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.

silent25 wrote:...
There are far more impressive lines with female figs. Malifaux and Infinity spring to mind right away. McVey's line as well. Though in PP's defense, they are improving and they have some nice non-character females.

Though I will agree with Buzzsaw. GW is unfortunately very male centric in it's fiction. How many major female characters are there that aren't fem fatals?

In PP fiction they are main characters driving the world. In GW fiction, they are skinned and worn as hats by Grey Knights

NAVARRO wrote:As I said both companies have a steady ratio of hit and miss figs... as for girls sculpts PP has a little edge there but not by much, at least they have plenty of girls on their factions that dont look like drags... but neither both companies come close to the sexyness girls of Hasslefree, freebooter and infinity chicks... speaking of freebooters some of the gals on PP are sculpted by them.

PP does have more females on their ranges than GW...

There are two sort-of related issues here: first, the quality of the sculpts in the lines, and second, the existence, or, perhaps better, the impact of females in their respective settings.

The quality of the sculpts is very variable on a per figure level, and, as has been pointed out, neither GW nor PP are at the highest end of producing sculpts for such things. Between Reaper, Kingdom Death, Bombshell, and other smaller makers there is an explosion of figures out there, many of higher quality then GW (although as noted, recent PP sculpts are showing marked improvement).

The second point is more the thrust of what I think is most important. Anyone can (in an informal setting) substitute a Raging Heroes Commissar for a stock, or a sci-fi armored trooper woman for an inquisitor lord, or a steampunk figure for a warcaster. But in PP's games, you don't need to. You don't have to invent female characters or indulge in long, convoluted explanations for why a woman appears in a particular army, because it's simply presupposed that there will be women in any given army. As Silent points out, in PP's Iron Kingdoms setting, women are driving the setting forward alongside the men (and genderless abominations, etc), their impact on the story subject only to the usual restrictions of the genre.

The difference there is that when you do that with most GW armies, you're ignoring the background and story; inserting a woman into a setting where the authors have consciously and deliberately excluded women.

silent25 wrote:Navarro, don't disagree with you and wasn't saying that there weren't any good female figures in PP line, let alone no good paint-jobs. But to get dismissive that painting can't contribute to decision is wrong. There are plenty of figs from both lines they looked average, but were improved by a paint job outside the studio. It's almost a given that GW stuido paint jobs don't help sell a fig and even hurt them in more recent cases (plastic Savage Orcs for starters). ShumaGorath can't seem to accept that that a PP fig is average and on par with a GW fig.

I honestly don't understand what you are saying here. As I interpret it, you're saying that seeing a model with a good studio paint job makes the figure a better model then one that is shown with a poor paint job... which I don't understand, as you won't end up buying a figure that's painted, but one that is bare metal/resin/etc.

To be honest, it would seem rather the opposite: a figure, such as, for the sake of argument, Celestine, that has a large expanse of flat cloak, provides a canvas for an expert painter to show off their freehand skills. For a painter of my skill, however, it's a negative, as large, blank stretches of fabric are one of the most boring and most difficult things to make look good at my skill level.

Put another way, a model with an amazing paint job is a singular work of art. It does not seem to me to translate to making the medium on which it is placed any better then a gorgeous painting on one canvas makes an identical but blank canvas better.

Which I disagree.

If no one is doing it it's not a thing. You're making a bs absolutist point to support his bs shifting sands argument. You might as well say that paint can be laced with LSD which would "improve the sculpt". It's dumb.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Which I disagree.

If no one is doing it it's not a thing. You're making a bs absolutist point to support his bs shifting sands argument. You might as well say that paint can be laced with LSD which would "improve the sculpt". It's dumb.

Actually everyone that paints a mini is doing it to a certain degree... If you paint cloth with texture, freehands to simulate volumes, highlights,shadows on just parts of the mini etc etc you are doing it...As for the rest of your so polite speech Background noise.

 NAVARRO wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Which I disagree.

If no one is doing it it's not a thing. You're making a bs absolutist point to support his bs shifting sands argument. You might as well say that paint can be laced with LSD which would "improve the sculpt". It's dumb.

Actually everyone that paints a mini is doing it to a certain degree... If you paint cloth with texture, freehands to simulate volumes, highlights,shadows on just parts of the mini etc etc you are doing it...As for the rest of your so polite speech Background noise.

Which doesn't have gak to do with the sculpt itself. You can paint a nice, 3d looking, picture on a piece of canvas. It doesn't make the canvas a different shape.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Which I disagree.

If no one is doing it it's not a thing. You're making a bs absolutist point to support his bs shifting sands argument. You might as well say that paint can be laced with LSD which would "improve the sculpt". It's dumb.

Actually everyone that paints a mini is doing it to a certain degree... If you paint cloth with texture, freehands to simulate volumes, highlights,shadows on just parts of the mini etc etc you are doing it...As for the rest of your so polite speech Background noise.

Which doesn't have gak to do with the sculpt itself. You can paint a nice, 3d looking, picture on a piece of canvas. It doesn't make the canvas a different shape.

But your perception of the shape itself differs... and thats the point. But do you want to be picky? You can add textures to your paints on a canvas and on a mini, pigments etc... so yes it changes the final shape...

 NAVARRO wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Which I disagree.

If no one is doing it it's not a thing. You're making a bs absolutist point to support his bs shifting sands argument. You might as well say that paint can be laced with LSD which would "improve the sculpt". It's dumb.

Actually everyone that paints a mini is doing it to a certain degree... If you paint cloth with texture, freehands to simulate volumes, highlights,shadows on just parts of the mini etc etc you are doing it...As for the rest of your so polite speech Background noise.

Which doesn't have gak to do with the sculpt itself. You can paint a nice, 3d looking, picture on a piece of canvas. It doesn't make the canvas a different shape.

But your perception of the shape itself differs... and thats the point. But do you want to be picky? You can add textures to your paints on a canvas and on a mini, pigments etc... so yes it changes the final shape...

It doesn't change the final shape, because the final shape is exactly the same. You can obscure bad parts of sculpts with good painting (the fact that people have done good looking Mantic skeletons attests to this), but when you ignore the paint and look at just the sculpt, a terrible sculpt is still there.

What you are doing is altering peoples perception of the sculpt - not improving the sculpt itself. And if someone looks past your painting, they'll see the flawed model. As for changing the final shape... what? No.

Example... a tank totally flat... you use masks to actually chip paint and some heavy mud migs pastes etc... is the final shape the same? But thats being picky... normal painting can create illusions and the thing is your perception of a sculpt does change and thats the point....

Someone talked canvas... when you look at a painted canvas do you for a second think on the canvas itself? Never right? thats the same thing with minis painted by experts.

 NAVARRO wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Which I disagree.

If no one is doing it it's not a thing. You're making a bs absolutist point to support his bs shifting sands argument. You might as well say that paint can be laced with LSD which would "improve the sculpt". It's dumb.

Actually everyone that paints a mini is doing it to a certain degree... If you paint cloth with texture, freehands to simulate volumes, highlights,shadows on just parts of the mini etc etc you are doing it...As for the rest of your so polite speech Background noise.

Which doesn't have gak to do with the sculpt itself. You can paint a nice, 3d looking, picture on a piece of canvas. It doesn't make the canvas a different shape.

But your perception of the shape itself differs... and thats the point. But do you want to be picky? You can add textures to your paints on a canvas and on a mini, pigments etc... so yes it changes the final shape...

I'm gonna repost something I said to silent, since apparently no one ever read it.

Paintjobs can't improve the sculpt on a model anymore than they can improve the sound from a radio. The totality of the presence of a thing is the sum of it's existence, it's individual traits don't improve upon another, that's not how it works.

And I could quote the rest of the posts after that... great thing hey?

And to end this line of arguments because they are a bit off topic...

Here's a simple flat canvas.... and how diferent techs DO change not only the appearance but also the final shape....

http://ultrawerke.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/rust-painting-tutorial-with-pigments.html

And I'm not even adding that these minis are presented to you in 2d in your PC screen so even a greater deal of manipulation can be used. But I will stop here.

Obviously for the most part paint is not a magic morph water but it changes your final perception of something and it can enhance or not your idea of the sculpt, canvas, brick wall etc Thats what paintings DO!

 NAVARRO wrote:
And I could quote the rest of the posts after that... great thing hey?

You probably should. Read them afterwords, you'll finally be caught up on this thread. You must not be, otherwise you wouldn't use my own argument to do something other than agree with me.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, This is something i keep seeing at my FLGS and sometimes here on the site:

Privateer Press vs. Games Workshop.

That is all.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

There are two sort-of related issues here: first, the quality of the sculpts in the lines, and second, the existence, or, perhaps better, the impact of females in their respective settings.

The quality of the sculpts is very variable on a per figure level, and, as has been pointed out, neither GW nor PP are at the highest end of producing sculpts for such things. Between Reaper, Kingdom Death, Bombshell, and other smaller makers there is an explosion of figures out there, many of higher quality then GW (although as noted, recent PP sculpts are showing marked improvement).

This whole argument was in response to ShumaGorath saying that the Celestine has a mannish face. Which it doesn't. Point I'm try to make that there are paint jobs out there that are better than the official GW which shows it has a decent face. If it is such a horrible fig as he insists, then why do so many professional painters use this particular fig and show it in a positive light? He continues to insist it is a bad fig. I say it is on par with the Epic Haley and both are only average.

To say the paint job does not factor into figure quality is wrong. A bad paint job can obscure and hide details, or worse leave a figure looking bland. There are plenty of times I did not see certain small details on a fig till after the paint went down. If painting didn't matter all the miniature sellers would only show unpainted resin/plastic/metal and not bother hiring skilled painters to show their figs in the best light. Yes a great paint job can only help a bad fig so much, but a bad paint job can ruin the best figs and given we base our initial opinions of figs on the official paint jobs companies release. I say it is valid. I have seen way too many figs dismissed because of the "official" paint job, only to turn out it is a great fig after some other painters get their hands on it.

I think GW does itself a disservice with the minimal paint by the number approach they have adopted recently. Though I'm more disturbed with the 3D paints Wyrd and Spartan have started doing. It's one thing to realize that a great looking fig was done by someone of far higher skill than you, it is another to realize that the great looking paint job you see doesn't actually exist.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

The second point is more the thrust of what I think is most important. Anyone can (in an informal setting) substitute a Raging Heroes Commissar for a stock, or a sci-fi armored trooper woman for an inquisitor lord, or a steampunk figure for a warcaster. But in PP's games, you don't need to. You don't have to invent female characters or indulge in long, convoluted explanations for why a woman appears in a particular army, because it's simply presupposed that there will be women in any given army. As Silent points out, in PP's Iron Kingdoms setting, women are driving the setting forward alongside the men (and genderless abominations, etc), their impact on the story subject only to the usual restrictions of the genre.

The difference there is that when you do that with most GW armies, you're ignoring the background and story; inserting a woman into a setting where the authors have consciously and deliberately excluded women.

I think you are mixing a previous argument I had with figure substitutions in general. The argument had come forward that PP has put out better female models (the Epic Haley was used as an example, which I think is a poor figure to base the argument around). Navarro and I were arguing both companies put out good female figs, but both have put out poor female figs too.

But don't dismiss players that put in different figures to create personal/unique narratives. The GW armybooks has little fluff notes and history of other characters that they don't make figures/rules for and have encouraged players to take these stories as inspiration for unique armies. But that goes back to the whole conversions/alternate figure argument. I feel it is a part of the hobby that PP discourages in the name of gameplay. I think that is a detriment to the hobby, other feel it strengthens the game. If gameplay is your main concern, then obviously you don't want to have such things in a WMH game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
And I could quote the rest of the posts after that... great thing hey?

You probably should. Read them afterwords, you'll finally be caught up on this thread. You must not be, otherwise you wouldn't use my own argument to do something other than agree with me.

Says the man who spent two pages arguing with me because he thought I was someone else

This whole argument was in response to ShumaGorath saying that the Celestine has a mannish face.

I think my biggest issue with the sculpt is that each eyesocket is larger than her mouth. They're also set a bit too high due to their size, which makes her scalp and forehead disproportionately small. They also seep into the side of her head (again due to their size). They're creepy big. That doesn't really make her face mannish (that's more due to the nose and lack of definition in depth), but they're what kill the model for me.

 sourclams wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much.

What does that even mean?

Yeah, I'm with you. Unless lack of gratuitous skulls is the American aesthetic, there's just not enough thematic distinction between the two companies' lines to say 'EVERYTHING PP IS BAAAAAAD'.

Yes, even though it's it's subjective, the statement is just too broad to be true for someone who posts on a miniatures gaming forum. It's like me saying that there is nothing in the continent of South America that I would like to eat; surely *something* exists.

To answer both of you, I meant that nice roundness, that modern correct sf style, shouldn't have thrown entire USA in there instead of just Starcraft I guess. I used a wrong word maybe but it's something I see a lot in US movies, games, artwork etc nowadays, not that easy for me to name it btw. Also the comparision of 40k with Warmachine reminds me of the one of 40k with Starcraft, that's mainly why I made the generalisation -I guess I see it as an American too nice interpretation of "rule of cool", one that does not appeal to me.

Anyway bad wording, Warcraftish/ Starcraftish is better (still oversimplification though obviously)

Deadnight wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

I don't like Space Marines models too much. I own Tyranids and CSM Nurgle, also Orks as a joke and pure fun, some loyalist Black Templars too but it's hard not to have them when every starter is full of them. Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much. I also hate GW but for other reasons. They have the taste for sf I give them that even though they rip it all of and twist to fit their universe.

Not sure what you wanted to achieve with that comment, I made mine just after googling the entire Legion of Everblight to see if there's anything to use for my Tyranids but no luck, even that flying snake that seemed to look ok as a miniature pic turned out to have that Warcraftish/ Starcraftish look I can't stand. In fact I didn't want to cut on anyone taste but if you throw Ultramarine Kid bs at me then let me tell you that those Warmachine models look sensless and ridiculous to me just like the happy coloured artwork

I'm not criticising WM rules btw, there is a good chance that they are better than GWs own but there is no contest in models department, WM is a cheap copy imo and lack the grimdark treatment that makes 40k worthwhile. All subjecively ofc, this is just what I think.

I would like to comment on your post Plumbumbarum. And dont worry, im not having a go.

Sure my post was crossing the line of cuting on PP fans tastes, I shouldn't be suprised even if you actualy did have a go at me. Great of you and others to stay nice/ cultural btw.

Also that's much off topic but it's really hard to criticise something you dislike strongly without insulting peoples tastes. Today I had this conversation about a much known celebrity guy who I considered a complete tool, a sleazy and narcistic boor without a backbone who is considered a great laid back guy by my friends. It ended bad with them all feeling accused of being sleazy themselves and unable to recognise good culture etc. Maybe I'm just too wordy.

Deadnight wrote:
Essentially you dislike the aesthetics. Fair enough. each to their own. I find that when someone says they dont play PP games, one of the most common reasons is they dont like "the look". And i wonder about that. A good mate of mine made the point to me once, and its something that has been reinforced the more i talk to more gamers - how much of a dislike of the "look" of PP games (or other companies, by the way) comes from an overexposure to, and an exclusive overexposure to GW games? My mate made the point that before he got into WM years ago, he couldnt stand the PP models. he thought there was something "wrong" with them. And the more he thought about it, the more he realised that it wasnt necessarily the look that was wrong, it was his perception that was simply skewed. When "the norm" is GW, with skulls and power armour (and big shoulders too!) it can be hard to accept different models on their own merit. Sometimes i think the best thing i've ever done as a gamer is to get out from under the exclusive GW umbrella. And we've both done it. we've both invested in alternative companies (mantic, wyrd, corvus beli, privateer press, anima tactics, bushido etc), alternative worlds and visions and to me, the GW "look" is no better, or worse than the PP one. actually, i find the GW look to be a bit "cartoony" these days too, but then i hold Corvus Beli minis to be the best in the industry.

Not in my case for sure, I know my taste. I'll give you example from video games - I love Dead Space, I dislike Mass Effect. It's not only about models, it's about the mood, artwork etc - 40k sucks me in within seconds, WM artwork, mood or models don't.

Deadnight wrote:
Plumumbarum, i would ask you one thing. Where do you come from with regard to wargaming? Up until now, have you been as above - an exclusive GW customer. Or do you play other games? Im genuinely curious, and im not trying to bait, trap or trip you up. Also, regardless of the dislike of the models - go play the game.i would heartily recommend it. Also, strangely enough, the PP "look" grows on you. PP are infamous for lousy quality photographs. I'll give you 2 examples - epic krueger and epic kaya. look online and the models look boring and blase. look at them in the flesh and they feel a lot nicer, feel more dynamic and leap out at you more.

I play only 40k TT but have played numerous P&P RPGs for years, also boardgames, video games, ccgs,the old nerd some might say and I can instantly say what I like and what I don't. I'm not denying the fact that WM world could grow on me, but it would never grow enough on me to buy miniatures. It's similar to how I can try Starcraft and maybe even like the game itself but I can say now I won't be researching it further and the artwork and style is off putting to me. 40k is the only universe and game combined that can make me spend such a money on it, you would need a very close copy with some really big adventage (like rules that are actualy good ) to make me switch.

I admit the shark guy from Legion of Everblight is almost apealing, still not there for me though and still way behind a Carnifex, or Tyrant, or any modern Tyranid model basicaly.

Deadnight wrote:
ALso, i would comment on grimdark. A bit is good, but recently (in the last few years) GW have been ramping up the skull count on literally everything. grimdark can be taken overboard. Also, i feel its nice to have an alternative "world view". please dont hold the iron kingdoms universe to be one of happy coloured artwork. it is quite a grim place. I'd recommend reading up on it - check to see if you can find the Iron Kingdom RPG pdf's online. they really bring the wrodl to life, in all its gritty realism. gritty is as good an alternative as grimdark, if you ask me. just like you can play strategy games and FPSs.

There is another thing, if I was done with 40k, I would probably never go through a hassle of researching a new vast fluff of a wargame. 40k already occupies too much place in my head. I can read a novel but that's it really, I'm out tbh as far as new universes go unless it's something that makes darkest 40k and cthulhu mythos seem likea fairy tale. That said I'm not suggesting you're not right or that it's not a good alternative in general, it's just not for me.

Deadnight wrote:
also, regarding the shoulderpads, the top heavy design makes sense when you realise these troops are designed to fight warjacks, which generally fight using overhanded blows. just like mantic dwarves have most of their armour on their heads and shoulders, the same principle applies to vlad and his iron fangs. and who needs peripheral vision! khador only goes forward!

I don't have the issue with shoulder pads, 40k had them as well.

To sum it up, it's not my thing. Also here's my earlier post where I mention "bad parody of 40k" element to PP models and although badly worded, I feel something like that from their models. It's like they were on the early stage of combining all those motives together and the effect is, I don't know, incoherent I guess. Maybe that's about trying to look like 40k and the same time differentiate from 40k.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Gnawer wrote:
Tactical flexibility is also not great.

That's what I would say about 40k. Tactical flexibility should be their priority and with 100+ pages of rules, possibilities should be plenty and a game should be a tacitian wet dream. It's not, it's mediocore ruleset especialy looking at prices.

40k is also going downhill imo, as highlighted by cheesy necrons and It seems to be leaving grimdark for fantasy/ herohammer and caters to kids more than ever, GW seems unaware of the fact that it's gritty, grimdark that is the greatest feat of their game. Rules of 6th are not exactly promising either, if the trends continue, I'm out just am waiting to see if maybe they change direction. For the moment I'm only buying used stuff, some of their paints, bought a starter lately but that's it, it will take a few good codices or faqs to make me buy from them again.

Btw there was dark age of comic books mentioned, yes exactly dark is better and the new tone of those stories was catering to adults where the previous ones were purely for kids. Blood, slaughter, hopelessness, facism, coruption, fanatism, untold billions dying, terror, all great and makes 40k stand above the rest for me. Mixing that with awesome things stolen from everywhere around, through blatant IP theft and OTT grimdark treatment GW created something great, imo. That instead of going further in that direction they ruin it is another topic, for me it's still acceptable but their fear of bleeding some money for the sake of awesome is going to bury the game sooner or later.

That said, as much as I hate GW, for me it's 40k or nothing. It's exactly what I want, fluff, scale or game type wise. If Gw pisses me off too much, I'll be done with wargaming and just stick to PC games. Or maybe I'll just write my own rules for home play, or settle with a set of rules codieces and organise a game from time to time.

As for Warmachine, the models, fluff and the mood instantly put me off. I'm not competing for player base or some other crap, this is purely my impression. The artwork has those American style curves, that nice roundness and happy colors that I can't stand, also it looks like a bad parody of 40k imo. Some of my friends like that "modern American comic book" look but I hate it, I can't look at Starcraft artwork for example without seeing that cheap "coolness" or sth, I don't even know how to call it. The final straw is the lack of grimdark. My opinion and my taste obviously, I have nothing against the players or the game, if 40k runs out of players that will be GW fault not people playing other games or switching because they can't put up with the crap anymore.

TLDR: Grimdark FTW

Again, I don't want to invalidate things you enjoy people, I know a guy that laughs each time he sees anything 40k so that goes both ways I guess, taste and all. What I wanted to point out is that 40k is very much suited to me and for me PP as a competition might as well not exist. Good they are around for the sake of dragging GW down to earth but that's it, no way I switch.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

This whole argument was in response to ShumaGorath saying that the Celestine has a mannish face.

I think my biggest issue with the sculpt is that each eyesocket is larger than her mouth. They're also set a bit too high due to their size, which makes her scalp and forehead disproportionately small. They also seep into the side of her head (again due to their size). They're creepy big. That doesn't really make her face mannish (that's more due to the nose and lack of definition in depth), but they're what kill the model for me.

Agree the eyes are large than normal, though that is not uncommon in some figs. Freebooter figs all have these wide eyes, but obviously done better. Still don't think the face is mannish due to nose and depth. But again, wasn't arguing the was a great fig. Just average.

You want mannish, the High Elf Mage, now that is mannish:

 BrookM wrote:
Gentlemen, I am comparing starter books: IKRPG and Dark Heresy, not comparing ranges of sourcebooks and whatnots. I should've probably been clearer in this. Dark Heresy had quite a bestiary and quite a starting adventure in the main book, the IKRPG book doesn't.

Just to pick up on this, there's an intro IKRPG adventure free on the PP website: http://files.privateerpress.com/ironkingdoms/documents/adventures/IKRPG_Scenario_Fools_Rush_In.pdf

There's also an expanded bestiary here as well.

Everytime I consider PP I go to the page and start looking at the models and very, very few do anything for me. And because I have no interest in the aesthetics I doubt I'll ever have much interest in the game itself.

If an aesthetic is cool I'll pick up a few miniatures and then might play the game. Dystopian Wars is a good example of this. So is Dropzone Commander, the new Sedition Wars stuff, and the new Dream-Forge stuff. But I can't enjoy the look I'm not going to go thru the effort to paint them at this point which takes some of the fun out.

That said I can see why it appeals to some and good on them. I'm glad there are enough games out there for everyone.

 Spyder68 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Even if I spent 1/10 of the money on PP that I spent on 40k, that money would be wasted because I have yet to see a single PP model that appeals to me aestheticaly. Simple.

Then you simply hate every model that isn't a Space Marine.

???

I don't like Space Marines models too much. I own Tyranids and CSM Nurgle, also Orks as a joke and pure fun, some loyalist Black Templars too but it's hard not to have them when every starter is full of them. Anyway PP models just have those Americanised aesthetics I hate so much. I also hate GW but for other reasons. They have the taste for sf I give them that even though they rip it all of and twist to fit their universe.

Not sure what you wanted to achieve with that comment, I made mine just after googling the entire Legion of Everblight to see if there's anything to use for my Tyranids but no luck, even that flying snake that seemed to look ok as a miniature pic turned out to have that Warcraftish/ Starcraftish look I can't stand. In fact I didn't want to cut on anyone taste but if you throw Ultramarine Kid bs at me then let me tell you that those Warmachine models look sensless and ridiculous to me just like the happy coloured artwork

I'm not criticising WM rules btw, there is a good chance that they are better than GWs own but there is no contest in models department, WM is a cheap copy imo and lack the grimdark treatment that makes 40k worthwhile. All subjecively ofc, this is just what I think.

Its hard to base an assumption of a model range off of 1 factions models

btw, check Page 8 of the thread below then tell me you dont like any of the Legion models.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/453008.page

I don't, tbh. The big winged wolfish guy is not ultra bad but there still is something wrong with him, he just doesn't fit together to me. It looks like many awesome ideas glued together to make a creature that just doesn't make much sense (in a bad way).

The one from opening post there is the closest to what I'd consider a good model

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=53918

I still don't like the overall style but the idea is neat - a walking shark guy. I could picture it converted into a 40k daemon.

I don't, tbh. The big winged wolfish guy is not ultra bad but there still is something wrong with him, he just doesn't fit together to me. It looks like many awesome ideas glued together to make a creature that just doesn't make much sense (in a bad way).

That is my exact sentiment towards about half of all GW models, especially the majority of imperial vehicles. It's like they just throw gak into their designs without even a minimal level of design logic. Turrets with hatches that can't be used by the occupants, flyers that could never fly and would destroy themselves in the attempt, marines that can't turn their waists or use the giant iron sites on their guns, tau vehicles with jet intakes two feet from the exit hatch, A robot with a man piloting it in a little rollercoaster seat who is in terminator armor but still doesn't have a helmet, Carnifexes with no possible posing to prevent them from having their center of mass in front of the feet, etc.

In the end this is all just personal preference, but GW is not the company to be a fan of when you want consistent design logic.

But you can generally wave things away with 40k models because it's sci-fi. Can't do that as easily with steam punk

 Hulksmash wrote:
But you can generally wave things away with 40k models because it's sci-fi. Can't do that as easily with steam punk

I'm not sure why you would wave away scopes on flamers and tanks that couldn't drive over curbs in a sci fi setting, but you're not allowed to in a setting where the primary driving force for technology is actually magic. One of those is a bit more of a handwave than the other and one setting is demonstrably worse despite having less of an excuse.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I don't, tbh. The big winged wolfish guy is not ultra bad but there still is something wrong with him, he just doesn't fit together to me. It looks like many awesome ideas glued together to make a creature that just doesn't make much sense (in a bad way).

That is my exact sentiment towards about half of all GW models, especially the majority of imperial vehicles. It's like they just throw gak into their designs without even a minimal level of design logic. Turrets with hatches that can't be used by the occupants, flyers that could never fly and would destroy themselves in the attempt, marines that can't turn their waists or use the giant iron sites on their guns, tau vehicles with jet intakes two feet from the exit hatch, A robot with a man piloting it in a little rollercoaster seat who is in terminator armor but still doesn't have a helmet, Carnifexes with no possible posing to prevent them from having their center of mass in front of the feet, etc.

In the end this is all just personal preference, but GW is not the company to be a fan of when you want consistent design logic.

I didn't mean practical or realistic. Vendetta is great, Imperial tanks are great, Carnifex is great etc, in 40k rule of cool>all and I'm fine with it. The PP big winged blinded werewolf is below mediocore not because he's out of balance, is imposible to breed or evolve, would have trouble moving his arms or sth but because it looks like a sensless creature after you apply the rule of cool so suspension of physics and logic. It is just not cool, makes no impression on me and is rather like a few different cool creatures badly merged into one. It is the inside logic of cool that is broken there, creating the uninspiring and characterless monster which is something that's hard to say about Carnifex.

btw I love many sensless creatures like for example the entire Lovecraftian pack of outworld horrors, they wouldn't make a lot of sense if confronted with science but they look menacing, evil and outworld.

I won't defend Tau though, they don't fit the mood with Crisis Suits and should be devoured or chopped to death asap imo

Vendetta is great,

The vendetta is one of the worst aircraft designs I had seen in my life up until when the stormraven came out.

Imperial tanks are great

In that way that the room is a great movie because of it's flaws, not despite them.

Carnifex is great etc

They take a lot of work to make look not dumb. It's doable, but it's hard.

in 40k rule of cool>all and I'm fine with it. The PP big winged blinded werewolf is below mediocore not because he's out of balance, is imposible to breed or evolve, would have trouble moving his arms or sth but because it looks like a sensless creature after you apply the rule of cool so suspension of physics and logic.

So your argument boils down to "I forgive the flaws of the things that I like because I like them, but the flaws in things I don't like are unforgiveable because I don't already like them."

That's kinda what it seemed from the beginning to be honest, it's just nice that you up and admit it.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
That is my exact sentiment towards about half of all GW models, especially the majority of imperial vehicles. It's like they just throw gak into their designs without even a minimal level of design logic. Turrets with hatches that can't be used by the occupants,

You seriously can't level that complaint at GW without levelling it at PP as well. Like the shoulder guns on the Stormwall. Want to complain about the turret of a Leman Russ not being able to fit the breach? Those shoulder guns are just as ridiculous. How about the shoulder guns on the Behemoth?Or the Destroyers arm mounted gun? Cannons that big can't just have a clip thrown on a barrel and call it a day. Those are on the same level as the Leman Russ turret in terms of stupid design.

 -Loki- wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
That is my exact sentiment towards about half of all GW models, especially the majority of imperial vehicles. It's like they just throw gak into their designs without even a minimal level of design logic. Turrets with hatches that can't be used by the occupants,

You seriously can't level that complaint at GW without levelling it at PP as well. Like the shoulder guns on the Stormwall. Want to complain about the turret of a Leman Russ not being able to fit the breach? Those shoulder guns are just as ridiculous. How about the shoulder guns on the Behemoth?Or the Destroyers arm mounted gun? Cannons that big can't just have a clip thrown on a barrel and call it a day. Those are on the same level as the Leman Russ turret in terms of stupid design.

Which is why I wasn't the first to bring it up in the thread. PP has chosen a cartoony aesthetic with it's models. It's a low fantasy steampunk setting. This is a conscious choice they've made. It has much more in common with warhammer fantasy than it does 40k. 40k has the pretense of being a "visually" realistic and gritty science fiction setting where cartoony proportions and a lack of design logic is much less forgiveable. Rule of cool is neat and all, but leman russ turrets and the placement of carnifex legs isn't cool, It's dumb, and it's not paid forward by their chosen artistic style.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
The PP big winged blinded werewolf is below mediocore not because he's out of balance, is imposible to breed or evolve, would have trouble moving his arms or sth but because it looks like a sensless creature after you apply the rule of cool so suspension of physics and logic.

It's not a werewolf, it's a dragonspawn.

It does not need to breed, it is spawned. It does not need to evolve, evolution happens like Tyranids, the next batch has improvements. As for senseless, I can't remember how they explain it, but they see without using eyes.

Mattman154 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
The PP big winged blinded werewolf is below mediocore not because he's out of balance, is imposible to breed or evolve, would have trouble moving his arms or sth but because it looks like a sensless creature after you apply the rule of cool so suspension of physics and logic.

It's not a werewolf, it's a dragonspawn.

It does not need to breed, it is spawned. It does not need to evolve, evolution happens like Tyranids, the next batch has improvements. As for senseless, I can't remember how they explain it, but they see without using eyes.

It sees via it's magical dragonblight, which is an aura that it creates all around itself. Dragonblight is the settings "The warp" when it comes to mutation and evil magic.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

I don't, tbh. The big winged wolfish guy is not ultra bad but there still is something wrong with him, he just doesn't fit together to me. It looks like many awesome ideas glued together to make a creature that just doesn't make much sense (in a bad way).

That is my exact sentiment towards about half of all GW models, especially the majority of imperial vehicles. It's like they just throw gak into their designs without even a minimal level of design logic. Turrets with hatches that can't be used by the occupants, flyers that could never fly and would destroy themselves in the attempt, marines that can't turn their waists or use the giant iron sites on their guns, tau vehicles with jet intakes two feet from the exit hatch, A robot with a man piloting it in a little rollercoaster seat who is in terminator armor but still doesn't have a helmet, Carnifexes with no possible posing to prevent them from having their center of mass in front of the feet, etc.

In the end this is all just personal preference, but GW is not the company to be a fan of when you want consistent design logic.

I didn't mean practical or realistic. Vendetta is great, Imperial tanks are great, Carnifex is great etc, in 40k rule of cool>all and I'm fine with it. The PP big winged blinded werewolf is below mediocore not because he's out of balance, is imposible to breed or evolve, would have trouble moving his arms or sth but because it looks like a sensless creature after you apply the rule of cool so suspension of physics and logic. It is just not cool, makes no impression on me and is rather like a few different cool creatures badly merged into one. It is the inside logic of cool that is broken there, creating the uninspiring and characterless monster which is something that's hard to say about Carnifex.

btw I love many sensless creatures like for example the entire Lovecraftian pack of outworld horrors, they wouldn't make a lot of sense if confronted with science but they look menacing, evil and outworld.

I won't defend Tau though, they don't fit the mood with Crisis Suits and should be devoured or chopped to death asap imo

Can you explain how a Vendetta, Leman Russ, and Carnifex are great? I own all three of these models, and my Russ looks bulky and and like a juice box with an extra large straw. My Carnifex model was converted so it was standing up taller, because I'm not intimidated by anything hunched over, and this includes old people, and bell ringers in France... I'm glad you are giving enough effort to tell people why you dislike a model without knowing anything about the aesthetic of the range. Your "shark guy" that you would convert into a 40k daemon is from the same army. Both are eyeless beasts, so saying you like the Carnivean but not the Archangel doesn't make sense. Both of them take advantage of the same artistic styles, and in the game world are created the exact same way.

Please explain how his arms would not be able to move? His wings are far enough on the back to not interfere with the movement of its arms. The uninspiring and characterless model, do you see how imposing that thing is? The height of the model, the command of it as it perches on the small mountain? Give me a stock carnifex that has even an ounce of the same character and I'll stop right now and start playing games workshop games again.

I realize that not everyone has the same tastes in models, but to say that the archangel is characterless is ignoring the talent that went into sculpting it. It's certainly no Razorboar or that Sister model with a case of man face.

New tangent

PP has better cosplayers!






PS- If any of you are in these pics, they all look pretty well done.