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.

 Geifer wrote:

 Myrthe wrote:
I like the model but the smaller collar and pauldrons exaggerate the size of the head. Hopefully it's just the picture and it isn't as out of scale IRL.

It probably only looks bad if blown up to that size and placed next to the more realistically scaled drawing. Heroic proportions really only work at their native size. If you don't have a problem with other GW models, I don't think you'll have a problem with Eisenhorn.

It's actually the other way around in this case. The head on the miniature is the appropriate size, while on the illustration the head significantly smaller than it should have been.



When you draw (or sculpt) a man, the total height ought to be 8 times the size of his head. I'd say the miniature is a lot closer to that, than the illustration.

That mini is five heads tall, though.

 Mymearan wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
There is already a really nice third-party version available, and likely for a lot less - but it is nice they're paying some lip service to the guy.

That's nice, I prefer to buy the version from the company that actually owns the IP they're using - and also the model that actually fits in with the GW aesthetic.

+1. I'm no hard-line GW loyalist, but I'm not a fan of making your business from copying others' IP rather than making your own designs.

Re: scale, they're at opposite ends and neither is very realistic. The illustration has a tiny head and arms like tree trunks; the model is chunky like most of GW's stuff, with giant head and hands/weapons. Unless heinously expensive, I'd like to pick one up, though I'll probably trim his head down a little so it doesn't look like a space marine is trying to fit into his coat.

Looks great, but I will not be shelling out 30-40 US for a single model as is the current GW trend.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
There is already a really nice third-party version available, and likely for a lot less - but it is nice they're paying some lip service to the guy.

That's nice, I prefer to buy the version from the company that actually owns the IP they're using - and also the model that actually fits in with the GW aesthetic.

+1. I'm no hard-line GW loyalist, but I'm not a fan of making your business from copying others' IP rather than making your own designs.

Re: scale, they're at opposite ends and neither is very realistic. The illustration has a tiny head and arms like tree trunks; the model is chunky like most of GW's stuff, with giant head and hands/weapons. Unless heinously expensive, I'd like to pick one up, though I'll probably trim his head down a little so it doesn't look like a space marine is trying to fit into his coat.

I take it then that you have never purchased a Necron, Genestealers, the new sly marbo or bought the Ciaphis Cain book.Gaunts a bit shaky in places as well, The AoS new planes have an air of familiarity as well, also steam punk dwarfs ring a bell as well.

Anyway I am trying to say people in giant glass mentions should not chuck stones.

As a more on topic aside The New GW Gideon and he blood raven chapter master only exist so that GW can legally chase Artel so you should thank them really.

I'm not saying I disagree with responding to concepts or even making overt references to them. I don't like derivative work, and if something's obviously derivative without proper acknowledgement of it then yes, I actually do consider that a mark against it. It takes something particularly insightful for me to consider anything like fan art for sale anything other than a shallow cash grab.

There's also a difference between being derivative and just blatantly cashing in on someone else's IP. I don't particularly like GW as a company, but I do respect their right and desire to protect their IP because once you start questioning the merit of something in its protection, you get into dangerously subjective arguments.

Homage and inspiration aren't the same thing as IP theft.

The illustration has some ludicrous proportions and the miniature looks more realistic to me, if anything. It's a cool mini but I've never even read an Eisenhorn book so doubt I'll shell out. Cool for those that are fans though.

 Haighus wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
That is a lovely model. Just a pity it is resin not plastic, would've been great for conversions in plastic.

Why so? Is resin all of a sudden difficult to work with?

It is definitely more annoying and requires more work to make stable joins than plastic. Also often far more brittle and fragile. I vastly prefer plastic when it is high quality. I've only come across a very few resins that were relatively easy to work with, Anvil Industry in particular. Vic minis is decent.

Well, the best resin for conversions - for me - was the old FineCast. Far better than plastic, just like some kind of rubber you could easily work with a scalpel - I scratched out a whole head out of a model and replaced it with another (uhm... a servo-skull) without ruining the hairdress. Had it's drawbacks though (long and thin parts) and the quality control was awful.

 Dryaktylus wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
That is a lovely model. Just a pity it is resin not plastic, would've been great for conversions in plastic.

Why so? Is resin all of a sudden difficult to work with?

It is definitely more annoying and requires more work to make stable joins than plastic. Also often far more brittle and fragile. I vastly prefer plastic when it is high quality. I've only come across a very few resins that were relatively easy to work with, Anvil Industry in particular. Vic minis is decent.

Well, the best resin for conversions - for me - was the old FineCast. Far better than plastic, just like some kind of rubber you could easily work with a scalpel - I scratched out a whole head out of a model and replaced it with another (uhm... a servo-skull) without ruining the hairdress. Had it's drawbacks though (long and thin parts) and the quality control was awful.

That is fair, the softness was useful in this regard. I think I tend to find resin too soft and fragile/bendy, or too hard to work with, and often brittle. The sweetspot seems to be hard for companies to hit.

 Irbis wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
Lovely sculpt, digging that he has a proper compact bolt pistol as in the novel.

But no trigger discipline

From art in a day when that was trigger discipline! Well, maybe not that far back......
I'm excited by this one. Love some of the inquisition miniatures. Hope to pick this one up two. Now just need a plastic gun cutter....

That is an awesome model, but it's a shame what it'll be inevitably priced at.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
That is an awesome model, but it's a shame what it'll be inevitably priced at.

$35 for a model in, probably, a presentation box with the rules included(the rules included part is 100% confirmed)?

I mean sure, it could be cheaper--but it's not that bad for what is effectively a limited edition model.

 EnTyme wrote:
Homage and inspiration aren't the same thing as IP theft.

And most people don't have a scooby what actually constitutes IP theft. Hint - 99% of "third party ripoffs" do not qualify.

Well, there are legal and moral answers to that question, which aren't always the same.

I’m just glad Gw is finally releasing an Ordo xenos inquisitor.
Cortez is ordo malleus
Greyfax is ordo heretic (as well as Karamazov)
there was no xenos inquisitor (outside Solomon lok from fw)

So I’m interested in what his aura would be

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Well, there are legal and moral answers to that question, which aren't always the same.

Yes, the moral answer is even more permissive than the legal one, since the legal one has been distorted by almost a century of lobbying and marketing by self-interested corporations. Seriously I think one of the most interesting time travel scenarios I can think of would be to take a modern "angry artist" back to speak to the folk who came up with the concept of protecting artistic works, I don't know which would be more disgusted by the other

The Eisenhorn miniature is actually more like 7 heads tall, at least when you measure one of the two leaked photos in this thread. The other photo makes the head look bigger, but that's likely due to the camera angle and other optics.

Guys do you remember the old days when GW copied someone others property before it was cool ? Think about some of the robots in their range that look like Battletech stuff or Robotech (Slocombe's Warbots limited Release)...they had to take it down but sold these until they get problems...think about some never released Star Wars Storm Troopers or others... Please dont judge theThird Party guys sometime they are the better creators...

The Star Wars stormtroopers weren't rip-offs. They were test pieces when they were considering applying for the licence to make official Star Wars miniatures.

Anyway, your logic is flawed; just because GW used to do it doesn't make it OK for someone else to do it now.

If I'm being honest, I'll pick this up as an homage to the books, and to celebrate the new one.

Abnett brought the Inquisition to life in a way that no other author has.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Anyway, your logic is flawed; just because GW used to do it doesn't make it OK for someone else to do it now.

Yep. The big boy doing something bad doesn't justify it, and if you do it back to him, that doesn't make your action right, either.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Anyway, your logic is flawed; just because GW used to do it doesn't make it OK for someone else to do it now.

Yep. The big boy doing something bad doesn't justify it, and if you do it back to him, that doesn't make your action right, either.

Except, as established, it's almost all entirely legal, and even most of the technicalities beyond that aren't "bad" unless you're operating to a warped perception of what IP law should be based almost entirely on the lobbying efforts of Disney and corporate industry groups. Yes, even most of what GW used to get up to, while often painfully unoriginal, was not actually some monstrous affront to the gods of creativity.

Look, I totally get that modern IP law is largely founded on abusive consolidation of power, but that doesn't stop there being an ethical problem with stealing people's gak. As someone who makes a living off of my creative work, y'know what? It sucks when I've occasionally had people steal stuff I've done, and it doesn't matter when it's not even actually hurting me: they took something of mine, without permission, for nothing other than their profit. It's not an abstract thing that only happens to faceless monolithic companies.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Look, I totally get that modern IP law is largely founded on abusive consolidation of power, but that doesn't stop there being an ethical problem with stealing people's gak. As someone who makes a living off of my creative work, y'know what? It sucks when I've occasionally had people steal stuff I've done, and it doesn't matter when it's not even actually hurting me: they took something of mine, without permission, for nothing other than their profit. It's not an abstract thing that only happens to faceless monolithic companies.

You evidently don't get my point, since the first thing you do after saying so is deploy terms like "stealing" to describe activity that has only been come to be thought of as such by some exactly because of the deliberate Overton Window-shifting work of faceless monolithic companies. As I said, taking a modern "creative" back to speak to the people who originated the idea of IP would be hilarious, your mindset would be utterly alien to them, because they recognised that human creativity is fundamentally an iterative process and legal protection for "intellectual" property was a necessity driven by the need to give their labour value under capitalism that should be as minimal as possible.

We're not talking about recasting, or printing shared PDFs of GW's publications to sell, or otherwise bootlegging GW's actual products. We're talking about people drawing on artworks or descriptions in novels(which themselves often draw heavily on prior imagery both in terms of material that's entered into the commons and in terms of homages to other established IPs that absolutely have not) to inform their own creative endeavours in a different medium. If IP law had remained free of corporate interference, it's likely that huge swathes of GW's intellectual "property" would already have transitioned into the public domain(and in fact there's a solid argument to be made that much of it is already free for others to use, given much of their work should really be considered under Design Rights rather than Copy Right law, it's just that nobody has had the money and motivation to take them to court in the UK to prove it). Just as huge swathes of the material GW themselves drew from when creating their settings would be.

People keep saying that comparing the two isn't valid because "two wrongs don't make a right", but the argument being made is neither of them is wrong, one of them is just hypocritical.

Redacted by order of the Inquisition

=][=

 Yodhrin wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Well, there are legal and moral answers to that question, which aren't always the same.

Yes, the moral answer is even more permissive than the legal one, since the legal one has been distorted by almost a century of lobbying and marketing by self-interested corporations. Seriously I think one of the most interesting time travel scenarios I can think of would be to take a modern "angry artist" back to speak to the folk who came up with the concept of protecting artistic works, I don't know which would be more disgusted by the other

Exactly

Most people who talk about IP infringement or similar concepts simply don't know the history behind it, and how much it's a violation of a lot of cultural practices (for example, in confucianism, copying someone art is a form of respect, not theft)

 Yodhrin wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Look, I totally get that modern IP law is largely founded on abusive consolidation of power, but that doesn't stop there being an ethical problem with stealing people's gak. As someone who makes a living off of my creative work, y'know what? It sucks when I've occasionally had people steal stuff I've done, and it doesn't matter when it's not even actually hurting me: they took something of mine, without permission, for nothing other than their profit. It's not an abstract thing that only happens to faceless monolithic companies.

You evidently don't get my point, since the first thing you do after saying so is deploy terms like "stealing" to describe activity that has only been come to be thought of as such by some exactly because of the deliberate Overton Window-shifting work of faceless monolithic companies. As I said, taking a modern "creative" back to speak to the people who originated the idea of IP would be hilarious, your mindset would be utterly alien to them, because they recognised that human creativity is fundamentally an iterative process and legal protection for "intellectual" property was a necessity driven by the need to give their labour value under capitalism that should be as minimal as possible.

We're not talking about recasting, or printing shared PDFs of GW's publications to sell, or otherwise bootlegging GW's actual products. We're talking about people drawing on artworks or descriptions in novels(which themselves often draw heavily on prior imagery both in terms of material that's entered into the commons and in terms of homages to other established IPs that absolutely have not) to inform their own creative endeavours in a different medium. If IP law had remained free of corporate interference, it's likely that huge swathes of GW's intellectual "property" would already have transitioned into the public domain(and in fact there's a solid argument to be made that much of it is already free for others to use, given much of their work should really be considered under Design Rights rather than Copy Right law, it's just that nobody has had the money and motivation to take them to court in the UK to prove it). Just as huge swathes of the material GW themselves drew from when creating their settings would be.

People keep saying that comparing the two isn't valid because "two wrongs don't make a right", but the argument being made is neither of them is wrong, one of them is just hypocritical.

I totally agree with everything you’ve said and yet, I’d still rather buy from GW than any third party company. It’s not a choice based on any supposed moral or dubious legal standpoint. I’d just rather support the artists who created 40k for me to enjoy, so that they can continue to do so.

Nor do I blame GW, or any other company for that matter, for using the law as it stands to protect their business. If people don’t like that, they should lobby for the law to be changed, rather than blaming companies from using the structures provided by law to help businesses protect their creations.

When it comes down to it, I just don’t see GW as the faceless mega corporation that some people want to portray them as. In the grand scheme of things, they’re still a small company of artists and creators, who love what they do. The new management is doing a great job of reminding us of that.

from adeptus astartes on facebook

Ha, I like those rules.