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.

 agnosto wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Innovation in wargames models:
http://www.airfix.com/uk-en/shop/by-brand/quick-build.html

Spoiler:

A new series of kits by Airfix. They are moulded from vari-coloured plastic in camouflage patterns (for the military planes) and snap together using a lego style system.

Cool!
Incoming goalpost move in 5...4....3...2...1

Oooh! Lego Warhammer 40k... yeah a goalpost move I can live with.
Those Airfix guarantee your lego guys will ride in style.
I think we had some talks about "innovation" you want more model with your lego or more lego with your model?

Some thoughts on things I had seen in models:
How about GW includes screws or various hardware to help with larger models to join?
Or cast-in magnets for given parts to stay is position but can move when needed or failing that, some softer rubber type bushings for posing.

Anyway, pie in the sky stuff.

I have many models to go in the stockpile so I cannot afford to get too tired of 40k.
I just hope there is a game left to play them in a year or so that has evolved or I will have to dust off the old game systems (3rd or 5th?? hmmm...)

 Talys wrote:
For that matter, the Citadel zigzag carry cases are innovative too, particularly where it comes to transporting 40k models, which are increasingly difficult to move because of their very large and strange shapes.

Not really - the method has been used for transporting delicate and fragile items for a long, long time - from cameras to military bombsights.

Which makes it the proper choice.

Given a choice between innovation and something that has been proven to work, go with the proven design. *EDIT* An engineer will tell you that innovation fails nine times out of ten. A biologist will tell you that engineers are optimists.

The Auld Grump - I use pistol cases for transporting miniatures - egg carton foam has also been around for a long, long time.

Are we actually reduced to arguing that foam rubber is or isn't an innovation?

How about some actual games?

As I said many pages ago, whether or not something is an innovation doesn't really matter. The point is whether its profitable. Making bigger miniatures, or better foam cases, or whatever, haven't made GW more money. They've been losing customers for years. The last period GW expanded was when they made a new game which was sold in toy & book stores in part because of its price point (which was low because of using "small" 28mm models).

Innovation only matters if it improves your business. You can innovate your way to bankruptcy pretty easily.

Its hard for me, I have really hard lines for what innovation is and frankly I do not see many innovative things.

But does a game need to be innovative? do models need to be innovative?

I do not think so, an old idea can be redone indefinitely fine-tuning the details and improving on existing parts can make an old thing exist indefinitely.

What games you think they were innovative the past years and in what way? what companies you think redefined the genre?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Its hard for me, I have really hard lines for what innovation is and frankly I do not see many innovative things.

But does a game need to be innovative? do models need to be innovative?

I do not think so, an old idea can be redone indefinitely fine-tuning the details and improving on existing parts can make an old thing exist indefinitely.

What games you think they were innovative the past years and in what way? what companies you think redefined the genre?

A weirdy - the zero sum scoring system in Dreadball.

A pretty danged minor innovation, but there it is.

The Auld Grump - and I don't even like Dreadball.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Given a choice between innovation and something that has been proven to work, go with the proven design.

And certainly, a good company should focus on the bottom line, and keeping on doing what makes money. But by the same measure, a successful company should also keep one eye on the future, and try to undercut potential opposition by innovating before the competition can, emulating the rival innovations where successful, and keeping a watchful on innovations that have to be made as the market evolves.

There's a reason most steam engine manufacturers changed their core product or went out of business, y'know?

 Ketara wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Given a choice between innovation and something that has been proven to work, go with the proven design.

And certainly, a good company should focus on the bottom line, and keeping on doing what makes money. But by the same measure, a successful company should also keep one eye on the future, and try to undercut potential opposition by innovating before the competition can, emulating the rival innovations where successful, and keeping a watchful on innovations that have to be made as the market evolves.

There's a reason most steam engine manufacturers changed their core product or went out of business, y'know?

And there are also reasons why you don't find too many Wankel engines in cars these days....

The Otto engine was the one out of ten, and even among steam engines there were some that, well, didn't go far. The Wankel was one of the other nine as far as innovation and the internal combustion engine are concerned.

For innovation to succeed there needs to be a perceived need, in the case of Otto vs. Compression Steam Engine it was a matter of maintenance - a steam engine has more power, square inch for square inch and ton for ton.

But they need to spend an annoying amount of time in the shed, being worked on, while an Otto engine thrives on what passes for minimal upkeep.

Custom fitting foam likely does count as innovation, while the zig zag foam has a long heritage.

Of the two, I actually prefer the zig zag cut foam - it is more adaptable, and less likely to have Battlefoam engage me in a frivolous lawsuit....

GW's using CAD is likely innovative - and properly used would give them a definite edge.

Instead, they are cutting and pasting clutter on their models, and calling it detail, and then they are cutting and pasting striped triangles and calling it 'fur'.

But some of their earlier CAD models are quite well done.

Which leads to another issue - that innovation can be used by your competition, and sometimes they do it better than you do. (I am looking at Dreamforge, right there.) They may not be as innovating, but at the end, the competition really doesn't much care, it gets the job done. (I am tempted to go into a long digression about bread baking... there is an excellent example in that industry, when small bakeries needed an edge to keep up with the bigger companies... but forgot that the bigger companies could use the exact same methods....)

The Auld Grump

 Ketara wrote:

Also, I'm curious as to why you wouldn't categorise troll cast as an innovation.
It's a new material, and a new spin-cast manufacturing process. I'd say it's an extremely clear cut case of innovation. It's also been a commercial success, which should tick that criteria for you too.

http://trollforged.com/store/trollcast.html

As I said previously, I pulled my previous examples off the top of my head, I could find more if I wanted to. As such, I'm afraid I disagree quite strongly with your prior assertion that there's been no innovation in the wargaming industry, and the apparent implication (forgive me if I'm reading too much into it if incorrect) that we shouldn't judge GW harshly for failing to innovate.

I've actually never seen a Trollcast model, because stuff like Raging Heroes just isn't stocked in any local store here, so I can't say if it's actually better or not, firsthand. Looking at the link that you sent, it sounds like it's main advantage is just cheaper to get to plastic. I really don't know enough about it to know how good it is compared to HIPS. For example: if you make 10,000 sprues, will sprue #1 be identical to sprue #10,000? That's something that's very important to me, because it's one of the primary benefits of plastic -- I can build 9 drop pods or 9 razorbacks, and every single one will be predictable, even in its deficiencies. It's one of the most annoying things about resin -- that #1 and #200 of a Sicaran or a Centurion are nothing alike.

I mean, it's not helpful if something is plastic, but has the downsides of resin casting too. One of the things that makes injection molded plastics expensive are that the molds are tooled from metal, rather than materials like rubber; but the benefit of that is that the molds don't degrade nearly so quickly, so you have much ore consistency in the casts. But if this isn't a problem with Trollcast, you're right, this would be an example of innovative technology. And even if it is a problem with Trollcast, it's still innovative, because maybe some people would prefer plastic, even if it were inconsistent.

We all have a different threshold of what we consider "innovation within the industry", and I don't think it's helpful to argue over where to plunk the needle, though I think failed attempts (things that are NOT commercialized or useful) should simply be deemed a valiant effort. I think that depends a lot on what industry you work in or are influenced by, because some fields just experience much more radical improvements and changes than others. In comparison to consumer electronics or automobiles or medicine, for instance, the rate of innovation in wargaming and plastic (or resin/metal) models is anemic. There aren't really that many paradigm shifts in "a brand new class of wargame" or "a brand new, clearly superior way of making models". But that's because you have industries worth trillions of dollars that draws the world's brightest minds, compared to and industry probably worth not even a billion dollars a year in total.

Anyhow, like I said, I *like* GW's technology iteration All I was trying to convey is that there's a difference between doing little things that gradually make something better, versus mind-blowing stuff that changes the way we think about or do something. Both are good!

But when people read the word 'Innovation' they are primed for world shaking improvement.

To pull out a failed bit of failed GW Innovation, there is Finecast... which spawned a cottage industry in creating mocking variants on its name. (Findcash, Failcast, etc., etc, etc....)

In that case, I am fairly certain that they were looking for a means of resin casting that could be done very quickly, and then did not take the needed time to learn the quirks of the new medium and method.

They still have the minis, but the name 'Finecast' has been tucked under the carpet.

For other companies, Restic was a good idea that was misused - it does a fine job on larger models, not so hot on smaller ones, and care needs to be taken to make the mold lines accessible for cleaning.

As a result, Restic is falling out of use, even for those models that it would actually work well for.

The Auld Grump - I like Restic, but it does take a bit of extra work.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Are we actually reduced to arguing that foam rubber is or isn't an innovation?

How about some actual games?

Right. I agree! I'd like to identify some interesting innovations to either the physical aspects of wargaming that have made our lives better or more fun or more interesting, or some innovations in the actual gaming end of it., in the sense of a new type of game.

For example: back in the late 80's, you could say that RTB-01 was highly innovative. Until then, there was nothing like that, where our model soldiers came as configurable components. I think even round/square slotabases were innovative, as they opened up many possibilities that did not exist in the days of models with fixed, molded bases (for instance, movement trays, or modelling the base). A lot of times, innovation doesn't require breaking technology barriers; it just requires a good idea that nobody had before.

It's entirely fair, though, if we conclude that wargaming has matured, and that innovations are therefore much more difficult and unlikely; in the same way that cell phones have, and it's hard to invent groundbreaking technology today, but it's relatively easy to improve little things or add minor features that encourage people to upgrade.

I think the innovative discussion has been beaten to death and back over the past few pages, I don't think Rick talked about innovation at all in the article we are discussing, perhaps time to move on?

 SickSix wrote:
Isn't the most obvious apples to apples Dreamforge Games? Their Leviathan blows GW out of the Atmosphere. It is bigger and more complex than the night but cheaper.

Look at their infantry boxes. More detailed and cheaper than a box of 20 year old cadians.

Cadians aren't 20 years old. They came out with the EoT campaign in 2003.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
Isn't the most obvious apples to apples Dreamforge Games? Their Leviathan blows GW out of the Atmosphere. It is bigger and more complex than the night but cheaper.

Look at their infantry boxes. More detailed and cheaper than a box of 20 year old cadians.

Cadians aren't 20 years old. They came out with the EoT campaign in 2003.

So, they're only 13 years old compared to cheaper, more detailed competition; yeah that doesn't make them look any better.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
Isn't the most obvious apples to apples Dreamforge Games? Their Leviathan blows GW out of the Atmosphere. It is bigger and more complex than the night but cheaper.

Look at their infantry boxes. More detailed and cheaper than a box of 20 year old cadians.

Cadians aren't 20 years old. They came out with the EoT campaign in 2003.

And they where just as ugly and underwhelming back then.

I would like to say that GW has improved on the quality of its kits but they clearly have not. The new kits have terrible detailing - lots of bling, sure, but the actual detailing itself is crappy. Actually I hate even looking at the most recent releases because of the terrible overdressing of the kits. Hell, it looks like the design team was made up of schizophrenic hyperactive children whom just plastered everything on to every surface because 'cool!'. It looks utterly terrible and I do not know how people can even paint them because I know that I sure as hell could not. And then there is the hair. A mixture of flat, undetailed patches with a few bits that look like someone has taken a bit of fresh dough and stretched it. Utterly bloody terrible, and then they con people into paying how much for these? Stupid amounts.
Yes the Dreamforge Leviathan sells less than the Imperial Knight but then again the Leviathan is sold by a small cottage company whereas the knight is practically pasted across a good portion of every store and webpage that a certain multi national company owns. Of course it is going to sell more, billions more people know that it exists whereas the Leviathan is in more of a niche market.
But I guarantee you that if Dreamforge ever became as big as GW the Leviathan would outsell the Knight tenfold.
And just as an FYI people, GW is a gaming company. They sell models which go with the games that they write and sell. Just look at the sales data, you see that the powerful units outsell the weak units massively. More to the point there is in fact only a very small number of people whom purchase GW kits purely to model with. They exist but they are a minority when compared to the gamers.

BTW, historical or not I can get kits at the same size/scale that GW produce and get them a lot cheaper and at a lot better quality. The only reason that GW survives at the moment is a combination of its blacklisting every other company and their produce from even being mentioned within its stores whilst at the same time by riding its fame and reputation even further onwards and advertising as much as possible (which in GW terms means allowing video games to be produced and occasionally sending out flyers). And even then they are struggling.
Think on it.

i just had the Dreamforge Leviathan in my hands again yesterday, and again put it back on the shelf...
even at $55 it just doesn't look as cool as the GW Knight...

there is simply no other mini company on the market that is making plastic kits that i have as much fun painting as a GW kit...
as much as i buy from nearly every company producing quality minis, none of them call for my attention as much as the GW minis...
at the end of the day, that is all that matters to me, and GW will continue to get the lion's share of my money, because they make the kits i want the most...

whatever works for the rest of you is great...
we should all be happy in our hobby...
for me, nothing made me as happy at the FLGS yesterday as the box of Varanguard did at GW, so GW gets my money this time, instead of PP, CB, Wyrd, Dreamforge, Warlord, and all the rest that were on offer...

i may be in the minority, but i am stoked every time i crack open a plastic GW kit, whether a box or a single clampack...
it always feels like money well spent, to me...

cheers
jah

One cannot really argue about taste and with models that only ever had one price since their release, you can in the end only really argue about perceived value. Yeah, you can compare them to similar models, but in the end, all discussion will be dragged down to "preference".

It's a little hard to justify that the very same miniature is now more expensive than it was on release. Especially when the moulds show obvious wear.

Yes, subjectively you enjoy GW kits more but objectively there is no comparing the technical mastery involved in the leviathan vs the GW knight. I own 7 knights and 1 leviathan. There aspects of both (3 if you consider the cerastus design separate) that I both like and dislike but that doesn't prevent me from recognizing and appreciating that the leviathan is a much better kit.

Speaking of Knights, I've been poking around with Freeblade, and gotta say, it's pretty cool...

 jah-joshua wrote:
i just had the Dreamforge Leviathan in my hands again yesterday, and again put it back on the shelf...
even at $55 it just doesn't look as cool as the GW Knight...

there is simply no other mini company on the market that is making plastic kits that i have as much fun painting as a GW kit...
as much as i buy from nearly every company producing quality minis, none of them call for my attention as much as the GW minis...
at the end of the day, that is all that matters to me, and GW will continue to get the lion's share of my money, because they make the kits i want the most...

whatever works for the rest of you is great...
we should all be happy in our hobby...
for me, nothing made me as happy at the FLGS yesterday as the box of Varanguard did at GW, so GW gets my money this time, instead of PP, CB, Wyrd, Dreamforge, Warlord, and all the rest that were on offer...

i may be in the minority, but i am stoked every time i crack open a plastic GW kit, whether a box or a single clampack...
it always feels like money well spent, to me...

cheers
jah

You don't have to confirm your undying love for the GW brand every time, it really doesn't add to the discussion.
Quality is objective, taste is subjective in my book.
I find the imperial knigts cool too but they are too expensive in my book. at least with the Dreamforge kit ever part is posable.

Quality can also be subjective depending on a persons needs.

Quality, design, aesthetics, taste, are all subjective.

I think the Cadians for their time were good, there were no serious competitors at the time that had the same quality the fact it is the same kit 12 years (and a bit) later and more expensive than when it was first released is another story.

Technically speaking Dreamforge and many GW competitors produce "better" in my opinion kits, more modern in design and more adapted to current technology and in scale with themselves, at least the vehicles can move and can fit the personnel they are supposed to have inside at the place they are supposed to have them.

Does Dreamforge suffer the same issues GW kits have in the eyes of Rick? actually yes, way too many parts they are closer to a models kit than a "classic wargames figure" as are many of GWs kits, CB produces a range of, in my biased opinion, excellent kits but keeps the parts down to as minimum as possible, Hasslefree does the same preferring monoposed models were possible, KDM on the other hand has created a line of excellent models, but the parts count is staggering for a beginner or a casual player, especially if the intention is on fielding massive amounts of troops (KDM admittedly doesn't, but GW armies do).

Reading and observing conversations in different forums and different players, especially not the dedicated hardcore players this forum represents mostly, the idea is less parts the better and the sentiment increases with the model count needed for an army, likewise the variety and care about it decreases by models count the more the less the players care about how varied the poses are, I have encountered for example many GW armies with multipart kits were most models were identical and the response almost invariably was "I hadn't noticed it, don't care really glued and painted them in the week so I can have a tournament force this weekend", likewise when I was an exhibitor this November in the first Con about the Geek hobby in Greece I met a lot of ex wargamers who got into the hobby a decade or more ago mostly due to LOTR and left when they could not or cared not to move to the other GW lines because of the aesthetic and cost mostly, they all showed interest in Infinity's low model count and parts count.

The above experience although limited and subjective since it is my experience in my small part of the global gaming scene, but do support ricks point of view on parts breakdown and how important it is for gaining new blood and retaining it.

@Jehan: don't let facts get in the way of your snark, eh...
my "undying love" is for the good work that the studio artists and designers do, not for the GW brand...
there are plenty of GW products that i don't buy, because i don't think that they are quality products, like anything Finecast...

i love PP's stuff, too, but i wouldn't buy a single one of their PVC/restic minis, because they don't fit my idea of quality...
i still use their paints, and buy their resin and metal minis...

i love CB's stuff, but not every Infinity mini is going to appeal to my aesthetic taste...

honestly, i think Dreamforge does some really great work, but the Leviathan and Mortis are the two models in the line that i don't like the look of...
the infantry are great, as is the APC, the MULE walker bot, and the glimpses we have seen of the aliens, but the Leviathan will never be a better buy than the GW Knight for me, no matter the perceived better quality, or the lower price...
that has nothing to do with brand loyalty, and everything to do with finding the Knight to be a much cooler looking model in comparison to the Leviathans...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:
@Jehan: don't let facts get in the way of your snark, eh...

Pots and kettles sunshine, pots and kettles.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Speaking of Knights, I've been poking around with Freeblade, and gotta say, it's pretty cool...

Spoiler:

Yeah, I was liking Freeblade allot. Does get a bit samey but it beautiful while it's doing it!

The Stubber is somewhat frustrating when all I want to do is mow down orks, it needs a stomp attack!

 Grimtuff wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
@Jehan: don't let facts get in the way of your snark, eh...

Pots and kettles sunshine, pots and kettles.

what are you even on about???
i'm not the one making personal attacks here...
i'm just trying to express my appreciation for minis, not make it personal...

cheers
"sunshine"

 Rayvon wrote:
Quality can also be subjective depending on a persons needs.

No, not really but think what you like. I mean, sure, you can say something's "good enough" but that doesn't preclude you from recognizing that another manufacturer makes a superior product, on a technical level, than their competitor. The knight is a great model but you can't pose it without some serious work, the leviathan comes with screws for cripes sake so that you can pose every little bit to your heart's desire without cutting and modding.

Your statement is like saying, "I only need to get from A to B so this Pinto is the finest quality automobile in the world because it's all that I need." while willfully ignoring that there are mechanically superior automobiles in the world.

Seriously, people don't have to go through mental gymnastics to justify their adoration of all things GW, just say you prefer it and move on.

I find the "love" for certain inanimate objects typically fall under "what you are used to".
After the many years of kits from GW it is like slipping on an old pair of slippers working on those.
Not so much trying to play a game with them.
Looking at a game's elements in isolation I feel is incorrect.
These are tabletop war-game miniatures.
I think GW's business plan is not to sell to just collectors or they should expect only "one of each" model would be purchased (though they would expect more I would suppose...).
Multiple squads would typically only be bought for a game.

Privateer models I do not like very much but the game mechanics for WarmaHordes is awesome.
GW models I like most of them but the game mechanics... ummm... suck (my opinion!) but hope springs eternal for the next update.
Bolt Action is one of the few games I like both the game and kits, the fits for the vehicles in particular I thought were excellent.

I like Star Wars X-wing and Armada but model building and painting is almost completely gone with the pre-painted miniatures.
Still adding custom painted bits to the duplicate models and the tiny Armada unpainted fighters.
Awesome games and look great.

Malifaux and Infinity I had not had a go at yet but appear to be doing well and I do not see much wrong with those models.

I think Rick is correct that until GW can get a bit more Game into their models they will continue to circle the drain.

I can agree with Jah that for him it can be all about the models, but his customer base for commission can be largely based on people who want good looking models to play with which may shrink over time.

 jah-joshua wrote:
i just had the Dreamforge Leviathan in my hands again yesterday, and again put it back on the shelf...
even at $55 it just doesn't look as cool as the GW Knight...

Hahahahaha. I have a Dreamforge Leviathan on my own shelf. I take the big square box it off my shelf every few months, look at it, and maybe even take the pieces out and imagine it painted. Then, I put it back up, unpainted, and paint something else

I will probably get to it some day. I do like the model. But I like your method better, saves $55 and a chunk of shelf. Plus, I wouldn't feel as guilty about not getting around to painting it every time I put it back on the shelf, lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:

I think GW's business plan is not to sell to just collectors or they should expect only "one of each" model would be purchased (though they would expect more I would suppose...).

This is a fallacy. Look at typical of the Army of the Month in Visions. A lot of them are totally impractical to play, both in composition and sheer number of model. You'd need 10 hours a turn and an 80 foot table, and the Ultramarines in Visions 23, you'd need a five ton truck, too. Most they have a LOT of repetition; you'll see multiple knights, lots of ground troops, etc.

Collectors who only want to model single models will buy one of each, but collectors who want to model armies will build, model, and paint either armies that are representative of battle forces described in codex and fluff, or armies that don't quite fit the rules, but look cool together. One of the things that make armies look good is a large number of similar units. For example, a space marine with a bolter looks good, but 10 look better, and 100 look much more impressive.

When it comes to model collectors, even outside of wargaming and army building people will often buy and build multiples of the same kit.

Even if you look at the purely display models from Tamiya, Airfix, etc, a lot of collectors will buy multiples of the same model either because they think they can do it better the next time, want to try out a different scheme or just enjoyed the build enough to get another one. I know people who have built half a dozen Revell 1/32 Spitfire Mk2a kits. Even the complicated expensive stuff, you see people who have built multiple Tamiya Mosquitos, and that's a $250USD kit and for most people several months time investment.