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

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

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

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

What do you think? Plastic or Pewter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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





Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 insaniak wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

So I don't have any formal evidence but

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes and no.

Plastic is MUCH easier to work with.

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

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

HUZZAH!



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet……

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

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

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

 Da Boss wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are heavier to transport.

Each to their own.

Cheers,

CB

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

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

1) Weight
2) Damage to paint
3) Breakage

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

So:

1) Plastic
2) Resin
3) Metal

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

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

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

Do I miss metal models? Yes.

 The Power Cosmic wrote:
More than the material, I miss the hand-sculpted style over modern digital designs.

This right here. Digital design has its place (and, for sure, it’s a marvel what they can do with it), but I miss the older hand-crafted style that gave minis their personalities, warts and all.

I don’t particularly miss all the pinning and “what broke off now?” But some of the old one-piece models are still ace, like the early Eldar pirates.

I longed for all-plastic armies back when I was a teenager in the early 90s. I've always hated metal. That only thing it was ever good for was the speed in which you could release new miniatures compared to plastic injection molding, this was a necessity for GW back in the day as they were such a small business back then

I do, and I don't. But in the end I don't think it's the metal.

Plastic is a lot easier to work with, but when metal models were maybe one or two parts, they were a lot easier to work with - and since they were sculpted on a flat plane, a *lot* easier to paint.

Excepting, of course, anything larger than a single infantry model. Those were a pain in metal.

No. If metal must be used, it should be restricted to infantry sized one piece or two piece maximum. Anything other than that, it's a horrible material.

More than metal models I miss multipart plastics from GW that weren't a pain in the arse to put together and that accommodated kitbashing by design.

I love metal minis.

I don't miss them because I still have them, use them and buy them.

I love the old school style and the ease of prep.

Like many others I also like miltipose, multioption plastic kits, but I have very little interest in the fiddly multipart monopose figures that GW seems to be currently in love with.

Theres not one material that is optimal for all needs in my opinion.

I will try point out most popular variables and which materials I would prefer.


- Small scale wargaming miniatures around 10 -15mm - These should be single pieces and done in metal since metal holds small detail better than plastic and is more resistant to break.
- Medium Scale Wargaming single miniatures 28- 32mm - Metal for detail these should be your heroes and characters where detail is important
- Medium Scale Wargaming Multipart miniatures 28- 32mm - Plastic for multipart regiments for easy to use and assemble etc.
- Large Scale Wargaming miniatures- Your monster and vehicles - Plastic all the way.

- Miniatures for painters and display only - High grade resin casts for bigger pieces but metal should be ok for simpler and smaller miniatures too.

- Boardgames resins, Finecast low grade resin and any 3d print whatever resin they use(no one knows for sure what you are going to get) I avoid and dont buy at all.

I dont miss metal because many manufacturers still use it wisely on the correct miniatures, in fact just sculpted one to be done in metal.


Theres also another factor in play that is if your army is 100minis or just a skirmish warband of 15minis. I can have metal only for smaller forces.

I prefer plastic too.

However, I do admit to using metal washers under bases as well to give models a bit more heft. They are far to light-weight without it.

I've got a huge collection of metals but I definitely don't prefer them anymore despite still working with them in things like Infinity. They're just harder to transport, heavy in any real volume and a LOT more prone to chipped paint and the like. You just have to baby them all around.

That said, plastic isn't perfect. GW can do incredible things with it, but there's still things it doesn't do particularly well like hair and texture. For the most part though, I think resins offer a lot of the sculpting advantages of metals while still being lightweight. In particular, they allow for big, highly detailed muscles and fur that both plastics and resins often struggle with. The main issue with resins is that fine details can often be brittle and they tend to be expensive.

So..... IDK. I like HIPS plastics. They're definitely convenient but its really up to the artist to make the most out of it, and there are definitely fantastic sculpts out there that work better in other materials.

Seems like we could do a chart of the various casting methods.

Metal-expensive materials, cheap molds, bad for multipart, tough.
Resin-cheap materials, cheap molds, labor intensive, fragile
Styrene Plastic-cheap materials, expensive molds, reasonably tough

I'll think about ways to present it.

Immediately I want to answer "yes". I have a bunch of metal models in my Death Guard army, some of which are RT-era, some are 2E fantasy.

I do like the heft of them, but I wouldn't dislike them if they were in plastic. I like to cut and kitbash, and metal does have its issues when it comes to this.

What I do miss is those sculpts. I generally dislike everything about the newer GW aesthetic. It seems to be far more focused on "because we could", rather than telling stories with the sculpts, proportions and poses. It's very impressive what they can do with plastic kits. But it's just showing off. And it makes the kits impractical to store, to game with and to customise.

Give me a few squat little X-poses and I'm happy.

No, what I miss is models hand sculpted by people with arts degrees and a deep understanding of anatomy, sense of motion, weight distribution etc

Metal for me. Sculpted by hand is better than digital in my opinion. Those old minis have tons more character and charm. There's still people making them as well, like Diehard Miniatures.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Seems like we could do a chart of the various casting methods.

Metal-expensive materials, cheap molds, bad for multipart, tough.
Resin-cheap materials, cheap molds, labor intensive, fragile
Styrene Plastic-cheap materials, expensive molds, reasonably tough

I'll think about ways to present it.

The lack of undercuts is the big limitation for HIPS. GW are absolute wizards and working around it, but it absolutely impacts sculpting in a way that other methods aren't limited by.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Seems like we could do a chart of the various casting methods.

Metal-expensive materials, cheap molds, bad for multipart, tough.
Resin-cheap materials, cheap molds, labor intensive, fragile
Styrene Plastic-cheap materials, expensive molds, reasonably tough

I'll think about ways to present it.

The lack of undercuts is the big limitation for HIPS. GW are absolute wizards and working around it, but it absolutely impacts sculpting in a way that other methods aren't limited by.

Dealing with the under cut issue is why modern GW plastics go together like jigsaw puzzles and have so many odd parts. You want detail from multiple angles in HIPS, you need multiple parts.

I've never found lack of undercuts to be such a big deal. On the table you can never see them if the models are designed at all well. I've a boatload of those LOTR plastics that have this issue and at tabletop distance during a game they look great to me.

I'd rather have those monopose LOTR that are a breeze to assemble than the modern nightmare jigsaws any day. I know I'm in a minority there though!

Wargames Atlantic has published 18 sprues so far this year that are all in the classic body + head + arm + arm configuration. Non jigsaw models are doing fine!

Oh absolutely. I'm a huge fan of North Star for this reason and I have some Wargames Atlantic too, a bit pricier but very good quality. Can't wait for the Damned to come out over here in shops.

To be fair to GW, they have made some amazing push-fits that have great detail and only a couple of parts. Minimal undercut issues.

If GW never replaced those metal Characters with Finecast we would have a very positive overall balance.

Metal is perfect for those dynamic smaller one pieces.

Undercuts mostly just create some limits on what works. They don't LOOK bad, they just push you to avoid certain things like hairstyles and surface details. GW has kind of fit their artstyle to work with it and has loads of creative workarounds because they do their own tooling, but you still don't see the kind of detailed hair and surface textures you often find on metals and resins.

lord_blackfang wrote:Wargames Atlantic has published 18 sprues so far this year that are all in the classic body + head + arm + arm configuration. Non jigsaw models are doing fine!

Indeed. WGA, Northstar and others are making the kind of wonderful kits that take me right back to the late 90's and 00's when a plastick figure kit was a relatively easy to assemble box of possibility with tons of options for customization and easy kitbashing/mixing. I find these kind of kits to be a joy to assemble and modify.

GW may have mostly abandoned this kind of kit, but that's ok as I've mostly abandoned them.

Da Boss wrote:I've never found lack of undercuts to be such a big deal. On the table you can never see them if the models are designed at all well. I've a boatload of those LOTR plastics that have this issue and at tabletop distance during a game they look great to me.

I'd rather have those monopose LOTR that are a breeze to assemble than the modern nightmare jigsaws any day. I know I'm in a minority there though!

I also have no real problems with lack of undercuts. As you say, you can almost never tell on the tabletop and my painting skills (and let's be honest, most people's painting skills) aren't good enough for having increased detail on more sides of the model.

I really like my old metal models and honestly I enjoy painting them more. Metal is really easy to clean when it's a used model and less assembly in most cases. Monstrous creatures can be a giant pain if you are not used to pinning. I also really enjoy the old sculpts over some of the newer ones. I keep buying old used metal models and enjoy the hunt for something nostalgic.

I'm not sure I would say that I fully miss metal models though because plastic is just better in many ways. Plastic isn't as prone to chipping and can handle a little more rough handling without parts falling off. but it breaks easier.

Plastic by far. I can't imagine playing a whole Green Tide army solely with metal models and trying to move all that across the table. Single one-piece metal models for things like Mordheim are fine, but once you get into things that requiring pinning or are a nightmare to assemble (looking at you old SAG!) it's a lot better to go back to plastic just for ease of transportation and durability.

The metal Greater Daemons were especially challenging, since the codex said they could not be pinned.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The metal Greater Daemons were especially challenging, since the codex said they could not be pinned.

Actually chuckled out loud for that one. Bravo.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The metal Greater Daemons were especially challenging, since the codex said they could not be pinned.

Lol, fantastic.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The metal Greater Daemons were especially challenging, since the codex said they could not be pinned.

Lol, fantastic.

Well done. You win the internet for today.

Yes I do, I still have alot of them.

Sometimes, I think there is a place for metal models, such as infantry and upgrade parts; but the monsters/vehicles/war machines are better in plastic/resin.

After building 15 Krieg Engineers yesterday/today?

He'll yes I miss metal models.

The plastic Krieg are excellent models. But I don't see the point investing that much effort into building infantry.
I very much wished I could've just popped 15 metal minis out of blisters/boxes, maybe had to glue a few arms on, & stuck them on bases.
Instead? I had to trim, clean, not drop tiny bitz, & assemble 10-15 pieces (not counting bases) per Engineer.....

ccs wrote:
After building 15 Krieg Engineers yesterday/today?

He'll yes I miss metal models.

The plastic Krieg are excellent models. But I don't see the point investing that much effort into building infantry.
I very much wished I could've just popped 15 metal minis out of blisters/boxes, maybe had to glue a few arms on, & stuck them on bases.
Instead? I had to trim, clean, not drop tiny bitz, & assemble 10-15 pieces (not counting bases) per Engineer.....

Ouch. I had no idea they were that detailed.

ccs wrote:
After building 15 Krieg Engineers yesterday/today?

He'll yes I miss metal models.

The plastic Krieg are excellent models. But I don't see the point investing that much effort into building infantry.
I very much wished I could've just popped 15 metal minis out of blisters/boxes, maybe had to glue a few arms on, & stuck them on bases.
Instead? I had to trim, clean, not drop tiny bitz, & assemble 10-15 pieces (not counting bases) per Engineer.....

I have 40 HH tech thralls on my pile and feel like the big robots from the Mechanicum starter will be built faster than those Zombies

Do I miss heavy, hard to convert and finicky to assemble models?

Heck no.

One of the reasons I walked away from Warmachine wasn't just the edition change but because I was tired of pinning and gap filling metal, having my metal banners fall off of miniatures, etc.

Metal had a place in the miniatures hobby, but to me it's the same place that steam engines had - they were important and opened up a whole industry, but there's not much point in them now.

I have not posted in years as I invested into other successful advenues in the real world. So I have little to no time dealing overall with this hobby.

I started playing this game in 1987/88 era.

It depends on the metal model but I can tell you over the years my Juan Diaz All metal Daemonette army has gone up in value by 1000% Since purchasing it and playing in the "real" GT Circuit of old.

My all metal Terminator Army has gone up 500% overall.

My plastic models. NOT so much over metal. The only way to make a serious profit is to part them out into bits. I still have over 100 pounds of plastic bits to mess around with.

Value is what you make of it. If you like the hobby and all what goes with it then it does not matter if it is plastic or metal.


As I have commented for so many years before leaving mostly the hobby. My metal miniatures have great value, because appraisers FEEL the weight of what is being insured. Regardless of the model that has been beautifully painted/converted. IMHO it seems the appraisers. Plastic... hit or miss.

And over the years, Normies are the same way. However Normies will rather play the digital version of this game than the physical. current day modern trends of the hobby.

So in my case the value of my purchases have appreciated in value both in metal and plastic. However the reason why I got into the hobby is for the mental stimulation of playing a real strategic game which IMHO has been overall reduced.

Plastic does overall have ease of use but in my case there are certain Metal Lines you just can't beat the quality of the model.
Because the modeller of that time were just that good.

I don't miss metal models at all. However, I do miss the simpler, multi-pose plastic figures that GW used to do. They could be assembled fast, they were robust, and you still had variety amongst the poses. I recently acquired some of the old RTB01 Marines, and a couple of the RT vehicles. While the detail is crude, the approach was right - they were practical wargaming models, not display pieces. They were also very easy to convert with plasticard and other odds and ends. I would like to see a return to that approach.

While I personally enjoyed assembling old multipose GW models, I also disliked encountering ones built by people with too much fancy and too little respect for anatomy. Arms flailing around as if broken at the shoulder, heads bent at unnatural angles, terrible looking weird assembly for the sake of being "dynamic" or "unique".

...shudder...

Honestly when you bring in real posing a lot of the modular more poseable models often wound up with only a handful of actual poses you'd use anyway.

Cyel wrote:
While I personally enjoyed assembling old multipose GW models, I also disliked encountering ones built by people with too much fancy and too little respect for anatomy. Arms flailing around as if broken at the shoulder, heads bent at unnatural angles, terrible looking weird assembly for the sake of being "dynamic" or "unique".

...shudder...

"I didn't have a left arm, so I used a right arm instead. I think it looks ok!"

 insaniak wrote:

Cyel wrote:
While I personally enjoyed assembling old multipose GW models, I also disliked encountering ones built by people with too much fancy and too little respect for anatomy. Arms flailing around as if broken at the shoulder, heads bent at unnatural angles, terrible looking weird assembly for the sake of being "dynamic" or "unique".

...shudder...

"I didn't have a left arm, so I used a right arm instead. I think it looks ok!"

If it's Chaos, it all makes sense!

 Overread wrote:
Honestly when you bring in real posing a lot of the modular more poseable models often wound up with only a handful of actual poses you'd use anyway.

That's very true, but even small variations such as head and torso rotations, weapon position, etc go a long way to giving the look/illusion of unique individuals.

 Eilif wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly when you bring in real posing a lot of the modular more poseable models often wound up with only a handful of actual poses you'd use anyway.

That's very true, but even small variations such as head and torso rotations, weapon position, etc go a long way to giving the look/illusion of unique individuals.

And cross-kit compatibility. Back in the day the whole marine range was mostly modular and swappable. So it wasn’t just the ability to rotate the torso a little to change the motion, but to splash sternguard bits into tac squads, mix-and-match your own captain out of a bits box, and make an army that was more then the sum of it’s parts.

 Nevelon wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly when you bring in real posing a lot of the modular more poseable models often wound up with only a handful of actual poses you'd use anyway.

That's very true, but even small variations such as head and torso rotations, weapon position, etc go a long way to giving the look/illusion of unique individuals.

And cross-kit compatibility. Back in the day the whole marine range was mostly modular and swappable. So it wasn’t just the ability to rotate the torso a little to change the motion, but to splash sternguard bits into tac squads, mix-and-match your own captain out of a bits box, and make an army that was more then the sum of it’s parts.

Absolutely! I did a ton of that sort of kitbashing years back. I still look at kits today and think "I'll make the unit on the box and then I can use the remaining bits for...."
I haven't bought new GW stuff in a while. Is GW still making any kits like these? It seems like they've ceded that ground to folks like Wargames Atlantic and Northstar. Both of whom have lots of kits with swapable parts.

I maintain what I call a "Bits Library" for the club (basically a well-organized bits collection sorted into many segemented trays). Alot of the contents of those are 00's GW kits and we're still finding uses for them today.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The metal Greater Daemons were especially challenging, since the codex said they could not be pinned.

Take your exalt and get out of here dang it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
After building 15 Krieg Engineers yesterday/today?

He'll yes I miss metal models.

The plastic Krieg are excellent models. But I don't see the point investing that much effort into building infantry.
I very much wished I could've just popped 15 metal minis out of blisters/boxes, maybe had to glue a few arms on, & stuck them on bases.
Instead? I had to trim, clean, not drop tiny bitz, & assemble 10-15 pieces (not counting bases) per Engineer.....

Hear, hear!

I think the Arbites have broken me. I got halfway through my Arbites boxes (keep in mind this is my favorite army) and just... stopped. I still can't work up enthusiasm to finish building them much less paint them.

For what could be simple metal models like the Arbites and Krieg, yes. Metal could still be the standard and we'd still have amazing models.

I also enjoy the heft of my metal Terminator Chaplain. It's just satisfying. I still use my metal Emperor's Champion, Helbrecht, and sometimes Grimaldus as brethren in my BT squads.

But knights in metal? Get bent.

I certainly miss picking up a blister pack of metal models for a fiver!
But for me they were a pain to convert and I didn't like all my guys having the same pose, it's the move back towards monopose plastics that is the real tragedy imo!

 Eilif wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly when you bring in real posing a lot of the modular more poseable models often wound up with only a handful of actual poses you'd use anyway.

That's very true, but even small variations such as head and torso rotations, weapon position, etc go a long way to giving the look/illusion of unique individuals.

I disagree. Multipart was great for units like Orcs were you could create the ragtag look with infinite combinations of different gear and poses. It did very little for more uniform units like Elves, which looked much better in formations in their monopose versions.

For the same reason Black Orcs were pretty bad, not because individual models were bad, but the same pose of every BOrc didn't fit the disorganised feel you expect from an Orc mob.

Cyel wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Honestly when you bring in real posing a lot of the modular more poseable models often wound up with only a handful of actual poses you'd use anyway.

That's very true, but even small variations such as head and torso rotations, weapon position, etc go a long way to giving the look/illusion of unique individuals.

I disagree. Multipart was great for units like Orcs were you could create the ragtag look with infinite combinations of different gear and poses. It did very little for more uniform units like Elves, which looked much better in formations in their monopose versions.

For the same reason Black Orcs were pretty bad, not because individual models were bad, but the same pose of every BOrc didn't fit the disorganised feel you expect from an Orc mob.

Makes sense. The regimented, everyone looks the same works for a by-the-book Guard Army like Mordians or Steel Legion, but armies like Catachans or Orks should all be individuals that look like they were slapped together into a unit by a superior at the last moment.

Cyel wrote:
]

I disagree. Multipart was great for units like Orcs were you could create the ragtag look with infinite combinations of different gear and poses. It did very little for more uniform units like Elves, which looked much better in formations in their monopose versions.

For the same reason Black Orcs were pretty bad, not because individual models were bad, but the same pose of every BOrc didn't fit the disorganised feel you expect from an Orc mob.

I like both varieties. In my old school Chaos army I've got allot of monopose Battle Masters miniatures. I like the look of them, and it's certainly easier to prep. However, when I built my good guy army I went out of my way to make each spearman slightly different, and I quite liked that look as well

After having built the same Krieg kit as several others here, having such extremely limited options in the first place, I might as well have metal minis. The detail would not be as crisp, but I could have finished them more quickly if they're already nearly monopose with the equivalent of just one 'real' option - do you want a flamer or no?.

I do love the detail of the new plastic, missing the ease of convertibility of some of the older plastic. Also, the correct answer for new plastic mini hell is the corsairs kit - their arms are just so skinny its the first unit I've ever given up on building. Never got past three models.

I would say, I have a preference for miniatures that are good for being game pieces. Easy to pick up, move, easy to sit on the table or board, without a lot of gribbly bits that get in the way for being close to other models if they need to be in base contact.

I do like old metal miniatures, I do like old plastic miniatures. I do think some new plastic miniatures have far too many details or gribbly bits.

I miss models you can build your own way. I just put together the Chaos Dwarfs for Blood Bowl and it's two of the same frame in the box and other than heads and beards, etc the models are identical, so you wind up with a few very similar looking models.

The old system of legs, body, arms, head, weapon, base, accessories all being individual components is what I like the most, but I'd happily take a character or fixed character like these Blood Bowl teams in metal.

I still prefer metal models, but the fewer parts involved, the better. I even miss lead, because metal miniatures that are entirely lead-free are much more prone to breaking when bent. That makes "correcting" or "altering" a modern metal mini by bending it a much riskier proposition than it used to be.

Metal has:

- "the Heft." Strange as it may sound, the weight of metal miniatures really is addictive.

- metal can be stripped and repainted. You can completely mess up painting a mini and easily "reset" it without any loss of quality. I've done this a number of times, and it's lovely to rescue a mini that, in another medium, you'd be forced to buy another brand new (and probably expensive) one. That's a big advantage for those of us who aren't perfect painters.

- durability and longevity: if I keep them well, my metal miniatures will definitely last as long as me, and be around for some future person to enjoy when I'm gone. Silly or not, that appeals to me. I definitely like the idea that (if I manage my will right) they won't just be thrown in a landfill.

It's interesting how, due to nostalgic preferences, material and style blend for a lot of us, specifically old school hand-sculpted metal-cast miniatures. If GW were to re-release a bunch of classic Jes Goodwin metal sculpts in resin, I wouldn't buy them. Similarly, I really like that a number of current Oldhammer sculptors like Drew Williams of Satyr Arts Studio and Tim Prow of Diehard Miniatures still cast their miniatures in metal.

I still buy some plastics. I like good-quality PVC minis (some CMON, some Mantic,) and there are too many great PVC minis that will never be released in polystyrene to ignore. Death May Die's Gug is the best one I've ever seen in any material, for example. PVC minis can also be heated with boiling water and bent to correct or change the sculpt's pose. But for kitbashing, polystyrene is definitely king. If you mostly buy modern Games Workshop miniatures, I can understand if you're happy with that material and don't see any reason to deal with others that are more work to clean and assemble. I myself barely buy any modern Games Workshop figures, and I prefer kitbashing to assembling monopose sculpts.

The one material I shun is resin, due to its fragility. Resin-printed miniatures feel like boardgame money to me - not quite real. I'm hoping I have some more decades of life left, and I can't stand the idea of spending a lot of time carefully painting a resin mini only to have it fall and shatter some day, or just disintegrate before my eyes over time. If you google it, estimates for the natural lifespan of resin miniatures (without accident / breakage) generally seem to center around 10 to 15 years, depending on the particular resin used. That's not long enough for me. I still have metal miniatures I painted as a teenager when the world was young, and aside from a few scuffs, they're as good as they ever were.

Price pressure and 3-D printing are whittling away at metal miniature production these days, and I feel for mom-and-pop manufacturers who can't afford the leap to polystyrene, but I can't complain, because metal mini companies old and new have already served me well. I'll keep supporting them as long as they're around.

For those of us whose metal minis are even slightly collectible, there is also a monetary value to metal.

Especially with vintage GW metal, much of it holds it's value over time in a way that plastic and resin will not.

 Eilif wrote:
For those of us whose metal minis are even slightly collectible, there is also a monetary value to metal.

Especially with vintage GW metal, much of it holds it's value over time in a way that plastic and resin will not.

The only times this is a factor on my end is:
a) When I go and add something old to my collection
b) Once I'm dead someone will have the monumental task of clearing out decades of models/books/games. Maybe they'll make a fortune....

ccs wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
For those of us whose metal minis are even slightly collectible, there is also a monetary value to metal.

Especially with vintage GW metal, much of it holds it's value over time in a way that plastic and resin will not.

The only times this is a factor on my end is:
a) When I go and add something old to my collection
b) Once I'm dead someone will have the monumental task of clearing out decades of models/books/games. Maybe they'll make a fortune....

Fair point. I'll probably never part with most of my painted metal, but I've had enough situations where I acquired all the minis for a given project and then decided to ditch the project and sell them off that it does figure into my calculations. In the past I've sold off large un-done projects of:

-Battletech
-Spacelords
-Adeptus Arbites (never should have sold these...)
-Kryomek
-RT era marines
-GW LoTR.
-Essex Medievals
-Vintage Star Wars Miniatures

All of these were at least half metal or more and I do think it contributed significantly to the value. In almost every case I got more (often quite a bit more) than I paid. Most of what I've got left I want to hold onto, but there's a few projects might get sold off yet...

I missed metal models so much that I started building a WHQ set using only (non GW) metal models to get unique designs for each of the 2D6 of whatever it was I had to deploy. That and 3d plaster cast tile pieces to add a bit of detail to the board.

I think what I really missed was the individual hand sculpted models, and the metal. With CAD all your designs are literally identical with add ons, while there are subtle 'organic' differences in hand sculpted models.

I'm not sure I'd like CAD sculpted models cast in metal as much.


I did my first conversions with metal models and milliput before I got any greenstuff. Wolf lord on a bike, logan grimnar (2nd ED!).


Take away the difficulty of the medium, I find something about the heft and tangibility of the pieces, and maybe the nature of the material in its means of taking shapes that is different to plastic and gives it a more real feel.

 Eilif wrote:
For those of us whose metal minis are even slightly collectible, there is also a monetary value to metal.

Especially with vintage GW metal, much of it holds it's value over time in a way that plastic and resin will not.

Not entirely true. An unbuilt plastic Rogue Trader-era Land Raider kit (box of 2) is currently selling on eBay for US$795; it retailed for GBP12.99 in the early 90s. A single sprue of 2 RTB01 Marines sells for between US$20-40.

 Snord wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
For those of us whose metal minis are even slightly collectible, there is also a monetary value to metal.

Especially with vintage GW metal, much of it holds it's value over time in a way that plastic and resin will not.

Not entirely true. An unbuilt plastic Rogue Trader-era Land Raider kit (box of 2) is currently selling on eBay for US$795; it retailed for GBP12.99 in the early 90s. A single sprue of 2 RTB01 Marines sells for between US$20-40.

Likewise for oop FW stuff.
Recently I was looking to add Marauder Destroyer Bombers to my Guard.
I couldn't touch official ones for less than about $700.Ok, 3d prints or recasting it is...

ccs wrote:

 Snord wrote:

Not entirely true. An unbuilt plastic Rogue Trader-era Land Raider kit (box of 2) is currently selling on eBay for US$795; it retailed for GBP12.99 in the early 90s. A single sprue of 2 RTB01 Marines sells for between US$20-40.

Likewise for oop FW stuff.
Recently I was looking to add Marauder Destroyer Bombers to my Guard.
I couldn't touch official ones for less than about $700.Ok, 3d prints or recasting it is...

I take your points for sure. Some things like RT stuff, OOP Forgeworld Resin, etc will hold their value. I certainly got my value back several times over when I sold most of my RT marines, even the plastic ones.

Those are however exceptions that don't reflect the majority of previous version plastic GW stuff. Is anyone paying big bux for finecast? For painted plastic marines from 3rd-6th editions, etc? The value of that stuff drops off precipitously.

One great reason for metal models: Second hand buying. If you wanted to strip paint on them you could throw them in some pretty harsh chemicals, let them sit for a week, give them a harsh scrubbing with a stiff brush, and be good to go. Try that with plastic and you have a pile of goo. I bought a second edition Carnifex that I left sitting in an old soup can filled with carburetor cleaner for 6 weeks (totally forgot about it in my parents' garage). One of the cleanest strippings I've ever had.


Nothing is more durable than a 1-piece metal figure, especially from thermal melting. I had a bits-bag haul from the FLGS I accidentally left on my car's dash in July. I remembered about it about 10AM the next morning, totally warped to heck.

Ideal situation for metal: Many 1-piece, points-dense figures. with different poses. That way you still have variation without being too heavy. Kind of like my vintage Necron army. There were 7 variations of the basic warrior (although 2 were rare), and even with 120 warriors there wasn't as much repeating as you'd think.

Other end of the spectrum: Monsters. I HATED when models break. So, when a friend wanted me to convert a 3rd ed winged Hive Tyrant I used some random white metal dragon wings, glued them on, drilled and pinned them, then welded them onto the body with a high-temp soldering iron, then green stuffed over it all while sculpting carapace. That thing was a brick, but held together well.

I joined the hobby not too long ago, but have worked with both plastic and metal minis (old metals minis are very easy to come by and cheap to buy in the secondary market).
I have a soft spot for the old infantry and characters in metal. They exude character and charm, and weren't really that dificult to work with. Yeah, some pinning here and there, but it wasn't a deal breaker (plus my choice of superglue hasn't let me down at all). Depending on the model they were even more pleasant to build than current plastic models who are broken down into several pieces and are monopose.
On the other hand, I have built a couple of 3rd Edition metal Killer Kans and oh man, they were a nightmare to put together. Half of the pieces didn't even fit together. I literally had to hammer down the hull pieces in one of the Kans because they wouldn't fit despite the model being out of the box new (it had been sitting in my local hobby shop for more than a decade unnoticed). In the end I even had to use green stuff and putty to fill gaps and make stronger connection for the arms. Nothing to do with the delightful experience that was building my plastic Deff Dread.

Ultimately, if GW wasn't so hell bent on making monopose models and filling the minis with unnecesary details and blings, not to mention how uninspired some modern minis are (thanks, CAD), I'd give plastic the win hands down. However, as it all stands, I can still give credit to old metals and even vouch for them.