just did a unit of Incendiarii this weekend; no problems at all and other than a very questionable design decision regarding the officer's head and his independent helmet bit, they're highly detailed figs with very good 'presence'. Poses are limited, I'll be the first to fess up to that. I don't feel it really holds much of the PP infantry back, though.

The PP 'big' kits, however, like the new Gargantuan releases, are simply above and beyond anything I've put together from GW... save maybe the old Terminator Chaos Lord/Sorceror, which just might be my favorite model of all time (and is not a big kit). Seriously go to Cool Mini Or Not and check out the variants of Mountain King and Archangel. I don't care for those models ruleswise, but they have great table presence.

The Gargs are a plastic/resin hybrid with attendant metal bits. I just finished priming the Mammoth--64 pieces in all, and it took me a grand total of 15 minutes to trim flash/clip sprue connectors. No problem whatsoever. It fits together like a dream, but still offers a lot of leeway for an enterprising sculptor to pose differently. The Dreadknight had a crapton of bits but regardless what you did, it still looked like a robot with a baby-man-doll strapped to its front. It's also hilariously monoposed, so that pretty much goes right out the window in a comparison for argument's sake.

The Dreadknight is probably my most disliked GW model ever made

I didn't pin a single piece of my titans. I used epoxy as my primary adhesive and magnetized the torsos, weapons, armor plates, and cockpit. Easy.

As to part straightening, you're right: it did take me nearly 45 seconds to microwave the water I needed to straighten the resin.

@clams - I like my Mountain King, but he's pretty darn monopose. The Stormwall, however, was a fun build. I had a lot of big mould line problems on the King, but nothing that was too hard to fix. My Storm Striders were by far the worst with mould lines, but it was their first.

My biggest problem with PP is that they refuse to front the $$ to make a 5 model box all unique sculpts. The Trollkin Sluggers are the latest culprit that just irk me, and as such I've yet to buy them. 3 unique models in a 5 model box doesn't cut it for me.

I'm highly aware of GWs new trade policy, of which my two primary LGSs have no problem. Rarely are any of them ordering that much Direct in a month anyway.

Coincidentally, both of these LGSs care about their customers and acted like adults, purchasing a house copy or the Skies book for all to use.

Tsilber wrote:
I have purchased, New Daemons, Tau, and Dark Angels armies. I think the models look great. even the Chaos space marines look fine. As for fantasy, all the new warriors of chaos look fine IMO, VC, and empire look great also imo.

Say Waaaaat? The new WoC models are so terrible they literally put me off collecting them any more, I have 3000 points or do of them but nope, I refuse to collect any more goofy, cartoony models! And yes DoC got some great sculpts but GW really focused on the wrong stuff, I mean cumon nurglings? Seriously? The massively outdated greater daemons were just crying out for a new sculpt. If they had done good enough ones, GW would have made a absolute killing from them!

BaconUprising wrote:

Tsilber wrote:
I have purchased, New Daemons, Tau, and Dark Angels armies. I think the models look great. even the Chaos space marines look fine. As for fantasy, all the new warriors of chaos look fine IMO, VC, and empire look great also imo.

Say Waaaaat? The new WoC models are so terrible they literally put me off collecting them any more, I have 3000 points or do of them but nope, I refuse to collect any more goofy, cartoony models! And yes DoC got some great sculpts but GW really focused on the wrong stuff, I mean cumon nurglings? Seriously? The massively outdated greater daemons were just crying out for a new sculpt. If they had done good enough ones, GW would have made a absolute killing from them!

I liked the Nurglings- they give the impression of Nurgle's children quite wonderfully. They kind of remind me of the Minions from the game Overlord. So far as I know, the Greater Daemons are in the pipeline anyways so just be patient. Or just save up and buy a FW greater daemon? Or cease your whining and make your own Greater Daemon? After all, you're not telling me all daemons look the same are you?
What exactly is wrong with the WoC stuff? Looking at the models now on GW website, the majority of them look great!

 brassangel wrote:
There wasn't a booth with a reasonably priced game, nor an artistic company with reasonably priced single minis.

Man, I had not known things were that bad over on the far side of the Pond. If you truly have no cheap miniatures games left, then I can only pity the lamentable state of the hobby over yonder. I recently paid £99 for 40 or so 28mm miniatures and one vehicle kit, which, I'm sure you'll agree, is a pretty sweet deal any way you slice it.

 brassangel wrote:

How about tournament play? At a PP sanctioned event or painting competition, if they so much as recognize a BIT from GW's line on a mini, you get disqualified.

Really? I ran a unit of Nyss Hunters with Dark Eldar heads, and there wasn't a peep of complaint at any tournament I've used them in. The official rules for conversions in the Steamrollers rules are:

--Must be at least 50% the original model.
--Weapons can't be changed for weapons with different in-game effects--ie, a short sword can't be changed for a spear that would imply the model has the reach ability.
--The TO can make any exception to these rules at their discretion, the usual criteria being "Is it obvious at a glance what this is meant to be?"

So if you're basing that on experience, rather than hyperbole, the TO was breaking the rules.

I must be a person of extremely bad taste, because besides the Dreadknight and Demons, I'm loving every single one of the GW miniatures.

The Slaughterbrute was one of those models that made me go "Damn, I wish I had a chaos army to field that bad boy", the Riptide made me decide to start Tau allies, the Dark Angels have so many juicy details with all those church decorations (and I still think they look good), the CSM's Dragon and Forgefiend were "Look at that awesome robot."

And this new release, oh man, the Ice Phoenix is beautiful and although strange, I like the chariot pulled by the falcon.

I don't know, maybe I'm just strange but I hope they keep releasing a big MF for all races.

Oh, and please don't say the good miniatures were the ol'ones. I mean, I just have to take a look at my army. Those original necrons *shudders* everything back then looked like it was being squashed by massive gravity.

 poda_t wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Poda, I hate to call you out on your rant there, but I own two titans and they're an absolute blast to assemble. Very easy if you're even a moderately skilled modeler.

I've personally never had a any problem with a tau vehicle and I've assembled two devilish and a pirana this week. I guess I have to surmise that you're not a very skilled modeler, especially if you've had a plastic model suffer the same "catastrophic" damage of which you speak. Assemble them with a decent plastic cement and there should be no problem.

Also, my LGS had a copy of Death from the Skies in it today. So, yeah, you're wrong there too.

I suggest you go smoke or have a beer, friend, because you need to mellow out.

1.) there is variance in the resin parts, and some require more effort in straightening than others, and on the scale of a titan still require pinning for a strong hold. The correlation here is that metal models do not have unique problems.
2.) I try to go for the perfect clean aesthetics. I would love to know what my skill as a modeler has to do with a sprue desgin that habitually yields warped hulls, and puts seams in places that are difficult to deal with. My case in point is the tau riptide, and the fact that you can pick out the seams despite GW's professional team having gone over it. This is the kind of flaw endemic of tau models. I've assembled plenty of tau vehicles as well as imperial vehicles, and even my most badly warped rhino and leman russ could still be made to have the seams align without any effort.
3.) the catastrophic damage i speak of is the kind that happens with tipping and falling, or, contact with children. The only thing that can protect your larger models from sustaining damage is a carpeted floor, or a lock to keep children out. I would love to know just how what decent plastic cement has to do with the tolerance of plastic. You are making mistaken assumptions that the only place a model can sustain any kind of damage is where two pieces meet.
4.) and that one single copy of death from the skies ate up almost 1/10th of your FLGS allotted $500 to purchase direct order only products, of which death from the skies is a part, which explains why they will have just the one copy for the remainder of the month. You will of course be forgiven for not being aware of GW's trade policy, and the fact that it's making retailers irate to the point where they have actually banned the use of this book in their stores. You can read more on that here

Whilst i dont do many vehicles from GW i do have to say i have had problems aswell. In particular the damned shadow sword is supplied with the hull, track guards etc in 2 peices. Despite the fact it would be easyer to make them one piece. But my biggest moan? The huge bolts-so big they would be car wheels in real life and the very crappy massive aquilas moulded onto every surface. The skulls arnt to bad but tje aquilas? I am making a rebel force, not a loyalist one so why would i want fething huge aquilas smattered everywhere?

And as for dealing with the catastophic damage i advise you switch to using Revells Contacta Professional plastic glue. This forms a stong bond, literally welding the 2 peices together. The only disadvantage is that you have to be precise as it is almost impossible to get the 2 peices apart if you wish to move them, as the join is stronger than the surrounding plastic. Whatever you do dont use the GW crap. There glue used to be one of the best out there but now any model built with it can fall apart at the first glance.

Regarding price: PP's models are just as expensive, model for model.

The difference? You need fewer.

For example:
Tharn Bloodtrackers cost $55 for 10 (metal I think) models on their website. $5.50 a model.
10 Eternal Guard models, also metal, cost $47 for 1 command set and 1 normal set. $4.7 a model.
However, you'll probably be wanting 1 command and 3 normal sets for a unit of 20, so overall the cost of one unit would be $91.

Per model, the prices are roughly the same, but for an army, GW costs a lot more, as you may expect.

For one off purchases, I'll compare the Judicator to the Baneblade.

The Judicator costs $134.99 on their webiste.
The Baneblade $115 on the GW website.
But of course, the Judicator is half your army, so you'll need fewer models. You can use it in every game. The Baneblade, on the other hand, can only be used in Apocalypse games, which feature quite a few models on both sides. Maybe $1500 a side in total for a large game?

Aesthetically, it's up to taste whether you prefer the steampunk look of Warmachine, the attempt at something unusual Fantasy-wise for Hordes (some, in my opinion, hit, others miss by 20 metres), the distant future-yet-familiar look of 40k or the generic fantasy of WFB.

Can we please get back to GW models?

1500 per side? Maybe in giant games. But in above it might be 600 per side. And while pp might require less, for a modeler and collected like me it is the same.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
1500 per side? Maybe in giant games. But in above it might be 600 per side. And while pp might require less, for a modeler and collected like me it is the same.

The idea of 'redundancy' has to be entertained in a 'collector' comparison between GW and PP, though. In PP, other than a few warjacks and tier lists (and it is not very many), you are almost never rewarded in-game for taking multiples of anything. If I have a unit of Fennblades with the Unit Attachment, I will probably never want/need another unit of Fenns with UA.

That actually results in WM/H collections becoming 'complete' pending new releases. I think I priced up owning the entire Trollblood line (whichi s the most expensive), i.e. basically every list you could ever want to play, for something around $1,000. Add another $200 for Mountain King and recent releases, so $1200. You could go spend more, but there's really not much reason to.

Now compare to 40k. Changing an armylist within a faction isn't as simple as just dropping out X unit and replacing with Y vehicle. Oftentimes you have to eliminate a wide swathe of your army and replace it with large swathes of new models, probably very similar/identical models. Imagine going from troop-heavy Imperial Guard to mechanized Guard. Now, I haven't been following the newest edition, and it seems like vehicles are out other than flyers and bodyspam is largely 'in', so that helps somewhat. Last edition, though, to make the 2500 pt 'Ard Boyz IG list I wanted to play was an easy $800, for just that one army. To switch it to a LR IG list would probably cost another $200+. To go infantry heavy would be another easy $300+. So now I'm invested for about the same price (more, really) as an entire WM/H faction, and when the edition switches my army apparently sucks.

 sourclams wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

 poda_t wrote:

How about tournament play? At a PP sanctioned event or painting competition, if they so much as recognize a BIT from GW's line on a mini, you get disqualified.

the pot calls the kettle black...
I'm well aware of the fact that PP would drop the boot on anyone using third party resources in their events, but then this makes sense given that the event is hosted by PP. I urge you to walk into a GW store and play on their tables with models that are obviously not GW's. Actually no, I dare you to play on GW's tables with parts that are obviously manufactured by CHS, or use a model with CHS parts in a golden daemon competition. They will boot you just as readily as PP will boot you from their event. The reason people get away with using non GW parts in tournaments, is because there's really only one or two tournaments that GW runs (which are strict about what can be used on the table), so other TO's can pick whatever rules they want.

This is actually incorrect. While you need to use at least 50% of the original model, there's a hell of a lot of stunningly converted armies using a wide amount of GW parts in official Privateer tournaments. Just look at Aduro's Cryx and MattieK's Retribution.

Aside from just being wrong, at a GW-sanctioned event or tournament... oh, wait, I have to stop right there, don't I? At least PP has events.

any "events" GW had that I enjoyed were staff run only, and weren't the idea of the company... meaning that was a few years ago and are bland and unenjoyable these days

Nah, apparently Throne of Skulls leaves the idea of a GW tourney series still on life support. So the fans can still hump that cadaver, at least.

Warhammer world has loads of events and campaigns on, for what that's worth.

Looking at GW figures over the years....

They tend to waffle through models I like to ones I think look like crap and back to ones that I like.

I do not like the current look of things, but I did like the look of things for WH40K 3e... but 2e had so many silly things that I felt detracted from the game....

Tastes... will never agree - I look at the old Marauder Orc on a Wyvern, and I think that it looks like crap, but I have also heard of folks spending a small fortune to get that figure on E-Bay....

Though I, of course, am the one that is right....

What I really miss are the early multipose plastics - the ones where I could hand a box of bits to my players and tell them to build their characters. When the torso of an Imperial could be glued to the legs of an elf to make a wizard....

Now... pretty much one pose wonders.

The Auld Grump - now the Avatars of War dwarf Berserkers....

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Now... pretty much one pose wonders.

I'll take well designed mono pose characters over hodge podge multipart characters that look like shop window mannequins any day. Those new single pose plastic characters are a huge step in the right direction.

 Brother SRM wrote:
I'm not a fan of some of the more cartoony models (the already-posted eagle chariot is well sculpted, but I think the concept is silly as it gets) but the artistry in the plastic tooling these days is insane. The quality of the stuff in Dark Vengeance is kind of mind blowing. I don't think GW's hit/miss ratio has really changed at all, people are mostly just finding things to complain about and clinging to nostalgia.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly.

 -Loki- wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Now... pretty much one pose wonders.

I'll take well designed mono pose characters over hodge podge multipart characters that look like shop window mannequins any day. Those new single pose plastic characters are a huge step in the right direction.

I won't, and I don't.

They were a move in the scrapyard direction as far as I am concerned.

But then, I want them more for RPGs and for Mordheim than for Gee Dubs current games.

If you like one pose wonders, then they are fine.

Me, I like being able to create the mini that I want, not one some mook with a CAD program wanted. For me the versatility more than compensated for any failings.

GW went from having very nice versatile figures to something that I am less likely to buy, and all because some lack wits had difficulty making the models rank up....

But then the time of that switch to one pose wonders was about the same time my GW Fantasy purchases first started to drop, and they have been dropping ever since.... So far this year? None.... Last year? Some terrain....

I have painted some Vampire Counts plastics for a commission, and my thoughts when painting the Crypt Ghouls? My gods, these are crap.... Are they supposed to be scary, 'cause, really, they ain't.... Give me the Heresy ghouls, please and thank you.

The skellies were okay, not as good as Mantic, but more poses. Big heads and big hands are the only real problem. If there are any figures in the set that I would be likely to get for myself, it would be these, but not at GW prices.

The zeds.... not so good. Heads and hands are way to freakin' big. Not new though, so I can shake my head and mutter that I already have some that I never got around to painting for myself....

The corpse cart... yeah, I want my cart to be pulled by legless zombies.... Oh my gods, it's after us! Walk! The granny with a walker moves faster.... Worst model in the set, salvageable if you give it some horses to replace the lame zeds.

The one plastic that I have seen for the current VC army that I have wanted for myself is the Mortis Engine, and that is only because I really liked the one that Tinracer over on Beasts of War turned into a merry-go-round.

For the most part... I am glad that I have Mantic Undead rather than GW.

And those plastics are the only GW figures that I have painted this year - Mantic, AoW, RH, Reaper, Reaper, and more Reaper... I see more of these and buy more of these.

The Auld Grump - see what I mean about folks never agreeing?

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Now... pretty much one pose wonders.

I'll take well designed mono pose characters over hodge podge multipart characters that look like shop window mannequins any day. Those new single pose plastic characters are a huge step in the right direction.

I won't, and I don't.

They were a move in the scrapyard direction as far as I am concerned.

I think in this instance it's very safe to say you're one of the small minority.

You're honestly the first person I've ever heard express dislike for the new plastic character kits.

I always prefer a good mono-pose model to a multipose one.

A well done single pose model will look far more natural and can look quite spectacular, as the sculptor can get the model "flowing". Some great single pose models from the bretonnian range:






Nice, simple poses that convey a great sense of character.

For regimental models, I definitely prefer GOOD monopose models, having each and every model posed dynamically/differently is better suited to skirmish games rather than larger armies like GW produce, at least IMO.

As for GW models in general, I'm not a fan of the cartoony direction they're taking, but for the most part I can't fault the actual quality of the sculpts. There's some odd things that are a bit blergh, like Lizardmen Cold One riders are terrible sculpts (whether you like the miniatures or not is irrelevant, the sculpts are terrible). Nothing recent jumps out in my mind as being a poor sculpt though.

It's the artistic direction that I don't like.

 cincydooley wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Now... pretty much one pose wonders.

I'll take well designed mono pose characters over hodge podge multipart characters that look like shop window mannequins any day. Those new single pose plastic characters are a huge step in the right direction.

I won't, and I don't.

They were a move in the scrapyard direction as far as I am concerned.

I think in this instance it's very safe to say you're one of the small minority.

You're honestly the first person I've ever heard express dislike for the new plastic character kits.

Not really, I don't even bother looking at the single pose plastic character models, and I can find any number of posts on this forum complaining about them.

And not just about their prices.

How much that has to do with their being single pose figures and how much with being crappy figures...? I don't know - because in this case the price is enough to guarantee that I won't even bother looking.

I see images drifting by on websites, but mostly painted, and, frankly, I do not have enough interest to bother looking otherwise.

A single pose, single character, plastic miniature for how much?! I doubt that I am the only one balking at making a purchase....

So, Reaper, AoW, Heresy, Mantic....

Though I will admit to choking on the cost of the mounted Brunhilde Von Konigsmark from Raging Heroes - nice figure, but two cavalry figures for $75 US? Ummm... no.

But... nice pose -


*EDIT* Added Spoiler Tag - image is Off Topic. Safe For Work, but Off Topic....

The Auld Grump

Well just to throw out the figs of the 90's as prime examples of no stuff wasn't better back then. I will have summon the previously mentioned but not show Lord of Undeath


But also, I would like to remind people of the 2nd generation daemonnets. We all remember the Juan Diaz ones, we try to forget these...


And the Bloodletters weren't that hot either.

GW has always put out stinkers. We just try to forget them.

As for better miniatures, I point to a certain Spaniards latest blogs for a whole building full of better miniatures:
http://mr-bugman.blogspot.co.uk/

Not to sound like a total expert... but I'll tell you what it is.

3D SCULPTING!

Ever since Gee-Dub started 3D sculpting EVERYTHING instead of using traditional hand-sculpted miniatures the quality of models has gone down the drain. Take a look ---- try this: Anything that is a machine or armor looks alright for the most part with 3D sculpting.

Anything organic looks like complete trash, smoothed over stretched on a tarp TRASH!
THEY ALL LOOK LIKE STONE STATUES - YOU have to paint on the organic look of the model, copy paste feathers, copy paste scales.
Lazy miniatures that are bigger, sure they're bigger but its plastic so why not?


You can't fool me Gee-Dub. Good examples are Tyranid models flesh, fantasy releases like the Griffons and anything fantasy really.

This 3D sculpting malarky has led me personally to not buy anymore Gee-Dub, all the new organic models have line and shapes that NO HAND SCULPTOR would EVER put into their models if they had a soul.

silent25 wrote:
Well just to throw out the figs of the 90's as prime examples of no stuff wasn't better back then. I will have summon the previously mentioned but not show Lord of Undeath

My eyes they BURN

Poor Nagash... I never really hated that model. If it had a decent paint job, I think it would look ok.

I do admit to hoping that someone will one day submit a stonking Nagash conversion/scratchbuild as their Golden Daemon entry.

I think that the problem with Nagash could be solved simply by changing the head.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Not really, I don't even bother looking at the single pose plastic character models, and I can find any number of posts on this forum complaining about them.

And not just about their prices.

Yeah, you're going to have to link me to some of that discussion, because I have a lot of trouble believing it.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
I think that the problem with Nagash could be solved simply by changing the head.

It had a different head originally.

Poor Gary Morley was force to switch it to a skull head by a suit in GW. He made such a poor skull head that he figured the suit would take one look and let him go back to the original head.

The suit did not, the suit liked the 'bobo the clown skull' head and so a terrible crime occurred and Morley was forever to be labeled a poor sculptor, despite actually being a good one and the Nagash/Morley trope entered the forums of the earth, and remained there, long after they ceased to be funny.


Behold.



From the artwork:

Honestly though, with Nagash, I entirely agree, he would be fine without the head. I think the staff and the dagger are alright and the pose is fine. Its just the ridiculous face and the daft bloody Christmas tree hat!

I'm completely on board with Nagash's head not being Morley's fault. Even still, I don't think it's a particularly good representation of the artwork.

I was a fan of Morley's Waywatchers and some other models, particularly Heinrich Kemmler, which is a GW classic IMO. But his larger models seem to be particularly weak. Most minis have wildly distorted proportions, but as the model size increases, you have to start bringing it toward more realistic proportions. Morley seemed to struggle with that. Look at his Orion. It's a better sculpt than Nagash, but the musculature looks ridiculous on a mini that size.

 gorgon wrote:
I'm completely on board with Nagash's head not being Morley's fault. Even still, I don't think it's a particularly good representation of the artwork.

I was a fan of Morley's Waywatchers and some other models, particularly Heinrich Kemmler, which is a GW classic IMO. But his larger models seem to be particularly weak. Most minis have wildly distorted proportions, but as the model size increases, you have to start bringing it toward more realistic proportions. Morley seemed to struggle with that. Look at his Orion. It's a better sculpt than Nagash, but the musculature looks ridiculous on a mini that size.

Actually check out Moreley's work on the Inquisitor 54mm game. Those figs are normally seen as being his "redemptive" release. He had become notorious for hamfisted by that point (HE spear men) up to that point.

Didn't Morley also do those 3rd edition shoddy Striking Scorpions that I posted earlier?.

But if he sculpted Heinrich Kemmler, all sins are forgiven

 cincydooley wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Not really, I don't even bother looking at the single pose plastic character models, and I can find any number of posts on this forum complaining about them.

And not just about their prices.

Yeah, you're going to have to link me to some of that discussion, because I have a lot of trouble believing it.

No, I am not going do do your work for you - if you have not seen them then it is because you do not want to see them. I will give you a big fat hint though - the complaints that I remember have to do with recent Chaos releases.

If I can find them when I am not looking for them then I am pretty sure that you can if you are.

When I say I am not interested what I really mean is I AM NOT INTERESTED.

This also means that I am not interested in looking for things that you can find for yourself.

The Auld Grump

Heinrich kemmler is a great model I still use mine as a master Necromancer and the model blends in perfectly with the rest,

silent25 wrote:
Well just to throw out the figs of the 90's as prime examples of no stuff wasn't better back then. I will have summon the previously mentioned but not show Lord of Undeath


But also, I would like to remind people of the 2nd generation daemonnets. We all remember the Juan Diaz ones, we try to forget these...


And the Bloodletters weren't that hot either.

GW has always put out stinkers. We just try to forget them.

As for better miniatures, I point to a certain Spaniards latest blogs for a whole building full of better miniatures:
http://mr-bugman.blogspot.co.uk/

I think that I have mentioned that there are periods where I pretty much wrote off many GW figures as crap.... Those figures come from one such time.

The original Realms of Chaos Daemons (Lost and the Damned era) were fine - a wee bit wee by today's GW scale, but they had flavor.

The Auld Grump


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaconUprising wrote:
Heinrich kemmler is a great model I still use mine as a master Necromancer and the model blends in perfectly with the rest,

Kemmler I will grant you.

The Auld Grump

 Flashman wrote:
Didn't Morley also do those 3rd edition shoddy Striking Scorpions that I posted earlier?.

But if he sculpted Heinrich Kemmler, all sins are forgiven

Morely did do Kemmler.

Hopefully this makes my description more clear in regards to the current state of GW's 3D sculpting and plastics.
Other companies are using 3D sculpting techniques as well, however GW seem to be using it to just kick out kit-after-kit and hope the 'Eavy metal team can paint the details into the model.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

That griffon makes my eyes bleed.

What the heck...?

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Not really, I don't even bother looking at the single pose plastic character models, and I can find any number of posts on this forum complaining about them.

And not just about their prices.

Yeah, you're going to have to link me to some of that discussion, because I have a lot of trouble believing it.

No, I am not going do do your work for you - if you have not seen them then it is because you do not want to see them. I will give you a big fat hint though - the complaints that I remember have to do with recent Chaos releases.

If I can find them when I am not looking for them then I am pretty sure that you can if you are.

When I say I am not interested what I really mean is I AM NOT INTERESTED.

This also means that I am not interested in looking for things that you can find for yourself.

The Auld Grump

You're the one making claims, brosef. You're the one responsible for providing some substantiation to them.

Anyone can can rant on the Internet under the veil on anonymity and refuse to provide any substance to his arguments.

You've clearly made up your mind, and nothing is going to change it, so that's cool.

Yeah, I'm having trouble with "and I can find any number of posts on this forum complaining about them.". I've seen pretty much universal praise for the new plastic characters.

I personally prefer multi-part, multi-pose models to monopose models, too. It won't stop me from buying some of the newer kits if the designs are good enough, but the boring repetition in kits like the DE Corsairs, Empire State Troops, etc., really kill a lot of my enthusiasm. And those models at least came with lots of arm choices and weapons to spice things up.

I also want to second his comments about how a vocal minority ruined it for everyone by whining about how hard it is to rank up models. If that's all you care about, just assemble all the damnthings the same way. Now GW is heading towards the beige, boring realm of historicals, where the motto is "We give you 44 models, and you can pose 4 of them however you like. The rest are marching or preparing to march."

 -Loki- wrote:
Yeah, I'm having trouble with "and I can find any number of posts on this forum complaining about them.". I've seen pretty much universal praise for the new plastic characters.

The answer for you is the same - look for them and you will find them.

Is that new Karl Franz a plastic character? By golly! Yes!

Are there complaints right here in this very thread?

Hmmm....

Oy!

And the sad thing? Up until I saw that picture above I didn't even know that there was a crappy looking plastic Karl Franz....

On the other hand, I had forgotten how nice the metal Green Knight looked... I'd replace the banner poles with piano wire, but otherwise... an excellent figure..

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* To be clear - I have no problem with metal or resin monopose models - but getting rid of the poseable plastics ignores what is, for me, one of the biggest advantages that the medium has.

The plastic Karl Franz on giant pigeon....

*EDIT 2* And for those that absolutely must have something nice about GW plastics - I am quite fond of their terrain models.

I still keep an eye on them, simply because I do like them.

RedSarge wrote:
Hopefully this makes my description more clear in regards to the current state of GW's 3D sculpting and plastics.
Other companies are using 3D sculpting techniques as well, however GW seem to be using it to just kick out kit-after-kit and hope the 'Eavy metal team can paint the details into the model.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I have to say, I really dont see the point of this picture, I think some of GWs new plastics are excellent, who cares if they are designed and sculpted the old fashioned way?

As a painter, all I care about is the end result, and I think some of their new huge MCs are excellent.

Completely agree. Don't much see the purpose of the photo.

Plastics are amazing for sharp mechanical surfaces, but yeah, I find they are disappointing for animals. I prefer subtle surface textures and accurate musculature for painting.

Jes Goodwin managed to do a good job with the dark elf cold ones within the limitations of designing in plastic, but the animal kits since then have been pretty weak. In part it's a limitation of 3D sculpting, but I think even more critical is the sculptor's weak knowledge of anatomy.

I saw Jes' sketches of the lizard musculature before he designed the out texture and scales, and it made for a convincing, anatomically-plausible creature, despite being imaginary. Compare that to last year's ridiculous Minotaurs, where in place of muscle and sinew, the sculptor laid on slabs of meat in a haphazard fashion. Or the animals in the pictures above, where smooth blobs are placed at random intervals to give a kinda' sorta' organic shape, but look more like balloon animals.

It's like comparing Rob Liefield's artwork to Neal Adams' or Brian Bolland's; it's clear the latter took anatomy lessons in art school. The former are just making it up as they go along.

Guess I don't see the reason for picking of the nits in those models.

I just see neat models.

And I enjoy the uttertly asinine. From old stuff so bad it'd ought to be shot/melted and the new stuff like the Dreadknights or "That could never fly" nonsense from Space Marines to High Elves.

However, I am pissed off at what PP has done to the Trollbloods line. (ALL IMAGES WORK SAFE) They went from rampaging evil monstrous beasts:



To derpy, the last, lonely mauler...:



DURRRDduurr durrr... *sigh*


(And this is the way they should have gone with:

the plastic models look fine to me. I dont think too many of us care if they are anatomically correct or if the fliers could actually fly in real life.

EXCEPT

I HATE the crappy looking flames/smoke that GW is insisting to shoehorn onto everything. i dont know alot about anatomy of animals or how flight worthy something is but we've all seen fire before and GW's attempt looks like crap. If anything it looks like a pile of liquid sludge hanging in the air. Even the crazy ways they paint it doesnt make it look anymore convincing.

edit: it looks like the root system of a tree. it doesnt even resemble fire.

 Mastiff wrote:
Plastics are amazing for sharp mechanical surfaces, but yeah, I find they are disappointing for animals. I prefer subtle surface textures and accurate musculature for painting.

Jes Goodwin managed to do a good job with the dark elf cold ones within the limitations of designing in plastic, but the animal kits since then have been pretty weak. In part it's a limitation of 3D sculpting, but I think even more critical is the sculptor's weak knowledge of anatomy.

I saw Jes' sketches of the lizard musculature before he designed the out texture and scales, and it made for a convincing, anatomically-plausible creature, despite being imaginary. Compare that to last year's ridiculous Minotaurs, where in place of muscle and sinew, the sculptor laid on slabs of meat in a haphazard fashion. Or the animals in the pictures above, where smooth blobs are placed at random intervals to give a kinda' sorta' organic shape, but look more like balloon animals.

It's like comparing Rob Liefield's artwork to Neal Adams' or Brian Bolland's; it's clear the latter took anatomy lessons in art school. The former are just making it up as they go along.

I wonder if it is more a factor that the digital artists are rushed - not having the time that it takes to do the job well.

And that griffon really, really bothers me....

I look at the critter in the WHFB boxed set, and while there are some minor problems I find that the elvish griffon in that box is a great deal better than the one for Karl Franz.

So, aside from the digital sculpt, I just don't like the pigeogriff....

The Auld Grump

Can't say I have much criticism of the latest Griffon for Empire, other than it looks huge and seems to overwhelm anyone mounted on it, even the Emperor KF.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Can't say I have much criticism of the latest Griffon for Empire, other than it looks huge and seems to overwhelm anyone mounted on it, even the Emperor KF.

I really like the model.

And it's obviously a huge improvement over the old model.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

I wonder if it is more a factor that the digital artists are rushed - not having the time that it takes to do the job well.

That's a good point, and probably true in a lot of cases. With the minotaurs, though, they really don't seem to understand where the muscles should lay. For example, they drape a random muscle diagonally over the shins, and have deltoids that appear to be gobbling up the chest muscles. They're taking the time to add muscles, they just don't have a clue where to put 'em.

Yeah, struggling to see what's wrong with the Ravener in that picture, or any of the Tyranids at all. The smooth aesthetic has been going on since 3rd edition, when they DID hand sculpt the larger models as well as smaller models.

The only reason I could think he's got 'Necron torso' at the Ravener is because it's bulky. It's bulky because it's meant to be - it's got a Throax weapon in it. It's bulky to show that different to the similarly sized Warriors that don't have Throax weapons.

If he's talking about the squared off edges, all Tyranids have that, even the hend sculpted little guys like Gaunts.

The Tyranid in that picture at least is basically inventing a problem out of nothing.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Can't say I have much criticism of the latest Griffon for Empire, other than it looks huge and seems to overwhelm anyone mounted on it, even the Emperor KF.

I went and took another look at it, and all I could see was this:



World's fattest chicken.

It's a good sculpt, just big, as you say.

 Mastiff wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Can't say I have much criticism of the latest Griffon for Empire, other than it looks huge and seems to overwhelm anyone mounted on it, even the Emperor KF.

I went and took another look at it, and all I could see was this:



World's fattest chicken.

It's a good sculpt, just big, as you say.

It's a little big in the chest, but by no means bad. I do think the one CMoN is better because he's thinner in the chest, but I do like it more than the Confrontation one (can't believe I said that).

 Flashman wrote:
Didn't Morley also do those 3rd edition shoddy Striking Scorpions that I posted earlier?.

But if he sculpted Heinrich Kemmler, all sins are forgiven

The DE Mandrakes and Grotesques (3rd ed) were his as well and IMO his worst abomination.

 Mastiff wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Can't say I have much criticism of the latest Griffon for Empire, other than it looks huge and seems to overwhelm anyone mounted on it, even the Emperor KF.

I went and took another look at it, and all I could see was this:



World's fattest chicken.

It's a good sculpt, just big, as you say.

I was thinking 'Pigeon' - but, yeah - not the fore of a hunting bird.

Plenty of meat though, Thanksgiving is gonna be goood!

In the case of the Ravener, it is just not as good as many of the other 'Nids, detail is soft. Likely would be soft, even in metal. Not... all that fearsome.

But the 'Nids have always been sort of hit or miss with me - some very nice sculpts (both in plastic and in metal) and some not very good sculpts (in both plastic and metal). Heck, the very first 'Nids, with those weird duck feet sticking out of the sides.... (From the Rogue Trader days....)

The thing about crappy models in plastic... the molds are expensive enough that those mistakes are likely to be around for a while.

And my problem with current trends is that they are so very cartoony, including the Emperor on His Chocobo. I remember when the Emperor was a weedy wretch, chosen by the Elector Counts because he would be easy to push around....

I am sure that there are some nice enough plastic characters... but the ones that I notice? Those tend to stick in my mind because the stick in my craw....

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


And my problem with current trends is that they are so very cartoony, including the Emperor on His Chocobo. I remember when the Emperor was a weedy wretch, chosen by the Elector Counts because he would be easy to push around....

The Auld Grump

You mean when his mount looked like this:



Poor Karl looks like he's riding the family pet...not a fearsome beast.

Again, the CMoN one....


Is much better, but still....it's a definite improvement.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
In the case of the Ravener, it is just not as good as many of the other 'Nids, detail is soft. Likely would be soft, even in metal. Not... all that fearsome.

The Raveners details are no softer than any other plastic Tyranid, including the 2nd edition plastic Termagants and Genestealers. It's a typical case of GW's official schemes being either terrible or terribly executed.

As for being fearsome, I think the real issue is the pose. The very static positioning of the tail makes it very hard to make it look like it's doing anything but yelling 'boo!'. But the Trygon suffers from this as well. Nothing to do with the detail.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
But the 'Nids have always been sort of hit or miss with me - some very nice sculpts (both in plastic and in metal) and some not very good sculpts (in both plastic and metal). Heck, the very first 'Nids, with those weird duck feet sticking out of the sides.... (From the Rogue Trader days....)

Well, that's like any model range from any company. I've yet to find one where I like everything. Even with Tyranids, I'm not a fan of the Biovore or their Ripper solution. Forgeworld 'Ripper wave' is much better.

the new daemons look good ton of detail on the nurgle stuff and other models

 -Loki- wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
In the case of the Ravener, it is just not as good as many of the other 'Nids, detail is soft. Likely would be soft, even in metal. Not... all that fearsome.

The Raveners details are no softer than any other plastic Tyranid, including the 2nd edition plastic Termagants and Genestealers. It's a typical case of GW's official schemes being either terrible or terribly executed.

As for being fearsome, I think the real issue is the pose. The very static positioning of the tail makes it very hard to make it look like it's doing anything but yelling 'boo!'. But the Trygon suffers from this as well. Nothing to do with the detail.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
But the 'Nids have always been sort of hit or miss with me - some very nice sculpts (both in plastic and in metal) and some not very good sculpts (in both plastic and metal). Heck, the very first 'Nids, with those weird duck feet sticking out of the sides.... (From the Rogue Trader days....)

Well, that's like any model range from any company. I've yet to find one where I like everything. Even with Tyranids, I'm not a fan of the Biovore or their Ripper solution. Forgeworld 'Ripper wave' is much better.

The static pose is a big part of it, but the biggest is that I do not find myself believing the articulation. It does not look like a fearsome ravener to me, it looks like a plastic toy.

But then I look at the old Screamer Killer... which, to be honest, is worse than any of the recent line that I can call to mind. Even at the time it made me think 'hunh, I guess they want to give the 'nids a dreadnaught... not a good model though....'

3e had what I liked best in plastics, since then... meh.

But then I quit the game at the end of 3e - I have not liked the rules since, so I have not been paying any real attention to the minis, other than what I see when drifting through the aether.

Fantasy I watch more keenly, my main RPG setting is inspired by Germany, Circa 1630. But those... have been attracting me less and less, going from hit or miss to missing on three cylinders.

It does not help that I do not like the current rules for WHFB, either. (On the other hand, I play Kings of War - the figures would work for either.)

I have not bought any GW since mid 2012, when I bought some fairly decent terrain from them - a store was going under, and I took advantage.

So, while I do not much like the current releases the biggest reason remains the price.

Though... having finished a commission of Vampire Counts plastics... not a big fan of an awful lot of the Battalion box.... Zeds, Ghouls, and Cart... all... just plain bad.

Made worse by the fact that I wanted to like the ghouls and cart... only to like them less than anything else in the box. I like ghouls, likely more than any other undead - I can field over a hundred, a mix of GW metals (from the Mordheim days), Reaper, and Mantic. (Not a rules thing, I just like ghouls... ever since reading Lovecraft in 1976....)

The cart is the worst, but salvageable - it is the stupid, stupid, stupid crippled zombies pulling the cart. Why would anybody think that those were a good idea?

It may be sculpted better than the Skeleton War Wagon by RAFM, but I like the RAFM model about a hundred times better.

But... salvageable, just replace the crippled zeds with skeletal horses.

The Auld Grump

 Lovechunks wrote:
the new daemons look good ton of detail on the nurgle stuff and other models

I'd have to disagree with you there.

I present the "coral chariot".



The new Daemons are either pathetic or overly cartoonish compared to the ones they replaced. The only model even remotely decent from that last release was perhaps the Khorne herald and even that's kind of subpar compared to what they've released in the past.

 n0t_u wrote:

 Lovechunks wrote:
the new daemons look good ton of detail on the nurgle stuff and other models

I'd have to disagree with you there.

I present the "coral chariot".



The new Daemons are either pathetic or overly cartoonish compared to the ones they replaced. The only model even remotely decent from that last release was perhaps the Khorne herald and even that's kind of subpar compared to what they've released in the past.

hmmmm well that wouldnt be nurgle would it the big horror blowing the flames lacks some detail the rest of the model has good detail you cant always judge a model by the cover i own this model and there is detail

 Lovechunks wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:

 Lovechunks wrote:
the new daemons look good ton of detail on the nurgle stuff and other models

I'd have to disagree with you there.

I present the "coral chariot".

Spoiler:

The new Daemons are either pathetic or overly cartoonish compared to the ones they replaced. The only model even remotely decent from that last release was perhaps the Khorne herald and even that's kind of subpar compared to what they've released in the past.

hmmmm well that wouldnt be nurgle would it the big horror blowing the flames lacks some detail the rest of the model has good detail you cant always judge a model by the cover i own this model and there is detail

I've seen the model... no, those flames are amazingly undetailed in person, and the daemons... yeah... right. :(

Sorry, not a good model. It is one that I would turn down as a commission - just not worth the trouble.

Which, again, is too bad. Of the Chaos Powers Tzeentch is my favorite, but the recent models for Tzeentch... Bleh. One of the terrain pieces that I mentioned above was Tzeench themed - I have no idea what I will use it for, but it looks fine. The terrain kits show that GW can still do a good job on occasion.

But The Coral Chariot.... I blame this one on the All Armie$ Need Big Model$ syndrome. Which is more than half of my main dislikes in recent models.

Made quickly on a CAD and pushed out the door.

Now, that said, there is a good element - I like the manta rays that are pulling it. Not as much as the standard rays, but okay.

Someone else may be able to salvage it, but... too much work to be worth my time. Obviously, you disagree - but the detail... just is not there.

But, shamefully, I will admit to a weakness for the Mortis Engine, merely because of the version that Tinracer has done up as a merry-go-round. It fits the theme of his army, and makes the model worthwhile.

But if I had not seen images of his reinterpretation of the model... it would be in the same category as CC.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* To be honest - terrain plays to the strongest points of CAD and 3D modeling, while organics play to the weakest. It is a lot harder to create a good looking humongous creature than to create a building.

Have any samples of the typical commission you do? A bit surprised to hear that someone would turn down a commission simply because they didn't like the model.

 TheKbob wrote:
However, I am pissed off at what PP has done to the Trollbloods line. (ALL IMAGES WORK SAFE) They went from rampaging evil monstrous beasts:

Spoiler:

To derpy, the last, lonely mauler...:

Spoiler:

DURRRDduurr durrr... *sigh*

Damn, you won't like the new Bouncer then either . The problem with the dire troll kit is that they combined all 3 dire trolls into a single one, where they previously had 3 different metal kits with very different poses. The metal ones flowed really well because that is what metals are good for: single dynamic poses. Having to have different heads, hands and even back piece has made the Mauler look a bit derpy - but the plastic Bomber and Blitzer look quite a bit better than the plastic Mauler.

The chariot of Tzeentch is an example of how the CAD plastics are really fooling us into thinking it's an amazing kit. When the reality is that its poorly detailed overly-smooth plastic with little musculature or anatomy.

Would a sculptor HAND sculpt flames like that? I hope not as the above pointed out the new GW trend of smoke/flame effects that are little more than smooth plastic shapes or coral reefs.

But hey, we buy it. So the treadmill continues.

Okay, as chance would have it I was just hired to paint two boxes of the Isles sets....

First off - I will not subject this to the same kind of critique that I would a box of infantry models - this is intended as a less expensive entry point, so there are things that would bother me if they were to happen with a standard infantry box that I will handwave here.

Second - I am only describing the models that I have started working on.

The Good: The elves, for the most part, are actually pretty decent, the cavalry officer is quite nice - aside from lack of detail in the mane, tail, and plumes. A much better horse than the aardvarks that they had for a while.

The griffon... is not at all bad aside from undetailed feathers. Understandable for the lower priced entry box.

The greatswords... more of a mixed bag - the lack of undercuts is noticeable - I will need to block in some shadows. Not terrible, just not as good as the other elves.

The person that bosses the Rat Ogre around is okay - not as good as the elves, but head and shoulders above the other Skaven.


The Bad: The Skaven.... lack of any real definition on the fur and teeth, the same heads over and over, with minor details changed, virtually identical poses.... A disappointment after the generally good job on the elves.


The Ugly: The rat ogres... bad, bad, definition on the fur and 'clothes', cables and hoses that make no sense... The worst models in the set.


Over all: Better than I expected. Not worth the high sticker price, but better than most of GWs prices.

The Skaven... kind of disappointing, but the elves... much better than expected.

So... a 7.5 out of 10 - much better than the 5 out of 10 that I was expecting to give the box. (Mostly because of memories of the models in Skull Pass.) Brought down by the Skaven, but acceptable.

The griffon bothers me a great deal less than Karl Franz and his Chocobo. Not as good as some models, but better than I could reasonably expect.

Make of this what you will. These date back to 2010, but are still the most recent non-terrain models that I have had my actual hands on. (The Chaos... stuff... is a friend's - I have had my hands on, but only to pick up the frames, turn them over in my hands, and go 'meh'.)

The Auld Grump, or sometimes even 'feh'.

that fire looks like they just stick one of their trees in its mouth

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
that fire looks like they just stick one of their trees in its mouth

The whole idea of sculpting fire is pretty stupid to me. The only way it can look good is with good OSL, and 99.9% of people can't paint good OSL.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
that fire looks like they just stick one of their trees in its mouth

The whole idea of sculpting fire is pretty stupid to me. The only way it can look good is with good OSL, and 99.9% of people can't paint good OSL.

not even they can, it looks horrendous

This looks horrendous?

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
This looks horrendous?

Good paint job on a bad miniature.

The figure itself... not 'horrendous', but, yeah... bad.

GW can do much better, and charges as though they had done better - which is where this sculpt goes from 'bad' to 'horrendous'; if it were reasonably priced it would just be 'bad'.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* In particular, the area under the coat is not even cleaned properly prior to painting.

Again though, who cares if it's CAD or not?

I remember how pleased I was a few years back when I bought the new space hulk, great models. All CAD apparently, they won me over with those blood angel termies, absolutely beautiful.

Embrace change! I think almost all those "too smooth" models on the photo are great!

I agree that the chariot is a bit garish but... They can't all be winner's eh?

I think "It's CAD therefore it's terrible" makes about as much sense as the "He uses press-moulds? Oh that's terrible!" stigma that is an equally nonsense criticism.

I don't think the issue is simply that it's CAD, it's that it's just badly sculpted regardless. I'll embrace good CAD designs, but I don't like bad ones, and personally I think GW is putting out more bad than good. At least when it comes to the larger kits anyway.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think "It's CAD therefore it's terrible" makes about as much sense as the "He uses press-moulds? Oh that's terrible!" stigma that is an equally nonsense criticism.

Yeah sounds about right, it's like hipsters who say an album sounds better on a certain guitar, but surely it's all about the bloke playing it?

There are some fantastic CAD models and some awful ones, and I suspect its got nothing to do with the process and everything to do with the end result.

Some are great, some suck. No sense blaming the computer.

 Sidstyler wrote:
At least when it comes to the larger kits anyway.

That's a good distinction actually.

I think their infantry kits are a cut above most others. The new Pathfinders are some of my fav Tau models in the range, and as much as I deride the One Hairstyle To Rule Them All nature of those new High Elf ladies, the kits itself is very good. Yet I dread their new "big base" releases. I always wonder what horrid monstrous thing they're going to make next. I can't imagine what the new Eldar giant Wraithlord is going to look like. Hopefully it'll be good, but looking at things like the Baby-Carrier makes me worried.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
At least when it comes to the larger kits anyway.

That's a good distinction actually.

I think their infantry kits are a cut above most others. The new Pathfinders are some of my fav Tau models in the range, and as much as I deride the One Hairstyle To Rule Them All nature of those new High Elf ladies, the kits itself is very good. Yet I dread their new "big base" releases. I always wonder what horrid monstrous thing they're going to make next. I can't imagine what the new Eldar giant Wraithlord is going to look like. Hopefully it'll be good, but looking at things like the Baby-Carrier makes me worried.

I was going to mention the flyers, I see it pretty much the same way, examples being loads of great chaos models, the chosen for example, and then a bloody awful flying dinobot?

I wonder if they deliberately go for a more childish look on the larger models because they are the ones young lads will notice across a crowded store?

The problem here is that most folks aren't saying that GW sculpts are CAD so they are bad - they are saying that GW sculpts are bad CAD sculpts.

That they would be bad regardless, and that they are the result of GW rushing the CAD process.

There is a pretty danged major difference.

Raging Heroes does CAD sculpts - and I like most of the Raging Heroes sculpts.

Mantic has some CAD Enforcers in the new Kickstarter - I am very much looking forward to seeing them in plastic.

GW does the Coral Crap Castle - and it would look like crap if it were sculpted out of platinum using diamond chisels - it just looks like crap.

You see the difference there?

Like any other method of sculpting taking shortcuts while working in CAD means cutting corners. Cutting corners in a sculpt means a bad sculpt. GW is cutting corners in its CAD sculpts. Therefore GW is making bad CAD sculpts.

As I mentioned above - the plastic starter sets were better than I expected for the elves, but right about where I expected for the Skaven. On the elves somebody took the time to make a decent sculpt. On the Skaven they cut corners.

Both were done using CAD. One is good, the other isn't. They come from the same danged box....

Capisce?

The Auld Grump

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
This looks horrendous?

Like I said, sculpted flames look terrible UNLESS you do good OSL which 99.9% of people can't do. That paintjob looks pretty good, but the 999 other people who paint sculpted flames will end up with something that looks terrible.

The bigger the flames, the worse it looks IMO. A small torch, yeah, whatever, when half the model is covered in flames like that chariot, yeah, it looks horrendous unless you are a god with OSL.

It was a response to this great response:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
that fire looks like they just stick one of their trees in its mouth

The whole idea of sculpting fire is pretty stupid to me. The only way it can look good is with good OSL, and 99.9% of people can't paint good OSL.

not even they can, it looks horrendous

It wasn't directed at you.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
It was a response to this great response:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
that fire looks like they just stick one of their trees in its mouth

The whole idea of sculpting fire is pretty stupid to me. The only way it can look good is with good OSL, and 99.9% of people can't paint good OSL.

not even they can, it looks horrendous

It wasn't directed at you.

if what he said wasn't directed at me, then why did he quote me?!
unless you meant something else

It's ok Rainbow Dash. I think you're horrendous, so you can sleep easier knowing that.

I guess I don't understand why people have such a negative reaction the the sculpted flames. If you can't paint them well, just leave them off the model! In my opinion, they give a great opportunity for more advanced painters to really make a model "pop." Not every model is oriented towards the same skill level-- and that applies to both painting and assembly.

To be honest, I think GW's recent models have been excellent. The only part of the Tau release I wasn't a huge fan of was the flyer. The Pathfinders in particular strike me as one of the best infantry kits out there from any manufacturer, and also work great with the old Fire Warrior sprues for conversions. The Riptide could have been disastrous but ended up very good.

I'm with Kingsley here.

I don't see the problem with the flames. The "Coral Chariot" was down to the paint scheme, where they used the blue/purple/pink/whatever "flames" and it looked awful. The other version, with the fire painted like fire, makes it look great.

 mattyrm wrote:
Again though, who cares if it's CAD or not?

I remember how pleased I was a few years back when I bought the new space hulk, great models. All CAD apparently, they won me over with those blood angel termies, absolutely beautiful.

Embrace change! I think almost all those "too smooth" models on the photo are great!

I agree that the chariot is a bit garish but... They can't all be winner's eh?

The Terminators are purely mechanical with only small fabric elements, so they are perfect for a CAD design with cut corners.*
*The Terminators do have some small undercut issues where parts meet at the helmet, waist, ect

@ ExNoctemNacimur: The small torch looks fine and can look great even without OSL. (See Redemptionist minis from Necromunda)

@TheAuldGrump: Yes, they're bad CAD sculpts.

I don't decry CAD used for miniatures but I also disagree with deleting hand sculptors from miniature design as a way to "modernize" and kick out plastic kits that will be looked back at as goofy failures in a few years past.

If GW's only edge is rabid fans and its use of the BEST painters and the BEST hand sculptors around. Removing the sculptors and heck maybe even some of the painters, will defeat GW as a whole. What's to say that company A can't CAD sculpt BETTER and take more TIME and release a product that far exceeds what GW are doing? It appears this has already taken place.

A new slogan is required for GW
"The best 3D video game models turned into miniatures in the whole world!" "Now with former COD:Modern Warfare 3D artists and ex-Midway studios designers of famed skulls, skulls Mortal Kombat skull ninja's"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm with Kingsley here.

I don't see the problem with the flames. The "Coral Chariot" was down to the paint scheme, where they used the blue/purple/pink/whatever "flames" and it looked awful. The other version, with the fire painted like fire, makes it look great.

It's obviously just personal preference, I just personally think flames look terrible unless painted with epic OSL, otherwise (to me) it just looks very fake and cartoonish. Only a small subset of painters even attempt OSL and of those a tiny subset can actually make it look good (I sure as hell can't). If the flames aren't permanently sculpted on and are optional, whatever, I don't care, it's just my personal preference that I don't like models with sculpted flames.

But I'm weird like that, I also don't like NMM, as it only looks good in pictures and not in the flesh.

Probably repeating half of whats been said here but page 7...

Whilst there have been some really bad sculpts from CAD there have also been really bad hand sculpts for miniatures in the past, (pask, previous metal chaos possessed). This to me indicates not so much bad execution is at fault, but bad design.

If I may put some possible reasons for this forward, I would like to point out the increase in production output by games workshop over the last few years, up until now where we have a codex/army book a month, something I certainly cannot remember happening over the past decade I have been with the hobby.

Whilst on the one hand this might be good with the new methods that are being used (CAD/CAM) the molds for these multi plastic kits are expensive to design and produce as they have to be machined (equipment, maintenance and specialized staff costs), the design (more staff, software licenses, more equipment etc) as well as the increased costs of materials means GW has been under financial strain to not only up its prices but up its output - as in sales-, unfortunately one way of doing this is to reduce design turn around, we are already seeing in-game point costs decreasing to encourage bigger armies with a shift to bigger must have flavor of the month models. I am glad I stay away from the 2k point tournament scene.

A final point is that games workshop has shareholders, last year I heard (though I cannot find the source again, I think it was bols) GWplc made so much profit from 6th edition, the hobbit and other big releases, that it actually delayed some things for release this year to prevent shareholders feeling the company was growing fast, I don't understand business and tbh from what I've seen I don't want to but if GW has a good year shareholders will expect GW to do better year on year, another thing that would eat into profits.

tl;dr
Warhammer isn't a hobby its a buisness, the more they sell the more they will want to sell and the quicker they can design them the quicker they can sell them, bad model or not why should they care so long as we all keep buying them.

2 pence
noodles

 OneManNoodles wrote:
Probably repeating half of whats been said here but page 7...

Whilst there have been some really bad sculpts from CAD there have also been really bad hand sculpts for miniatures in the past, (pask, previous metal chaos possessed). This to me indicates not so much bad execution is at fault, but bad design.

If I may put some possible reasons for this forward, I would like to point out the increase in production output by games workshop over the last few years, up until now where we have a codex/army book a month, something I certainly cannot remember happening over the past decade I have been with the hobby.

Whilst on the one hand this might be good with the new methods that are being used (CAD/CAM) the molds for these multi plastic kits are expensive to design and produce as they have to be machined (equipment, maintenance and specialized staff costs), the design (more staff, software licenses, more equipment etc) as well as the increased costs of materials means GW has been under financial strain to not only up its prices but up its output - as in sales-, unfortunately one way of doing this is to reduce design turn around, we are already seeing in-game point costs decreasing to encourage bigger armies with a shift to bigger must have flavor of the month models. I am glad I stay away from the 2k point tournament scene.

A final point is that games workshop has shareholders, last year I heard (though I cannot find the source again, I think it was bols) GWplc made so much profit from 6th edition, the hobbit and other big releases, that it actually delayed some things for release this year to prevent shareholders feeling the company was growing fast, I don't understand business and tbh from what I've seen I don't want to but if GW has a good year shareholders will expect GW to do better year on year, another thing that would eat into profits.

tl;dr
Warhammer isn't a hobby its a buisness, the more they sell the more they will want to sell and the quicker they can design them the quicker they can sell them, bad model or not why should they care so long as we all keep buying them.

2 pence
noodles

I have no issue with a business being or acting like a business, but don't say you're a hobby-the only hobby, and expect people to buy that
The staff always tries to sell me things with a "so what if you don't need it now, buy it anyways" attitude.
I have a lot of hobbies, be they more hobby then business or business then hobby. Just because something is new and they say its cool doesn't give any intensive to buy it when all it is, is an 80 dollar chunk of plastic.
No hobby, a shelf filler.

Although there have been some "misses" (the christmas ornament on the vortex beast, the forsaken, the dark angels speeder and flyiing wedding cake), there have been way more home runs: The deathwing knights, ravenwing knights, the entire tau relese, the entire high elf release...

I dont understand the hate for the skycutter. Its gorgeous. Not enough people ever read or played Space 1889 I guess.


Also keep in mind the amount of design and engineering in these kits. Now, I like warmachine (yay Convergence!), but go ahead privateer... make a space marine drop pod. I DARE YOU. (it would cost $140 and the doors still wouldnt line up).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
At least when it comes to the larger kits anyway.

That's a good distinction actually.

I think their infantry kits are a cut above most others. The new Pathfinders are some of my fav Tau models in the range, and as much as I deride the One Hairstyle To Rule Them All nature of those new High Elf ladies, the kits itself is very good. Yet I dread their new "big base" releases. I always wonder what horrid monstrous thing they're going to make next. I can't imagine what the new Eldar giant Wraithlord is going to look like. Hopefully it'll be good, but looking at things like the Baby-Carrier makes me worried.

The big base models work when they've got an existing aesthetic that works. The Tyranid monsters look great, because they stuck to the Tyranid aesthetic (and mirrors the Heirophant shape, which was a cool way to tie that outlying model into the range). The Riptide looks great, because they stuck with the Tau aesthetic, but but sleekified it, like the new Broadside (but that had a lot of bulk added too). The problem with that range now is the Crisis suits looking too dated. The Daemon chariots don't work for some people because Daemons don't have a vehicle aesthetic, so nothing to tie them in to the range aside from the daemons riding them. I don't mind them, honestly.

The Dreadknight wasn't based at all on any existing designs from any form of power armoured army, so it looks absurdly bizarre. It extends to Warhammer Fantasy too. Some of them, when done to fit the army, look great. Others, when done as 'something new', like the Pheonix, look terrible.

Eldar have a great range of wraithbone constructs, from Wraithguard to Wraithlords to Titans. They all have the exact same look. Considering Jes is rumoured to be heavily involved in the design of the new Eldar, I wouldn't worry about the Wraith King or whatever they're calling it. I doubt it'll look like much more than a big Wraithlord.

 mattyrm wrote:

I was going to mention the flyers, I see it pretty much the same way, examples being loads of great chaos models, the chosen for example, and then a bloody awful flying dinobot?

GW flyers are puzzling. Some of them are throughly awesome, some of the best looking vehicles within the industry (Valkyrie, Dakkajet), some of them are throughly horrible to the point you have to wonder what, if any, the sculptor was thinking (Storm Talon, Razorshark).

Talking about CAD, and particularly flames, GW isn't the only one who has recently faced criticism. For example, many Malifaux minis of late have split opinions since they moved to plastic:






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Loki- wrote:

The Dreadknight wasn't based at all on any existing designs from any form of power armoured army, so it looks absurdly bizarre.

What was also problem with Dreadknight is that the model is so stiff. Same thing with for example Slaugherbrute. By contrast, Riptide is throughly posable. You can make the model of your "own" by creative posing - much harder with some of the other large monsters.

Look at second edition tyranids and tell me that the sculpts are worse today.

Some models are poor, sure...but it's not as though I love everything from any other company. Everybody puts out a few duds.

RedSarge wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Again though, who cares if it's CAD or not?

I remember how pleased I was a few years back when I bought the new space hulk, great models. All CAD apparently, they won me over with those blood angel termies, absolutely beautiful.

Embrace change! I think almost all those "too smooth" models on the photo are great!

I agree that the chariot is a bit garish but... They can't all be winner's eh?

The Terminators are purely mechanical with only small fabric elements, so they are perfect for a CAD design with cut corners.*
*The Terminators do have some small undercut issues where parts meet at the helmet, waist, ect

@ ExNoctemNacimur: The small torch looks fine and can look great even without OSL. (See Redemptionist minis from Necromunda)

@TheAuldGrump: Yes, they're bad CAD sculpts.

I don't decry CAD used for miniatures but I also disagree with deleting hand sculptors from miniature design as a way to "modernize" and kick out plastic kits that will be looked back at as goofy failures in a few years past.

If GW's only edge is rabid fans and its use of the BEST painters and the BEST hand sculptors around. Removing the sculptors and heck maybe even some of the painters, will defeat GW as a whole. What's to say that company A can't CAD sculpt BETTER and take more TIME and release a product that far exceeds what GW are doing? It appears this has already taken place.

A new slogan is required for GW
"The best 3D video game models turned into miniatures in the whole world!" "Now with former COD:Modern Warfare 3D artists and ex-Midway studios designers of famed skulls, skulls Mortal Kombat skull ninja's"

The only problem with sculpting in CAD is if you lack either the skill or tooling to do it properly. You can sculpt anything in CAD, you can zoom in to the micron scale and sculpt "Tom Kirby is a poo poo head". You can then machine that in to the mould as long as you have the tooling capable of doing it and can spend the time on the machine to get it done. A friend of mine used to operate a micro-scale CNC mill in the laboratory opposite mine that will machine details far beyond what anyone could sculpt by hand.

Also, undercut issues aren't CAD issues, they are plastic issues. You can't have undercuts in plastic models because plastic is rigid and the mould is rigid. You could CAD an undercut and machine an undercut in to a mould, but when you go to make the final part, it'll never come out of the mould unless you do crazy 3+ part moulds (which can be done, though I'm not sure how practical it is for miniatures).

I do personally think a lot of the "issues" with GW models these days is simply a move to more cartoonish models, maybe they've moved that way because of CAD, though if they have it's not CAD's fault, it's GW's fault for not having appropriate tooling and time to do it properly.

Kingsley wrote:I guess I don't understand why people have such a negative reaction the the sculpted flames. If you can't paint them well, just leave them off the model! In my opinion, they give a great opportunity for more advanced painters to really make a model "pop." Not every model is oriented towards the same skill level-- and that applies to both painting and assembly.

To be honest, I think GW's recent models have been excellent. The only part of the Tau release I wasn't a huge fan of was the flyer. The Pathfinders in particular strike me as one of the best infantry kits out there from any manufacturer, and also work great with the old Fire Warrior sprues for conversions. The Riptide could have been disastrous but ended up very good.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm with Kingsley here.

I don't see the problem with the flames. The "Coral Chariot" was down to the paint scheme, where they used the blue/purple/pink/whatever "flames" and it looked awful. The other version, with the fire painted like fire, makes it look great.

I disagree, this is what good flames look like from an advanced painter.


image hosting site

The gw sculpted flames look like a big pile of coral/root system random plastic. Just airbrush them whatever random warm colors and wash with yellow wash and call it day. There's nothing advanced about them. That random pile of plastic honestly doesnt deserve to be nitpicked over IMO.

Of course they are down to personal taste like everything else. I assume those that like the flames have a very powerful imagination. Personally i cannot convince myself that they look anything like fire.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

RedSarge wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Again though, who cares if it's CAD or not?

I remember how pleased I was a few years back when I bought the new space hulk, great models. All CAD apparently, they won me over with those blood angel termies, absolutely beautiful.

Embrace change! I think almost all those "too smooth" models on the photo are great!

I agree that the chariot is a bit garish but... They can't all be winner's eh?

The Terminators are purely mechanical with only small fabric elements, so they are perfect for a CAD design with cut corners.*
*The Terminators do have some small undercut issues where parts meet at the helmet, waist, ect

@ ExNoctemNacimur: The small torch looks fine and can look great even without OSL. (See Redemptionist minis from Necromunda)

@TheAuldGrump: Yes, they're bad CAD sculpts.

I don't decry CAD used for miniatures but I also disagree with deleting hand sculptors from miniature design as a way to "modernize" and kick out plastic kits that will be looked back at as goofy failures in a few years past.

If GW's only edge is rabid fans and its use of the BEST painters and the BEST hand sculptors around. Removing the sculptors and heck maybe even some of the painters, will defeat GW as a whole. What's to say that company A can't CAD sculpt BETTER and take more TIME and release a product that far exceeds what GW are doing? It appears this has already taken place.

A new slogan is required for GW
"The best 3D video game models turned into miniatures in the whole world!" "Now with former COD:Modern Warfare 3D artists and ex-Midway studios designers of famed skulls, skulls Mortal Kombat skull ninja's"

The only problem with sculpting in CAD is if you lack either the skill or tooling to do it properly. You can sculpt anything in CAD, you can zoom in to the micron scale and sculpt "Tom Kirby is a poo poo head". You can then machine that in to the mould as long as you have the tooling capable of doing it and can spend the time on the machine to get it done. A friend of mine used to operate a micro-scale CNC mill in the laboratory opposite mine that will machine details far beyond what anyone could sculpt by hand.

Also, undercut issues aren't CAD issues, they are plastic issues. You can't have undercuts in plastic models because plastic is rigid and the mould is rigid. You could CAD an undercut and machine an undercut in to a mould, but when you go to make the final part, it'll never come out of the mould unless you do crazy 3+ part moulds (which can be done, though I'm not sure how practical it is for miniatures).

I do personally think a lot of the "issues" with GW models these days is simply a move to more cartoonish models, maybe they've moved that way because of CAD, though if they have it's not CAD's fault, it's GW's fault for not having appropriate tooling and time to do it properly.

I lumped the bad undercuts in as 'problems with the model', as opposed to 'problems with CAD that led to problems with the model'.

Though I do think that making the parts separate would have helped, so neither CAD nor plastic problem, but rather 'model design problem'. Caused by the designer not making allowances or taking pains to palliate the design problem. (Making the arms, shoulders, and weapon a separate piece from the torso, head, and legs.)

But, at their worst, the elves - on the same frame - were much better sculpts than the Skaven.

First wave prepped, primed, painted, and will be handed off on Friday, along with the second batch, most likely.

In honesty - while I think that the box is overpriced... had the box contained nothing but elves and had the same total number of models... I would not have considered this a bad deal.

H is allowing me to keep one of the two mini rulebooks. Yippee.... But then both he and I play Kings of War, not Warhammer, these days.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* And, yes, the cartoony style bothers me, whatever motive drives the design choices....

I'm just gonna throw my $0.02 in here.

I have no issue with CAD sculpting, but I think what we are/will see happening is sculptors learning on it and messing up things that people sculpting by hand wouldn't. More likely than not CAD will be the way of the future but I'd hope that the CAD sculptors would learn hand sculpting at the same time as CAD and transfer the knowledge instead of people dropping hand sculpting to focus on CAD entirely.

kb305 wrote:
I disagree, this is what good flames look like from an advanced painter.

Yeah... we were talking about sculpted flames, not painted flames. Bit of a difference there.

Depends on how much you thin your paints I suppose.

 OneManNoodles wrote:
Warhammer isn't a hobby its a buisness, the more they sell the more they will want to sell and the quicker they can design them the quicker they can sell them, bad model or not why should they care so long as we all keep buying them.

Problem is that GW doesn't act like a business (nor a hobbyist). They sell less and less products for 7 years (in a growing market), ignoring basic economic wisdom and every feedback. So they get worse economically AND in quality. Happens when managers who don't do their job, also try to keep designers from doing their job.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 OneManNoodles wrote:
Warhammer isn't a hobby its a buisness, the more they sell the more they will want to sell and the quicker they can design them the quicker they can sell them, bad model or not why should they care so long as we all keep buying them.

Problem is that GW doesn't act like a business (nor a hobbyist). They sell less and less products for 7 years (in a growing market), ignoring basic economic wisdom and every feedback. So they get worse economically AND in quality. Happens when managers who don't do their job, also try to keep designers from doing their job.

Do you make a point of commenting to criticise GW's business practice every time that business is remotely mentioned in a thread regarding GW? I honestly cannot remember the lat post I saw of yours that wasn't "GW business practice sucks" or "GW managers have occupied te last free realm in the land"

On topic: I feel that a large amount of criticism regarding kits being of poor quality at be partially because its in comparison to other GW models that are legitimately good. Compared against nothing they might be quite good models (or just need a different paint job to that given to them by the GW website), but compared against some of the other models they appear bad. (See the new Tau flyer. Viewed in isolation it isn't that bad, but compared to something like the dakkajet it looks shoddy)

No, new Tau flyer is just terrible, there is no going around it. The model's visual problems are legion. It just gets even worse when compared to good looking flyers like Dakkajet, Barracuda or Valkyrie.

Backfire wrote:
No, new Tau flyer is just terrible, there is no going around it. The model's visual problems are legion. It just gets even worse when compared to good looking flyers like Dakkajet, Barracuda or Valkyrie.

I quite like the look of it.

Backfire wrote:
No, new Tau flyer is just terrible, there is no going around it. The model's visual problems are legion. It just gets even worse when compared to good looking flyers like Dakkajet, Barracuda or Valkyrie.

I don't like it and no one else is allowed to like it because I said so and my word is law because I said so.

 Goliath wrote:

Backfire wrote:
No, new Tau flyer is just terrible, there is no going around it. The model's visual problems are legion. It just gets even worse when compared to good looking flyers like Dakkajet, Barracuda or Valkyrie.

I don't like it and no one else is allowed to like it because I said so and my word is law because I said so.

Pretty much.

I like it to. It's not as nice as the Barracuda, but it's still really nice looking. And it was an easy kit to build.

 Goliath wrote:

Backfire wrote:
No, new Tau flyer is just terrible, there is no going around it. The model's visual problems are legion. It just gets even worse when compared to good looking flyers like Dakkajet, Barracuda or Valkyrie.

I don't like it and no one else is allowed to like it because I said so and my word is law because I said so.

You are bringing nothing to this discussion.

Rather than attacking other posters for their point of view, try posting an opposing point of view and support that position with your reasoning. That way the discussion moves forward and doesn't descend into a slanging match.

Sorry, but what's an undercut and why is it bad that they're missing?

 Goliath wrote:

Backfire wrote:
No, new Tau flyer is just terrible, there is no going around it. The model's visual problems are legion. It just gets even worse when compared to good looking flyers like Dakkajet, Barracuda or Valkyrie.

I don't like it and no one else is allowed to like it because I said so and my word is law because I said so.

Model has obvious visual problems which is why most people don't like it, including me. I've pointed them out before, but I love repeating myself:

-Nose is stubby, and nose armament installation is very blunt & unaerodynamic. Contrast to much smoother armament installation in Remora or Barracuda.
-Tail armament follows the same very unaerodynamic pattern. Box-like missile pod mounted on top of tail without any aerodynamic fairing looks ridiculous. Razorshark's cumbersome Ion stream thingie is scarcely better.
-with these unaerodynamic elements, it is then extremely strange how cockpit is very streamlined and wings look smooth, like they could be from a real aircraft. The model's visual themes are in confict with each other. It's like parts of the plane were designed by different people altogether.
-struts serve no obvious purpose. It seems they were added as an aftertought, to make the plane look more "scifi".
-wings, whilst they look quite realistic, do not convey any sense of speed or aggressiveness. Straight, long and thick wings generally belong to slow-speed, often civilian, aircraft. Only minor saving grace is inverted gull wing tips, but it's too little, too late.
-engines look small, again reinforcing "slow flying" machine feeling
-inverted V tail makes the plane look subdued and unaggressive
-there are also external problems, mainly how the plane fits to estabilished Tau aesthetics. It was a huge mistake to base the flyer on Piranha, which is a ground vehicle. Since people expect Piranha to be ground-bound (even if it's a skimmer), the flyer with similar lines, similar engines etc doesn't really look like it's particularly dangerous, aggressive or fast. None of the other factions have flyers based on ground vehicle. Dakkajet doesn't look like Warbuggy, Storm Raven doesn't look like Rhino, Razorwing doesn't look like a Raider, etc.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I'm just gonna throw my $0.02 in here.

I have no issue with CAD sculpting, but I think what we are/will see happening is sculptors learning on it and messing up things that people sculpting by hand wouldn't. More likely than not CAD will be the way of the future but I'd hope that the CAD sculptors would learn hand sculpting at the same time as CAD and transfer the knowledge instead of people dropping hand sculpting to focus on CAD entirely.

This is something I would have to echo. It's nice seeing that the FW guys still do mostly hand sculpting, and the forthcoming Merwyrm for the Warhammer Forge line looks far more fantastic and appropriate for the High Elf army than the ridden Phoenix ever could in my opinion.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

Backfire wrote:
No, new Tau flyer is just terrible, there is no going around it. The model's visual problems are legion. It just gets even worse when compared to good looking flyers like Dakkajet, Barracuda or Valkyrie.

I don't like it and no one else is allowed to like it because I said so and my word is law because I said so.

You are bringing nothing to this discussion.

Rather than attacking other posters for their point of view, try posting an opposing point of view and support that position with your reasoning. That way the discussion moves forward and doesn't descend into a slanging match.

A) because your comment brought much more to the discussion than mine did?

B) my point of view was implied by the criticism of the lack of support Backfire gave to his in his original comment. Just saying "it has loads of visual problems" is not supporting your position, it is saying no more than "I don't like it", which I believe is what you were criticising me for?
Now that he has supported his claim with examples then I'm not going to criticise him, he has backed up his claims with evidence and reason; I am still allowed to disagree with him, because it is subjective, but at this point you coming and going

 azreal13 wrote:
You are bringing nothing to this discussion.

Rather than attacking other posters for their point of view...

(Which amusingly is in fact contributing nothing to the discussion, and attacking another poster for their point of view) is more useless than me criticising his lack of evidence.

But I digress.

The entire Tau vehicle line, in my opinion, seems based around vehicles that should not reasonably be able to fly. The devilish chassis is able to become stationary and drop troops off, whereas the piranha is a small bike equivalent that keeps on moving to attack weak spots in the enemy's line, so, to me at least, having the two vehicles in the range that are based around constant movement share similar design cues seems logical to me.

The fin on the top would serve to disturb air passing over it before it reached the missile pod, removing a measure of the aerodynamic issues. Besides which, this is a race that has antigravity tech, and uses it in most of its vehicles. What makes it a requirement that this plane be run using propulsion as we think of it? Is it not feasible that it be run using antigravity tech?

Size doesn't always matter, and just because the engines are small doesn't mean that they do not supply power.

The struts look to serve to break up air as it passes between the two pairs of wings, as well as reinforcing the rear pair.

So yeah, you're entitled to not like it, but I will disagree with some of your reasons. Thank you for coming back and backing up your original comment with actual support.

Azreal13, try to be slightly less dismissive of people in future maybe?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
Sorry, but what's an undercut and why is it bad that they're missing?

An undercut is a term used to describe a part of the model that cannot be cast, effectively.

If you think of a mould as two parts, if there was an undercut it would be a part where when the plastic hardened it would hold itself into the mould, which obviously means that they cannot be cast as you would have to destroy the mould to remove the model.

It was one of the advantages of metal models, as they were made using flexible moulds which allowed for a slight degree of undercutting.

It's also the reason why a fair number of the more recent large model kits have smooth surfaces, as if there was a texture on them they would form minute undercuts which would make the model uncastable.

Goliath wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 OneManNoodles wrote:
Warhammer isn't a hobby its a buisness, the more they sell the more they will want to sell and the quicker they can design them the quicker they can sell them, bad model or not why should they care so long as we all keep buying them.

Problem is that GW doesn't act like a business (nor a hobbyist). They sell less and less products for 7 years (in a growing market), ignoring basic economic wisdom and every feedback. So they get worse economically AND in quality. Happens when managers who don't do their job, also try to keep designers from doing their job.

Do you make a point of commenting to criticise GW's business practice every time that business is remotely mentioned in a thread regarding GW? I honestly cannot remember the lat post I saw of yours that wasn't "GW business practice sucks" or "GW managers have occupied te last free realm in the land"

On topic: I feel that a large amount of criticism regarding kits being of poor quality at be partially because its in comparison to other GW models that are legitimately good. Compared against nothing they might be quite good models (or just need a different paint job to that given to them by the GW website), but compared against some of the other models they appear bad. (See the new Tau flyer. Viewed in isolation it isn't that bad, but compared to something like the dakkajet it looks shoddy)

Goliath wrote:

Backfire wrote:
No, new Tau flyer is just terrible, there is no going around it. The model's visual problems are legion. It just gets even worse when compared to good looking flyers like Dakkajet, Barracuda or Valkyrie.

I don't like it and no one else is allowed to like it because I said so and my word is law because I said so.

My contribution to the discussion was to try and prevent further comments like these from you, and promote a better discussion. I stand by my opinion that I was right to do so. I will also dismiss these comments out of hand as being of little value.

If you present a reasoned argument to the contrary, I will happily try and rebuff it, and if you make a point I agree with I will offer support to it if I can.

The two comments I've highlighted we're neither, and merely attacks on the poster, not their argument, which is why I pulled you up on them.


As far as the main topic goes, there have always been poor sculpts and poor concepts. In fact, on returning to the game a couple of years ago, I was pleasantly surprised by how many models had been updated, and how frequently those updated models were better in many ways to those they'd replaced.

The derp virus doesn't really seem to have kicked in wholesale until CSM, but it doesn't seem to be going away, which suggests to me it isn't some technical issue, but perhaps a change in design philosophy. This in turn could suggest a change in demographic targets, or be a symptom of time pressure.

Either way, I'm not liking the way things seem to be going.

 azreal13 wrote:

Goliath wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 OneManNoodles wrote:
Warhammer isn't a hobby its a buisness, the more they sell the more they will want to sell and the quicker they can design them the quicker they can sell them, bad model or not why should they care so long as we all keep buying them.

Problem is that GW doesn't act like a business (nor a hobbyist). They sell less and less products for 7 years (in a growing market), ignoring basic economic wisdom and every feedback. So they get worse economically AND in quality. Happens when managers who don't do their job, also try to keep designers from doing their job.

Do you make a point of commenting to criticise GW's business practice every time that business is remotely mentioned in a thread regarding GW? I honestly cannot remember the lat post I saw of yours that wasn't "GW business practice sucks" or "GW managers have occupied te last free realm in the land"

On topic: I feel that a large amount of criticism regarding kits being of poor quality at be partially because its in comparison to other GW models that are legitimately good. Compared against nothing they might be quite good models (or just need a different paint job to that given to them by the GW website), but compared against some of the other models they appear bad. (See the new Tau flyer. Viewed in isolation it isn't that bad, but compared to something like the dakkajet it looks shoddy)

Goliath wrote:

Backfire wrote:
No, new Tau flyer is just terrible, there is no going around it. The model's visual problems are legion. It just gets even worse when compared to good looking flyers like Dakkajet, Barracuda or Valkyrie.

I don't like it and no one else is allowed to like it because I said so and my word is law because I said so.

My contribution to the discussion was to try and prevent further comments like these from you, and promote a better discussion. I stand by my opinion that I was right to do so. I will also dismiss these comments out of hand as being of little value.

If you present a reasoned argument to the contrary, I will happily try and rebuff it, and if you make a point I agree with I will offer support to it if I can.

The two comments I've highlighted we're neither, and merely attacks on the poster, not their argument, which is why I pulled you up on them.


As far as the main topic goes, there have always been poor sculpts and poor concepts. In fact, on returning to the game a couple of years ago, I was pleasantly surprised by how many models had been updated, and how frequently those updated models were better in many ways to those they'd replaced.

The derp virus doesn't really seem to have kicked in wholesale until CSM, but it doesn't seem to be going away, which suggests to me it isn't some technical issue, but perhaps a change in design philosophy. This in turn could suggest a change in demographic targets, or be a symptom of time pressure.

Either way, I'm not liking the way things seem to be going.

Boom! This guy knows what he's talking about: 1- @Goliath, you seem to be disagreeing with people for the sake of disagreeing.
2- I totally agree, everything was going fine up until the chunky, clunky CSM models hit the shelves and now the models, with the exception of the Tau (but not their flyers (grrrr)) are terrible!