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.

Couple of questions:

1. Are lead models safe?

I have found many listings for Rogue Trader era Space Marine terminators on ebay. A bit of googling tells me they are made of lead alloy. Is this safe to use on a day to day basis? What if it's painted?

2. What size are the RT termies compared to say, AOBR ones?

1. Yes, unless you plan to eat them.

2. Pretty darn small, in comparison.

Don't lick them, and you should be fine. Once primerd/painted/sealed there should be no difference.

The old termies are just slightly larger then a modern power armor marine. Some of that is in the pose, they are all static and hunched over, the rest is that they were just smaller.

htj wrote:Pretty darn small, in comparison.

Damn. I was hoping that they would be the same. Here's hoping that I get outbid on ebay!

Old termies come on smaller bases, too.

snorri788 wrote:

htj wrote:Pretty darn small, in comparison.

Damn. I was hoping that they would be the same. Here's hoping that I get outbid on ebay!

They aren't that much different. The disparity comes from the base sizes really; the larger base size of the new version makes it look bigger in comparison. Of course, if you are planning to mix and match old and new termies in the same squad, then you will see a difference but you can quite happily have an old style squad and a new style squad in the same army.

If it really bothers you, you can mount the old style ones on the larger bases and that will help to dispel the size difference. Anyway, I found this comparison pic - not the best, but it will do:

Another thing to point out is that the older Terminators are based at 25mm bases, for use with the older Space hulk tiles.

The minis for RT era are more or less 25 mm, and as the scale creep evolved, are now up around 30-32mm.

They work well enough, and in adding them in with other figures, they get lost in the crowd easily. As long as your using the 40mm base for the termies, they will fit in there, all you really have to do, honestly is to cut a little in the joint sections, add in a smaller washer or two on the arm/ body connections and cut the mini in half along the waste section, adding in washers/ greenstuff, and cut off a skull or two off of another GW model to post up in the armor fitting.

Look at the picture for an example, visualize adding two to three more mm's tops to each cut section, and you will easily add in some gerth, with the greenstuff/washer combo. then, reposition the legs, add in some greenstuff, sculpt in the coils around the joints, and the figure will be on par, or better then the new ones.

The " Lead" thing was a nonissue, honestly. If anything, they are softer, and cut easier, but are less forgiving to slipping knives/ saws.

Termies of yore are a little larger then the other figures were, as well. (This will only work for them.) then add in there, the 40mm base, and they fit right in.

filbert wrote:

snorri788 wrote:

htj wrote:Pretty darn small, in comparison.

Damn. I was hoping that they would be the same. Here's hoping that I get outbid on ebay!

They aren't that much different. The disparity comes from the base sizes really; the larger base size of the new version makes it look bigger in comparison. Of course, if you are planning to mix and match old and new termies in the same squad, then you will see a difference but you can quite happily have an old style squad and a new style squad in the same army.

If it really bothers you, you can mount the old style ones on the larger bases and that will help to dispel the size difference. Anyway, I found this comparison pic - not the best, but it will do:

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, they'd still be viable for play. They'd just look noticably smaller next to new termies. Really, it's a matter of how much that bugs you.

Style-wise, I think I rpefer the new terminators. The head looks more like a 'skull-shaped-mask' than a skull-for-a-face. The targeter is a nice 'techy' bit and the taller figure makes it look a little more plausible that a human could fit in that thing without requiring several bones be dislocated first.

The storm bolter does have an annoying seam/mold line, though.

filbert wrote:

snorri788 wrote:

htj wrote:Pretty darn small, in comparison.

Damn. I was hoping that they would be the same. Here's hoping that I get outbid on ebay!

They aren't that much different. The disparity comes from the base sizes really; the larger base size of the new version makes it look bigger in comparison. Of course, if you are planning to mix and match old and new termies in the same squad, then you will see a difference but you can quite happily have an old style squad and a new style squad in the same army.

If it really bothers you, you can mount the old style ones on the larger bases and that will help to dispel the size difference. Anyway, I found this comparison pic - not the best, but it will do:

Thing is, that's not a RT era Terminator, that was 2nd Ed. The RT ones were slightly more slender than that (probably same height, I think it was mostly in the arms).

Riquende wrote:

Thing is, that's not a RT era Terminator, that was 2nd Ed. The RT ones were slightly more slender than that (probably same height, I think it was mostly in the arms).

Chances are, what the OP and Ebay have listed as 'RT-era terminators' are actually 2nd Ed ones. But yes, the RT ones are thinner, in the same way that the RT marines are slightly smaller and thinner than modern ones.

Grot 6 wrote:Another thing to point out is that the older Terminators are based at 25mm bases, for use with the older Space hulk tiles.

The 3rd edition (last version) tiles had the EXACT SAME GRID SIZE on them. 30mm gridsquares. The tile pieces were also the SAME SIZE and even mated up to the 1st ed and 2nd ed pieces if you wanted a larger layout (the new tiles were twice the thickness, but that was it).

The 3rd ed plastic poxy terminators (missing details all over the rear and undersides, regardless of how much detail was on the fronts of them) were just posed along a diagonal, so that you could put them into the squares (because a 30mm square has a 40+mm diagonal.). 40mm based terminators still don't fit into a spacehulk grid, no matter which version you use.

RT-3rd edition terminators were on 25mm bases because that's what the models in 40k used. That Spacehulk also used them is neither here nor there.


To the OP:

Lead alloy models are fine as long as you don't EAT them. So if they are not painted, WASH YOUR FETHING HANDS after handling them.
Once painted (unless you use lead-based paints), they will be fine. Acrylic paints form a plastic "skin" over the metal, sealing it.

I've been working with lead-alloy figures for over 25 years and I have no ill effects from this exposure. 'Course, I haven't nommed on any of them, or ground them into dust and snorted lines of them - because I'm not an idiot.

These days, they might be lead free, but I'd be more inclined to worry about what they replaced the lead WITH (Bismuth, in many cases - which is just as bad).

The termies I have are right around the RT-2nd edition transition, but I would just add that as long as you don't mix them in the same unit, they look just fine on the same tabletop. Rebasing them to the larger size bases and/or a bit of scenic basing goes a long way toward making the older termies more comparable.

I have noticed that if you put an older termie that is still attached to the smaller base onto a 40 mm base, with the added height from the second base, they are almost exactly the same height as the new terminators.

Chances are, what the OP and Ebay have listed as 'RT-era terminators' are actually 2nd Ed ones

Man, I hate that. Actual RT models have gone up in price over the last few years, so I think many sellers are quick to label any reasonably old sculpt as "Rogue Trader era" to try to coax a bigger selling price...or it might just be ignorance. Either way it's annoying as heck when I see an unopened blister that clearly has the yellow 2nd edition 40k logo (or worse yet the newer green one!) and see it listed as "RT".

Anyway, two points on the original questions:

-The size difference between the older terminators and the new ones is really not that big. What I do is glue the old 25mm base onto one of the current medium rounds and then flock over the whole thing. It raises the older model up to a similar height to the new models and gives it the correct game "foot print". It sounds ugly and noticable, but in practice, it does not look bad at all.

-Echoing what the others have stated, there is practicaly no risk at all with normal handling of lead miniatures. Don't chew on them. Don't lick your brush (something you should not be doing anyway). Wash your hands after handling them and you will be just fine. As someone else pointed out, you will find the lead based alloy alot easier to manipulate as well....allthough I encourage you not to chop up old models. The whole "lead scare" was baseless. In the US it started in New York in 1992 during a messy divorce in which the wife accused the husband of endangering her children with a handful of lead D&D miniatures he had in the house. In fact the kids did test as having a slightly elevated level of lead in their system, but this was traced to run off into the water supply from a nearby shooting range. Testimony before the NY court (I forget if it was the state Supreme Court or simply a district one and am at work so can't check my sources...it really does not matter either way) found in favor of the miniature industry and that when used as intended lead miniatures posed no signifigant health risk to their owners. But by then the industry had over-reacted, and the rest is history.

TR

It was one of the state-level courts and there was also a feted bill at local state level proposing a ban on lead in "children's toys" (thayt only would have had an effect in the state of NY) that kicked off the lead-free metal bandwagon (primarily effecting Ral Partha and other AMERICAN casters - GW were over a year behind the curve on that one).

chromedog wrote:It was one of the state-level courts and there was also a feted bill at local state level proposing a ban on lead in "children's toys" (thayt only would have had an effect in the state of NY) that kicked off the lead-free metal bandwagon (primarily effecting Ral Partha and other AMERICAN casters - GW were over a year behind the curve on that one).

Thanks, man.
I have several old magazines at home that have editorials covering the "crisis", including a good write up in "the Courior". The funny thing is that it was laregly an unnessesary over-reaction by the industry and that some companies did not make the change for many years. For example Old Glory was still making their figures in lead for some ten years after the lead scare. GW's conduct was (as I have oft pointed out) reprehensible. Despite the scare being more or less over by the time GW made the switch, they used it as an excuse to put in place a 100% price hike on metal miniatures...and lied about doing it as well. Contrast this with Ral Partha, who also made the switch to non-lead at about the same time, with only a modest price increase.

(for those who do not know, the same molds and casting machines are used for both lead and non-lead miniatures, and the price on the newer tin-based metal was, at the time, not that much greater than that of the lead based metal. This makes GW's conduct in regards to the "lead scare" all that more inexcusable)

TR

I remember when Ral Partha came out with their "Ralidium" line of minis. Quality improved.

When GW went " lead-free pewter" and jacked prices to cover the increased materials costs and the costs of "redoing the moulds" (bulls*it as you called it as they would have used the same moulds for it - the temperature of then newer alloy wasn't enough to warrant redoing them in a more temperature resistant rubber).

chromedog wrote:I remember when Ral Partha came out with their "Ralidium" line of minis. Quality improved.

When GW went " lead-free pewter" and jacked prices to cover the increased materials costs and the costs of "redoing the moulds" (bulls*it as you called it as they would have used the same moulds for it - the temperature of then newer alloy wasn't enough to warrant redoing them in a more temperature resistant rubber).

I fully agree about the Partha miniatures. They were nice to begin with, but the detail did seem to be crisper...and their price increase was less than a dollar a blister.

One of the guys in our gaming group is good friends with the CEO of Reaper Miniatures, and does casting as a hobby himself. So by association I've learned quite a bit about casting miniatures. You are 100% correct that the tempature difference between tin and lead based alloys is not enough to require any real change in equipment. Another irritating thing about GWs conduct during the "Lead Scare" was that they tried to paint their decision to make the change as being motivated by their "concern for the health of their customers" despite the fact that no such health risk existed.

The "lead scare" set the tone for GW's business model and customer relations in the years since. The funny thing is that no matter hwo often I bring it up, it's something the GW-apologists and fanboys will never even attempt to touch...presumably because they have no answer.

TR

Actually, one thing you'll notice is the removal of the 'Citadel Miniatures are not toys and are unsuitable for children under the age of 14' line. UK / European toy safety legislation effectively meant that they couldn't sell lead-based minis to younger kids, which was rapidly becoming their target market. I believe similar legislation also existed in the US (which was a growing market for them at the time). The move to lead-free metal was a wise one, business wise.

The move to lead-free metal was a wise one, business wise.

That's subjective of course. The "lead scare" was over in the US by the time GW made their move and no such law existed in the US at the time. But you have to admit that the change to a tin-based alloy was handed by GW in a very, very poor manner. (a 100% price increase, which they lied about, misrepresenting their motives for the change, claiming that the change would require new molds/casting machines when the price increase was noticed by their customers, etc...)



TR

Oh yeah, I'm not disputing it was handled badly; just that the reasoning was simply to be able to lower their target age.

The price increase wasn't quite 100% though, but it was significant. I didn't hear any talk about tooling though, simply a more expensive material (which it actually is in this instance).

winterdyne wrote:Oh yeah, I'm not disputing it was handled badly; just that the reasoning was simply to be able to lower their target age.

The price increase wasn't quite 100% though, but it was significant. I didn't hear any talk about tooling though, simply a more expensive material (which it actually is in this instance).

My recollection of the time has blister packs that contained 3 minis going down to 2 each, and the price being bumped up a dollar or so. This was a while ago, so details are hazy, and I bought stuff from a lot of different companies at the time, so it may or may not have been GW.

Back in MY day we had lead in our toys and we liked it! Walked across town to our FLGS in the driving snow, uphill, both ways. Darn kids these days, have it easy.

My recollection of the time has blister packs that contained 3 minis going down to 2 each, and the price being bumped up a dollar or so. This was a while ago, so details are hazy, and I bought stuff from a lot of different companies at the time, so it may or may not have been GW

Blisters at the time of the metal change were either five or six models depending on the range. Most were five, but some (such as Orks) were six. This only applies to standard infantry type figures. Terminators, characters, and some of the newer sculpts (such as the last pre-2nd edition chaos marine models) were packaged in smaller numbers. GW had made this big deal about how although they were changing over to tin alloy, the price of their blisters would not go up. Well, they were right...in a strictly legalistic way. The contents of most blisters was dropped to two or three models at the old price. So, by an equally legalistic standpoint it was not an across the board 100% price increase. But in some cases it was, and in all cases it was an extreme price hike...one that has never to my knowledge been matched at one go by GW. It was also a blatant lie and the first step in the decline of how the company treated it's customers.

TR

Trench-Raider wrote:The "lead scare" was over in the US

Still isn't really over - that is why every Christmas there is a new list of toys which the lead-zealots run around with screaming about the humanity of trying to poison the children.

That said - there is a huge difference between metallic lead in miniatures and lead oxides in paint and what not. With the metallic lead, as long as you aren't using it for brazing...you can pretty much do whatever you want with it. The body doesn't recognize it as being anything, so even if you were to eat it - it would just pass right out of you a day or so later (well - there is a small amount of absorption...but unless you are deficient in specific minerals in your diet...it is negligible). I know that I have in fact ingested lead shot on at least two occasions (bird shot...one turkey and one goose - didn't notice it until it was too late) and due to my job which involved lead blood level testing, there wasn't even a small spike following the dinners. Wouldn't recommend it - but it also isn't something I would worry too much about.

Anywho, all that said - take precautions when you prep them. Wash hands and don't snort the dust. Their are a lot of other things which will kill you long before the lead miniatures do.

Probably the biggest problem I have with lead miniatures is the crispness of the details. Of course it will depend on the specific alloy used, but high lead tends to be a bit soft on holding details - and very soft should you drop them. I have a couple of lead minis which took a swan dive off the edge of a shelf onto a tile floor (damn cats). Where they landed - you can see the effect of the impact quite clearly in obvious flattening.

Sean_OBrien wrote:

Trench-Raider wrote:The "lead scare" was over in the US

Still isn't really over - that is why every Christmas there is a new list of toys which the lead-zealots run around with screaming about the humanity of trying to poison the children.

As regards models and miniatures, I realize that it is very overblown. Handled correctly with a few very simple precautions, lead in miniatures is not a danger to children. I have lots of lead miniatures and a baby, and I know it will be ok.

However, its wrong to characterize concern over lead in children's toys as coming from "lead-zealots run around screaming". The concern with lead is lead in paint on toys which can chip off and be ingested by children. I've worked in community health and this is a very real concern, much like lead paint chips being eaten by children/babies. Children's developing brains are much more susceptible to the effects of lead poisoning and keeping lead out of toys is a very valid concern.