Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The truth is, it's hardly uncommon for miniatures gamers to consider the technical qualities of a sculpt as well as the concept.

 NTRabbit wrote:

Botched execution.

All of the new stuff sculpted so far are proxies for their already long in production sci-fi lines. It's not anything new being brought to the table, it's stretching the same stuff to new lines.

Wait, wait wait wait...

So if I said, "All of the Mantic stuff are proxies for the already long in production (but now defunct) *Not Warhammer* Fantasy battle game. It's not anything new being brought to the table, it's stretching the same stuff to new lines." would that be objective or subjective? (especially considering how easy it is to point out the analogues between the races for KoW, much less warpath)

I think it's safe to say you don't like GW's aesthetic choices. That's fine. There's no such thing as objectively "good art" (if we even want to go into that direction of what is considered art). But your dislike of an aesthetic, while a valid critique (and one that I don't think is unsafe to apply to at least SOME of GW's models, at the very least the Wulfen) is ultimately that. A critique, based on a single opinion. If you'd like to come off as stating "fact", pick an objective category, which I think will be difficult considering that there really isn't a right way to enjoy miniature wargaming.

Mantic, for it's best models, has a "hey, that's actually pretty decent" quality to it that works really well for it's intended purpose: relatively low cost mass battle minis.

Technically, some of the most frustrating models I've ever assembled have been from mantic, including the Ogre Chariots which require converstion just to be built, and include as reins only the same parts used by orcs, who have substantially smaller hands. Many of their models have low or soft detail detail, and the mold lines can often be brutal.

Aesthetically, I personally like a lot of Mantic's choices, but a lot of the execution is a bit off. I don't mind small legs (armies are viewed from above, afterall) but some of the models take it to a ridiculous extent.

Finally, while I find originality a bit overrated by a lot of people, most of Mantic's models are very generic. But... that's arguably by choice. KoW models were always meant to pull double duty, and were intentionally designed to fit into most fantasy worlds. Warpath models have gotten more distinct, but not much of what they're doing is really breaking ground.

Still, I look at Mantic with a simple question: can I build a decent looking army out of their stuff for less than anything else? And that was true for their Ogres, and will likely be true for the Warpath stuff. There very best stuff looks like late 90s era Citadel minis, but I love those models. So when I see a model like the Ogre Warlock, I don't see a surprisingly flat or uninspired mini, I see a model that fits into the LOTR/D&D/WG/WFB fantasy that had it's glory days before the trend to digital art and anime influence.

Here's my take on the warlock. I think it's a cool model, even if he looks more like a really, really good 25 year old Ral Partha sculpt than a modern mini:

 Manchu wrote:
The truth is, it's hardly uncommon for miniatures gamers to consider the technical qualities of a sculpt as well as the concept.

But will technical considerations override aesthetic judgement? Because we're going back to the whole, "I don't like GW's current aesthetic." "But they're using the latest technology for such crisp detail!"argument earlier.

If GW uses the latest technologies to make what I think looks like a ripped naked baby with a ridiculous mohawk, why is crisp detail going to make me want a 32mm ripped naked baby with a ridiculous mohawk? A well-polished turd will still be a turd, no matter how shiny. Now, in the realm of miniatures, what constitutes a turd is indeed subjective, but the merits of polishing technology is unlikely to make someone reconsider that turd to be a gem, even if someone else's subjective opinion is that it started as a gem and is now extra shiny.

 Psychopomp wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The truth is, it's hardly uncommon for miniatures gamers to consider the technical qualities of a sculpt as well as the concept.

But will technical considerations override aesthetic judgement? Because we're going back to the whole, "I don't like GW's current aesthetic." "But they're using the latest technology for such crisp detail!"argument earlier.

If GW uses the latest technologies to make what I think looks like a ripped naked baby with a ridiculous mohawk, why is crisp detail going to make me want a 32mm ripped naked baby with a ridiculous mohawk? A well-polished turd will still be a turd, no matter how shiny. Now, in the realm of miniatures, what constitutes a turd is indeed subjective, but the merits of polishing technology is unlikely to make someone reconsider that turd to be a gem, even if someone else's subjective opinion is that it started as a gem and is now extra shiny.

So in a Turd competition the least shiny Turd is King?

No one is trying to change your mind about what Babies you think are cool, but I would much rather have a well defined, shiny Baby with a Mohawk then a flat, softly defined Baby without a Mohawk.

The above sentence is about miniatures not actual Human Babies, just in case anyone was confused.

 StygianBeach wrote:

No one is trying to change your mind about what Babies you think are cool, but I would much rather have a well defined, shiny Baby with a Mohawk then a flat, softly defined Baby without a Mohawk.

The above sentence is about miniatures not actual Human Babies, just in case anyone was confused.

Prime signature material right there.

Ontopic though, GWs aethetics are extremely specific (especially the newer AOS stuff), and opinions on them are mixed. Theyre technologically superior to most stuff out there, sure, but aesthetics usually win, if the rest of the design is at least adequate. (that is, pieces line up correctly, the detail is good enough, stuff like that).

 Psychopomp wrote:
we're going back to the whole, "I don't like GW's current aesthetic." "But they're using the latest technology for such crisp detail!"argument earlier

That's exactly the distinction I have tied to make. The "I don't like X aesthetic" part doesn't matter. OP didn't ask about anyone's personal preferences when it comes to fantasy designs. OP asked for a comparison between Mantic and GW models. This is really simple: GW makes models with crisp detail and lots of it and has very distinct, brand-specific concepts (whether you like 'em or not). Mantic makes models with shallow/messy details and none of their models exhibits the slightest original thought. While we could cherry pick GW models with issues, the exact opposite is true of Mantic - there are only a few kits that don't have issues. And even those few aren't mind blowing by any means.

 StygianBeach wrote:
No one is trying to change your mind about what Babies you think are cool, but I would much rather have a well defined, shiny Baby with a Mohawk then a flat, softly defined Baby without a Mohawk.

But Mantic doesn't make flat, softly defined babies, they make plain, serviceable dwarves. I don't care how finely made the ripped naked babies with mohawks are if I want dwarves. The ripped naked babies with mohawks are polished turds. And I would rather have a rough gem than a polished turd.

 Manchu wrote:

 Psychopomp wrote:
we're going back to the whole, "I don't like GW's current aesthetic." "But they're using the latest technology for such crisp detail!"argument earlier

That's exactly the distinction I have tied to make. The "I don't like X aesthetic" part doesn't matter. OP didn't ask about anyone's personal preferences when it comes to fantasy designs. OP asked for a comparison between Mantic and GW models. This is really simple: GW makes models with crisp detail and lots of it and has very distinct, brand-specific concepts (whether you like 'em or not). Mantic makes models with shallow/messy details and none of their models exhibits the slightest original thought. While we could cherry pick GW models with issues, the exact opposite is true of Mantic - there are only a few kits that don't have issues. And even those few aren't mind blowing by any means.

GW makes exquisitely wrought screen doors for my submarine, yes, but I would rather have a plain, serviceable hatch, thanks.

 Manchu wrote:
That's exactly the distinction I have tied to make. The "I don't like X aesthetic" part doesn't matter. OP didn't ask about anyone's personal preferences when it comes to fantasy designs. OP asked for a comparison between Mantic and GW models. This is really simple: GW makes models with crisp detail and lots of it and has very distinct, brand-specific concepts (whether you like 'em or not). Mantic makes models with shallow/messy details and none of their models exhibits the slightest original thought. While we could cherry pick GW models with issues, the exact opposite is true of Mantic - there are only a few kits that don't have issues. And even those few aren't mind blowing by any means.

Well said.

 Psychopomp wrote:

But Mantic doesn't make flat, softly defined babies, they make plain, serviceable dwarves. I don't care how finely made the ripped naked babies with mohawks are if I want dwarves. The ripped naked babies with mohawks are polished turds. And I would rather have a rough gem than a polished turd.

I would rather have a polished gem than a rough turd.

Sure if you do not want the mohawk babies, I will not try and change your mind or opinion on this matter.

I am not a fan of the Mantic Dwarf plastics, I like 3 models from the Abyssal Dwarves (all character models) and I really liked that Dwarf Lord that is no longer available. I was always meaning to get that guy, he looked like he could be Gimli's Grandfather, very cool model that.

I actually rather like the Mantic dwarfs - but I am willing to be in a minority. (They have knees, daddy! Knees! )

The Auld Grump


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 StygianBeach wrote:

 Psychopomp wrote:

But Mantic doesn't make flat, softly defined babies, they make plain, serviceable dwarves. I don't care how finely made the ripped naked babies with mohawks are if I want dwarves. The ripped naked babies with mohawks are polished turds. And I would rather have a rough gem than a polished turd.

I would rather have a polished gem than a rough turd.

Sure if you do not want the mohawk babies, I will not try and change your mind or opinion on this matter.

I am not a fan of the Mantic Dwarf plastics, I like 3 models from the Abyssal Dwarves (all character models) and I really liked that Dwarf Lord that is no longer available. I was always meaning to get that guy, he looked like he could be Gimli's Grandfather, very cool model that.

But what GW is giving you are polished turds, not polished gems. They are only pricing the turds high and telling you that they are polished gems.

Mantic is giving you a rough turd, but they charging you for the rough turd, not telling you that the polished turd is a gem and charging you for diamonds.

It reminds me a bit of the Parrot Sketch from Monty Python. 'Beautiful plumage!'

The Auld Grump - the Mantic Liche King is one of my favorite undead miniatures of all time.

Mantic skeletons of both medieval and dusty variety are good, serviceable, and able to be bought in roughly bulk for low costs. I am ok with this and it is what I use mantic for.

I think Mantics skeletons can even give GW's new skeletons a run for their money, even if we don't factor in pricing. I'd give edge to GW in that scenario but if wecompare quality per pound the Mantic ones win.

I'm not really sure about how the narrative that Mantic's models is getting better. The undead is widely considered their best range and it's also one of their oldest. I think it's more that Mantic has finally gotten some better quality control and so a higher proportion of recently produced models are of the same level as the undead range.

Not all unfortunately, like the troll hero recently released. The centaurs seems like decent sculpts but are apparently lots of metal components with really bad fit.

 Zywus wrote:
The undead is widely considered their best range and it's also one of their oldest.

Very good point - as long as you mean Undead in precise terms, i.e., not including EoD. EoD is by contrast the newest line and the parts of the kits that are new are a(t least one) step down from the original Undead.

 Manchu wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
The undead is widely considered their best range and it's also one of their oldest.

Very good point - as long as you mean Undead in precise terms, i.e., not including EoD. EoD is by contrast the newest line and the parts of the kits that are new are a(t least one) step down from the original Undead.

Yep. I meant the "regular" undead. Primarily the HIPS regiments. The restic werewolves are so-so and the old vampire cav was bad enough to get discontinued by Mantic . The new vamp cav/inf, Zombie trolls and Wights (Large infantry) though are all really good as far as I can see, with reservation for not necessarily having held all of those models in my hands.

Comparing the EoD regiments with the original undead is a bit tricky since EoD aren't new complete kits but metal replacement torsos that connects with the original lower bodies. As far as I can see, they hold up pretty well (although it seems the fitting is reportedly wonky, as is so often the case with plastic/metal hybrids ) but I still haven't seen high enough quality pictures of unpainted model, or the unpainted models themselves, to make a judgement on that.

 Zywus wrote:
I think Mantics skeletons can even give GW's new skeletons a run for their money, even if we don't factor in pricing. I'd give edge to GW in that scenario but if wecompare quality per pound the Mantic ones win.

I'm not really sure about how the narrative that Mantic's models is getting better. The undead is widely considered their best range and it's also one of their oldest. I think it's more that Mantic has finally gotten some better quality control and so a higher proportion of recently produced models are of the same level as the undead range.

Not all unfortunately, like the troll hero recently released. The centaurs seems like decent sculpts but are apparently lots of metal components with really bad fit.

Not a bad fit, exactly - it is a soft metal, and is meant to be repositioned for a proper fit.

I'd still want to use a green stuff super glue sandwich though - makes fitting it in easier..

A downside from the soft metal is that their weapons can be bent easily - I would have preferred restic, but I think that I am in the minority for that.

I really like the centaurs - and am planning to use them for the Nomen centaurs in Pathfinder, next time I run Kingmaker, they are an excellent fit for fey touched centaurs.

I do wish that they had some females in the mix, otherwise they are excellent for my nefarious purposes.

The Auld Grump - for that matter, Kingmaker is an excellent adventure path....

???

The Mantic centaur melta troop is half female, or where you writing about other centaurs there ?

They are indeed. 60% female even

jtrowell wrote:
???

The Mantic centaur metal troop is half female, or where you writing about other centaurs there ?

No - those are the right centaurs - it looks like my box was defective.

Can't send them back at this point - already painted and mounted and the bases flocked.

I am likely to get more of the centaurs, anyway - if I were ordering direct, I might ask for a box of just the females, to balance the all male box.

It did look like the box had already been opened, so it is possible that someone filched the females.

Not complaining too much, I was happy enough with them before I knew that there were supposed to be females in the box. (The only one that I had seen previously was the leader - and I am happy with him, too.)

The Auld Grump

The female centaurs are nice, I would not be surprised indeed if some douchebag opened several boxed in store to redistribute them so he got a full female unit.

jtrowell wrote:
The female centaurs are nice, I would not be surprised indeed if some douchebag opened several boxed in store to redistribute them so he got a full female unit.

People being people... I can see that. (In which case I was lucky that they had enough figures in the box....)

The Auld Grump

I am still waiting on the side by side comparison the thread promised.

It would be useful.

I love me some Mantic but it's been fairly obvious that since McVey stopped consulting for them, that they've had a fairly glaring lack of cohesive art direction. GW stuff has brand cohesion because of a phenomenal art director - whether you like it or not. But Mantic's stuff is all over the place, even in the same army - undead is a good example - skeletons have a different "look" than their mummies, etc. There's only recently been a move for cohesion, specifically with Warpath armies and the EoD army (but even then, there's a the catapult loader who looks completely out of place).

GW, Privateer Press, Infinity - these are companies that have good art directors with a vision. you can tell a model is GW, a model is Warmachine, a model is from Infinity.

I think part of the delay is that many people buying new Mantic minies aren't buying recent GW minis - I know that in my group folks have stopped buying GW since the switch to Age of Stockholders.

Some are hitting eBay for older GW, others have jumped ship and are concentrating on non-GW minis.

It used to be that folks were buying Mantic minis to fill the ranks for Warhammer, now that WHFB is dead, gone, and its grave desecrated the folks that are buying Mantic are buying it for Mantic games. (As well as buying a horde or two from Reaper or TAG or any of dozens of other companies.)

People in my group are still annoyed about AoS, and are voting with their wallets - not just buying Mantic, but buying anyone that isn't GW.

The Auld Grump - who actually likes 25 year old Ral Partha more than current GW or most Mantic.

 judgedoug wrote:
I love me some Mantic but it's been fairly obvious that since McVey stopped consulting for them, that they've had a fairly glaring lack of cohesive art direction. GW stuff has brand cohesion because of a phenomenal art director - whether you like it or not. But Mantic's stuff is all over the place, even in the same army - undead is a good example - skeletons have a different "look" than their mummies, etc. There's only recently been a move for cohesion, specifically with Warpath armies and the EoD army (but even then, there's a the catapult loader who looks completely out of place).

GW, Privateer Press, Infinity - these are companies that have good art directors with a vision. you can tell a model is GW, a model is Warmachine, a model is from Infinity.

I think judgedoug is pretty much spot on above. The problem with mantic is that there seems to be no one in the studio with design skills doing art direction. Mantics problem is not translating concept art into miniatures, the problem is that the concepts often seem rushed when they do not feel generic. For example, I think that the problems with the men at arms did not start when a bad supplier were contracted, the problem started with a cartoony design that was not thought through.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


The software and machinery is indeed decades ahead of Mantic - but I will take the Mantic ghouls over the GW ghouls. (The skeletons are not a fair comparison - the GW skellies that I have most recently seen were themselves decades behind the curve. So Mantic skellies being better is not to be unexpected.)

I prefer the Mantic ghouls over the GW ones, but it's worth noting that the Mantic Ghouls are some of their oldest sculpts in plastic, and as such don't really fit well into this discussion at all. FWIW, I found the Mantic Skellies as horrible as I found their Ghouls a pleasure to paint.

GW's current plastic Skeletons are quite a lot nicer and finer than the old ones that were essentially updated Skeleton Horde models. I prefer them quite a bit over the Mantic ones, but again - both lines are relatively old in terms of this discussion and Mantic's time in existence.


"New" GW


Old GW

I prefer the old GW ones due to less bits and bobs to worry about painting when you've got over 100 in a TK army to do

TBH apart from the "heroic" proportions I'd probably say I prefer the old GW ones to the Mantic ones for the same reason.

 Manchu wrote:
That's exactly the distinction I have tied to make. The "I don't like X aesthetic" part doesn't matter. OP didn't ask about anyone's personal preferences when it comes to fantasy designs. OP asked for a comparison between Mantic and GW models. This is really simple: GW makes models with crisp detail and lots of it and has very distinct, brand-specific concepts (whether you like 'em or not). Mantic makes models with shallow/messy details and none of their models exhibits the slightest original thought. While we could cherry pick GW models with issues, the exact opposite is true of Mantic - there are only a few kits that don't have issues. And even those few aren't mind blowing by any means.

Quoted for truth.

 Baragash wrote:
I prefer the old GW ones due to less bits and bobs to worry about painting when you've got over 100 in a TK army to do

TBH apart from the "heroic" proportions I'd probably say I prefer the old GW ones to the Mantic ones for the same reason.

Honestly, I prefer both of the GW ones over the Mantic ones. Certainly as a painter. The Mantic ones do paint up decently, so when they're finished they're certainly fine - but I personally didn't find them to be fun at all to paint. Until I got to the shields, anyway.

My favorites are still the first GW plastic skeletons, they were slightly fragile, but easy to assemble (body was one part, you just add to glue the arms and the skull) and had the correct proportions while still being easy to paint.



Granted the hand weapons were average, but with spears or bows they were perfect to me, I still use some of them in my Tomb Kings/Empire of Dust army..