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.

I like the "GW built the roads" analogy. Romans built upon the success of other civies like the etruscans much like GW builds on the games of old

Kirbinator wrote:Another off-topic note:

Can it be made an official forum ruling that all modquisition friendly reminders come coupled with pictures? I do so enjoy them over the standard text-based friendly and less-friendly reminders.

Heh I would like that cept the sites the mods are using are sites my net security hates!

Sorry for OT

Delephont wrote:@Mastiff
People who are looking aorund for conversion worthy material, are suggesting to me that their not happy with what GW is currently offering.

If they were, why bother looking at company X for something to convert into a GW type miniature or to add to a GW type miniature to improve it?

I looked at Rackham because I wanted Celtic stuff for conversions. Actually, I've looked at dozens of miniature lines to rape and pillage to feed my haggis addiction. The problem was not that I was disappointed with GW's offerings. Hell, I was delighted by their new plastics marines as the best thing since sliced bread. Nope, I just wanted something different from everybody else's marines, and personalizing minis is... FUN.


Rackham had great wings. This backpiece is from Kelen, The 13th Voice (version francais). Do I feel GW failed because they didn't come up with the wings? Hell no. Do I feel guilty about pillaging a Rackham mini for service in a GW game? Hell no. I paid for the mini, and they didn't seem too offended to accept it.

(Full disclosure: Alright, a bit guilty. I held onto Kelen for 5 years before using the backpiece for 40k, because it seemed like sacrilage to not build and paint the original mini. But when Rackham chose to... poop all over their own IP to move more units of pre-painted plastic, I realized I cared more about their products than they did).


Celtois had pretty good figures, but a bit chunky for my tastes (although a very unique and effective voluptuous look for their women. Sculpted by Steve Buddle I think? Can't remember for sure). The banner fit perfectly into my scheme of celtic totems for my heroes.

I'm sorry if you're offended that my mind slipped into the GW gutter when I first saw the Celtois and Rackham Keltois, but I'll get over it. It dovetailed nicely with a project I was already working on, and I ended up buying and playing Confrontation based on its own merits. Hell I played just this weekend. I would never have found them if it weren't for GW, though.

This thread is ridiculous.

Oh, what, so you can't compare miniatures to GW? Or you're tired of hearing "Oh, these don't work in 40k"?

Well, firstly it's a primarily 40k/Fantasy related site, hell, the name should tip you off to that.

Secondly, I don't care if you hate GW, or love GW, or don't care about GW, they're THE market leader. Now, yes, they're far from the best at giving a crap about the fanbase, they're definitely not the producers of the best miniatures in the world, but they wouldn't be all over the world if they weren't a quality company.

People said "Oh, McDonalds is only popular because they have the volume" No, it's because it's a solid, good product. Yes, it's fattening, yes, it's far from healthy, sure, you may not like it, but the majority does, and the majority gets to choose what they like. Same with GW.

This site isn't too small for anything but Grim Dark, but it's full of people who appreciate it, regardless of whether you do or not.

Because no one plays "Capua." Rome is where its at.

Mastiff wrote:

Delephont wrote:@Mastiff
That model of thinking works if you're trying to describe something using words, but I've seen various really good reviews where the reviewer has used pictures to highlight their grips and positive impressions.

That's great, but we're talking about a forum here, not a review site. Words are an unavoidable hazard, since not everyone has pictures handy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are two issues here:

1) People referencing GW when describing a competitor's product.

I've explained this in my previous post, that people may use GW as a univeral frame of reference for comparison purposes. I think this issue is a bit different than your original point, but it's the reason why the words "GW" often end up in a review, or a response to a review.

2) People talking about miniatures in terms of their suitability for GW

What worries me though, is that when-ever these companies come out into the harsh light of day, and show their wares on here, all that seems to happen is that people straight away discuss how the miniatures could be used for WH40K etc, even going as far as running the miniatures down if they DON'T readily fit into GW games!!!

As has been explained several times, the majority of people on this board found Dakka because of a connection to GW. Either it's the first game they heard of, or participated in, or they've actively searched for a good place to discuss 40k and Fantasy. Other games do pop up in discussions, but there's a reason why Fantasy and 40k need a dozen forums each, while other games only require a single forum. I've been active on Dakka for nine years, and it's because of GW games. I enjoy other games, and go to other forums specifically for those games. I come here for GW.

Warmachine has a forum on this site. It has 1,580 posts. That's the third most popular game by my calculations. By comparison, the 40k forums (combined) have 80,000 posts. Fantasy, about 10,000+. You can pretend Dakka's audience is not focussed on GW games, but you'd be deliberately ignorant to do so.

Now, it seems like 3) you're simply complaining people think differently than you do.

When I first saw the miniatures for MERCs minis, I looked at the photos and decided that they weren't for me, based on the sculpting, the proportions, and ultimately what MERCS were planning with their upcoming game! I can honestly say, how they fit alongside my current Inifinty Yu Jing army didn't come into the equation, I can honestly say, I didn't once consider if they could be part of an Imperial Guard army or how well they looked when compared to Imperial Guard miniatures.

Awesome, That's how your mind works. Kudos to you.

But you're coming to a Warhammer site, and complaining that people respond to other products by thinking how they would fit into... a Warhammer enviroment?

That's just daft.

You way off the mark on point 1 and 3, I get bored of repeating myself. How can you mistake me giving an example of the way I "review" something as equalling me ranting about others reviewing it defferently? I wonder if you guys actually read my posts!

Your point 2 is what this whole thread is about, noting more.

In regards to your last statement. Will you guys make up your bloody mind. On the one hand I'm told, no, this is a site that discusses GW product as a main topic, but we welcome other discussions based on other mniature companies, but now, in your post, I'm silly to expect unbiased discussion of a miniature based on its own merits and design intent, because its a GW website......ermm, a little confusing wouldn't your say? Which is it gonna be?

The two positions aren't dichotomous.

Delephont wrote:
Are "we" really incapable of looking at a miniature, discussing the quality of the sculpt, the scale, the form, the detail, etc without thinking of it in terms of the great GW?!?!?

For me? Yup pretty much. As others have said, since everyone is familiar with GW minis, they provide a useful frame of reference for discussing new minis from other companies. Sorry if you think this makes me some kind of drone /shrug.

Delephont wrote:
You way off the mark on point 1 and 3, I get bored of repeating myself. How can you mistake me giving an example of the way I "review" something as equalling me ranting about others reviewing it defferently? I wonder if you guys actually read my posts!

Your point 2 is what this whole thread is about, noting more.

In regards to your last statement. Will you guys make up your bloody mind. On the one hand I'm told, no, this is a site that discusses GW product as a main topic, but we welcome other discussions based on other mniature companies, but now, in your post, I'm silly to expect unbiased discussion of a miniature based on its own merits and design intent, because its a GW website......ermm, a little confusing wouldn't your say? Which is it gonna be?

Try this:

This is a site that discusses GW product as a main topic, but we welcome other discussions based on other mniature companies. Chances are, GW will come up in the discussion. Because this is a site that discusses GW product as a main topic.

Is that difficult for you to understand? You walk into a GW forum, and complain that the discussion centers around GW. We point out that this is a GW site. You agree, but continue to say you prefer would some topics remain GW-free. You can pretend you're misunderstood, or we aren't reading your words, but your entire argument is flawed. The fact that you don't like that truth is not going to change it.

Delephont wrote:

Lucid wrote:...All roads lead to rome because rome built them...

Interesting opinion. GW built all the roads, is a statement loaded with potential for argument......what you seem to be saying here, is that GW is responsible for tabletop wargaming..... I'm not even sure GW were the first to adapt tabletop wargaming to a "Sci Fi" setting, I certainly wouldn't stake my life on it.

The analogy still stands Delephont. Neither was Rome the first empire, but they sure as gak are the most memorable.

Your original point is "Can someone look at a model, and review it on it's own merits?" The answer is thus: yes.

Everyone who is arguing with you.

Mastiff wrote:
Is that difficult for you to understand? You walk into a GW forum, and complain that the discussion centers around GW. We point out that this is a GW site. You agree, but continue to say you prefer would some topics remain GW-free. You can pretend you're misunderstood, or we aren't reading your words, but your entire argument is flawed. The fact that you don't like that truth is not going to change it.

No, its not difficult for me to understand. I guess we could have saved three pages of posts by just answering my question with a NO.

No, we can't discuss a miniature made for a game unrelated to GW without, at some point making it about GW, even though the miniature maker had no intention of sculpting it for GW in the first place. Why? well, because this is a GW biased website, where (according to some) without GW there would be no table top wargaing hobby.

I think that about clarifys the point? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Simple really.

I guess we can close this thread now, as it seems to have reached a comfortable and "logical" conclusion.

I don't think there was a great deal of point in replying to this thread, although it has been entertaining if mildly annoying, given your "conclusion".

Please, continue to think whatever you want. I look forward to reading your many in depth, mature and interesting critiques of future model releases with keen interest however.

What I really don't get is why this was such a monumentally difficult issue for you. This is a warGAMING site. Any time someone considers a model, one of the things that they're going to be thinking is, 'How can I integrate into one of the GAMES I play?' Models are not just display pieces to be considered on their own aesthetic appearance, most people are going to consider their functional value as well. Since the majority of posters are involved with GW games, that's going to bring up a common point of reference for the functional use of a model.

Delephont wrote:
No, we can't discuss a miniature made for a game unrelated to GW without, at some point making it about GW, even though the miniature maker had no intention of sculpting it for GW in the first place. Why? well, because this is a GW biased website, where (according to some) without GW there would be no table top wargaing hobby.
I think that about clarifys the point? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

And that last part is your personal issue, not the site's.

Your core issue seems to be people giving too much credit to GW. Yes, some people feel that GW is the be-all and end-all of gaming. Some, not all. They may be wrong. You may not like it. But forums are a place where people go to express their opinions. Don't be surprised when you go to a steakhouse and can't find any vegetarians.

SilverMK2 wrote:I don't think there was a great deal of point in replying to this thread, although it has been entertaining if mildly annoying, given your "conclusion".

Please, continue to think whatever you want. I look forward to reading your many in depth, mature and interesting critiques of future model releases with keen interest however.

Thanks, isn't that what we do.....continue to think whatever we want, that is. I'd be insterested to understand what you find annoying about my conclusion though. I've asked a question, and based on the responses formulated a conclusion, which, seems to hold up quite well given the "facts".

Whats strange however, given the conclusion, people still seem to feel accused, victimised, attacked.....I wonder why that is? Haven't I stated the outcome, more or less, as it was presented.

1) Gamesworkshop discussion site.
2) Any miniature gracing the page will more than likely be judged for its suitablity to fit into said GW products.
3) Reasonable to assume, if said miniature does not fit into GW products to a suitable level, its stands a high degree of chance to be labelled as a fail.
4) Possible use of miniature as component donor for GW miniatures to enhance themm for use in a GW product.

So whats the problem, thats a summary of statements made. I'm not getting emotional, angry or dispondant, its just the way it is....correct?

Mastiff wrote:And that last part is your personal issue, not the site's.

Your core issue seems to be people giving too much credit to GW. Yes, some people feel that GW is the be-all and end-all of gaming. Some, not all. They may be wrong. You may not like it. But forums are a place where people go to express their opinions. Don't be surprised when you go to a steakhouse and can't find any vegetarians.

That a forum is a place where people go to express their opinions is a widely accepted statement. However, the issue is and always will be, how are those opinions recieved by the rest of the forum. In this thread, I've expressed an opinion, which I've tried to justify and in some cases defend. Why did it need defending? because people either didn't agree with me or felt attacked! Therefore, being guilty of the "crimes" you accuse me of! non tolerance for other peoples opinoins.....see how it gets bit circular in its effect.

The whole idea that a forum is a place to air your views, only really works when that view is upheld and agreed upon by the rest of the community, if not, then you have.....well.....this thread! Again, please correct me if you feel that observation is incorrect!

Bookwrack wrote:What I really don't get is why this was such a monumentally difficult issue for you. This is a warGAMING site. Any time someone considers a model, one of the things that they're going to be thinking is, 'How can I integrate into one of the GAMES I play?' Models are not just display pieces to be considered on their own aesthetic appearance, most people are going to consider their functional value as well. Since the majority of posters are involved with GW games, that's going to bring up a common point of reference for the functional use of a model.

I like this statement the best! Especially where I'm supposed to be struggling with a monumentally difficult concept!

So let me throw that question back at you! but in a slightly different form.

Can you not understand the, not so monumental concept, of a kettle is a kettle, and should be judge by how well it boils water, and not how well it cleans your dishes? Oh, I fully understand that your main interest right now is getting your dishes clean, but look, over there, a dishwasher, I wonder how well that particular model of dishwasher will clean those pesky dishes....but when you're done cleaning the dishes, maybe you'll want a cup of tea.....then can we talk about the Kettle?

No, still can't get the dishes out of your mind? I understand, back to the dishwashers then?......or maybe not, instead, because its a better use of your time....lets discuss how crap that kettle is at doing the dishes!

Delephont wrote:That a forum is a place where people go to express their opinions is a widely accepted statement. However, the issue is and always will be, how are those opinions recieved by the rest of the forum. In this thread, I've expressed an opinion, which I've tried to justify and in some cases defend. Why did it need defending? because people either didn't agree with me or felt attacked! Therefore, being guilty of the "crimes" you accuse me of! non tolerance for other peoples opinoins.....see how it gets bit circular in its effect.

The whole idea that a forum is a place to air your views, only really works when that view is upheld and agreed upon by the rest of the community, if not, then you have.....well.....this thread! Again, please correct me if you feel that observation is incorrect!

Delephont, this is a recurring theme in your posts from the past year. You don't like the pro-GW bias when people post about non-GW products. That's fine. I'm not accusing you of "crimes". I'm not arguing that there is no GW-bias here. I'm explaining to you the realities of the enviroment that you are disagreeing with and denigrating.

You can work within the enviroment or not, but please stop being offended by it. You have other options.

Again, I've read you other threads in the past. You have not been persecuted for your beliefs. You could choose to ignore posts that bring up the applicability of products for GW, but you instead choose to highlight those comments as an argument that this forum is, what? Unfair? Naive? You keep trying to convince people that a great injustice has been commited. It hasn't. Your opinion is simply different than the majority's, and you are expecting the majority to change.

So here's a suggestion. Post minis from other companies. I appreciate posts like that. Many of the otehr Dakkaites appreciate them. Then, when someone posts "but it won't fit my IG", you ignore the post as irrelevent.

Trust me, you'll live longer. Stressing because people don't share your views on the internet isn't worth it. YMMV.

Economics tells us that people only have a finite amount of resources to spend, be it money, time, or memory and attention. As a result, they try to make decisions based upon what allows them to make the most of those resources. The same applies for leisure. What you're doing is asking the guy who has a classic Mustang he's rebuilt from the ground up, who has the Mustang jacket, Mustang keychain, even the Mustang Train Set to instead appreciate and take up the same thing, but with a Camero. Most people don't have time/money/whatever to take up rebuilding the classic Camero from scratch, and on top of that, Bradford exchange doesn't make a Camero electric train set.

Out of curiosity, are you one of those guys who has to stop liking bands when they get popular?

By that above post, apparently so.

Delephont wrote:
Can you not understand the, not so monumental concept, of a kettle is a kettle, and should be judge by how well it boils water, and not how well it cleans your dishes? Oh, I fully understand that your main interest right now is getting your dishes clean, but look, over there, a dishwasher, I wonder how well that particular model of dishwasher will clean those pesky dishes....but when you're done cleaning the dishes, maybe you'll want a cup of tea.....then can we talk about the Kettle?

No, still can't get the dishes out of your mind? I understand, back to the dishwashers then?......or maybe not, instead, because its a better use of your time....lets discuss how crap that kettle is at doing the dishes!

Cute, and you certainly get an 'A' for effort, but an 'F' for relevance. We're not talking about kettles and dishwashers, we're talking about kettles and kettles. The models are game pieces and so people are going to talk about them in relevance to the games they play. If most people play the same games, it's going to keep going back to that. I'm sorry that you're so frustrated that people on a GW focused board tend to focus on how they can use their game pieces in GW focused games, but it's outright silly to get upset over people liking to talk about game pieces in regards to the games they actually play.

daedalus wrote:
Out of curiosity, are you one of those guys who has to stop liking bands when they get popular?

*Hides warhammer quest box

Delephont wrote:-blip-

Its even a GW troll! Oh the horror

Most frustrating thread I have ever read on Dakka. Delephont is constantly bombarded by people's agreement that other companies can be successful and shouldn't be judged for being original, yet continues to complain that people on DakkaDakka decry new models as not fitting into their GW army.

I have never seen a comment to that effect about a new model. I have seen comments about integrating the model to their GW force though. The fact that Delephont seems unable to grasp that people actually like GW based on merit rather than brainwashing is interesting, and leads me to believe he probably roams /tg/ and sages 40k threads.

The idea of condemning GW references publically on a GW based site is endlessly amusing...

My two cents is to each his own. I've seen sculpts that I want for my army, regardless to how poorly they fit with Dark Angels, because I can't afford other systems and don't have the time to learn them. I'm a one system (well... 2 if you count Fantasy but thats been free for me so far) guy. As a new hobbyist GW is pretty much all I know for now so of course I'm going to compare them in quality.

Bookwrack wrote:By that above post, apparently so.

Delephont wrote:
Can you not understand the, not so monumental concept, of a kettle is a kettle, and should be judge by how well it boils water, and not how well it cleans your dishes? Oh, I fully understand that your main interest right now is getting your dishes clean, but look, over there, a dishwasher, I wonder how well that particular model of dishwasher will clean those pesky dishes....but when you're done cleaning the dishes, maybe you'll want a cup of tea.....then can we talk about the Kettle?

No, still can't get the dishes out of your mind? I understand, back to the dishwashers then?......or maybe not, instead, because its a better use of your time....lets discuss how crap that kettle is at doing the dishes!

Cute, and you certainly get an 'A' for effort, but an 'F' for relevance. We're not talking about kettles and dishwashers, we're talking about kettles and kettles. The models are game pieces and so people are going to talk about them in relevance to the games they play. If most people play the same games, it's going to keep going back to that. I'm sorry that you're so frustrated that people on a GW focused board tend to focus on how they can use their game pieces in GW focused games, but it's outright silly to get upset over people liking to talk about game pieces in regards to the games they actually play.

Yes, you're right....I should have expected that analogy to be missed by some on here. We would only be talking about like for like if manufacturer X openly states, here look, I have blatantly made this miniature to fit into a GW product (as illegal as that may be:(), however, if manufacturer states look, I've made this new miniature for, say Malifaux, then it ain't kettles and kettles my friend...no matter how bad you want them dishes cleaned!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ordo Dakka wrote:Most frustrating thread I have ever read on Dakka. Delephont is constantly bombarded by people's agreement that other companies can be successful and shouldn't be judged for being original, yet continues to complain that people on DakkaDakka decry new models as not fitting into their GW army.

I have never seen a comment to that effect about a new model. I have seen comments about integrating the model to their GW force though. The fact that Delephont seems unable to grasp that people actually like GW based on merit rather than brainwashing is interesting, and leads me to believe he probably roams /tg/ and sages 40k threads.

Well, seeing as this forum is mostly word based, I can understand how you'd be frsutrated! You obviously haven't read the first post correctly, in fact, by your response, you haven't really read any of them properly.

Just to help you out though:

Ordo Dakka wrote:Delephont is constantly bombarded by people's agreement that other companies can be successful and shouldn't be judged for being original

It was never about how successful a company other than GW could be, never! and WTF is with the second part of that statement....are you reading a different thread? I'd like to see products judged for their originality, and based on the designers intent for them!....did you not get that in the 3 pages of posts?

Ordo Dakka wrote:yet continues to complain that people on DakkaDakka decry new models as not fitting into their GW army.

Yes, but why would I be complaining about this? do you know? if you did, you might not have contraticted yourself with:

Ordo Dakka wrote:I have never seen a comment to that effect about a new model. I have seen comments about integrating the model to their GW force though.

The rest of your post loses some of its credibility after that performance.....but thanks for the input.

Ordo Dakka wrote:I have never seen a comment to that effect about a new model. I have seen comments about integrating the model to their GW force though.

*cough*

Really, if it's that easy for me to find an example on the first page...

I was heavily under thje impression that GW was barely holding its own against the vast majority of other such tabletop games.

Also to boot this is a mainly 40k board, what do you expect.

If I was a mod, I'd lock the gak out of this thread.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I agree with the OP's intent that we shouldn't judge model lines from non-GW related companies on how well or how badly their models integrate with 40K and Fantasy, but I also think it is naive to not see GW as the leader here, and that comparisons are going to be made.

I very much agree. And what I am having trouble understanding is why such comparisons would be inappropriate, especially when made on Dakka. To echo others, I do use Citadel's quality as a standard when sizing up their competitors' work. I suppose that's different from evaluating a Therian from AT-43 on the basis of whether it will fit into my Necron army alongside the counts-as Tomb Spyders I nabbed out of the Cryx lines. (Completely made up, by the way. I have no interest in either range because they're simply not as good as GW's stuff.)

Laughing Man wrote:

Ordo Dakka wrote:I have never seen a comment to that effect about a new model. I have seen comments about integrating the model to their GW force though.

*cough*

Really, if it's that easy for me to find an example on the first page...

That thread you linked illustrates my point. The Studio Mc'Vey model wasn't attacked because people couldn't use it as a 40k model. It was hailed as a beautiful sculpt that wouldn't be fielded in a wargaming army. I read the entire thread, and all people are saying is that they agree with each other in principle but disagree on perceived perceptions of a viewpoint that nobody really holds.

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP that a model should be judged on it's own merit as a sculpt but obvious comparisons to an established system have to be expected. These comparisons don't devalue the model.

Delephont wrote:
Yes, you're right....I should have expected that analogy to be missed by some on here. We would only be talking about like for like if manufacturer X openly states, here look, I have blatantly made this miniature to fit into a GW product (as illegal as that may be:(), however, if manufacturer states look, I've made this new miniature for, say Malifaux, then it ain't kettles and kettles my friend...no matter how bad you want them dishes cleaned!

It's funny that the most appropriate response to most of your posts is asking, 'why is this so hard for you?' It's a straight up comparison of kettles and kettles, no matter how hard you try and indulge this dishwashing fetish of yours. Apparently, steering the conversation away from kettles is something you find disturbing and frightening, so I'll embrace the analogy for a bit to keep you comforted.

Most people here have GW kettles, in fact, whole sets of them, and they have their own design aesthetic. There are plenty of other kettle makers out there, but most people aren't interested in picking up a whole new set of kettles, they want something that reasonably fits in with the ones they already have.

Washing up afterwards is a completely unrelated matter.

This topic seems all mined out.