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.

Again though, who cares if it's CAD or not?

I remember how pleased I was a few years back when I bought the new space hulk, great models. All CAD apparently, they won me over with those blood angel termies, absolutely beautiful.

Embrace change! I think almost all those "too smooth" models on the photo are great!

I agree that the chariot is a bit garish but... They can't all be winner's eh?

I think "It's CAD therefore it's terrible" makes about as much sense as the "He uses press-moulds? Oh that's terrible!" stigma that is an equally nonsense criticism.

I don't think the issue is simply that it's CAD, it's that it's just badly sculpted regardless. I'll embrace good CAD designs, but I don't like bad ones, and personally I think GW is putting out more bad than good. At least when it comes to the larger kits anyway.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think "It's CAD therefore it's terrible" makes about as much sense as the "He uses press-moulds? Oh that's terrible!" stigma that is an equally nonsense criticism.

Yeah sounds about right, it's like hipsters who say an album sounds better on a certain guitar, but surely it's all about the bloke playing it?

There are some fantastic CAD models and some awful ones, and I suspect its got nothing to do with the process and everything to do with the end result.

Some are great, some suck. No sense blaming the computer.

 Sidstyler wrote:
At least when it comes to the larger kits anyway.

That's a good distinction actually.

I think their infantry kits are a cut above most others. The new Pathfinders are some of my fav Tau models in the range, and as much as I deride the One Hairstyle To Rule Them All nature of those new High Elf ladies, the kits itself is very good. Yet I dread their new "big base" releases. I always wonder what horrid monstrous thing they're going to make next. I can't imagine what the new Eldar giant Wraithlord is going to look like. Hopefully it'll be good, but looking at things like the Baby-Carrier makes me worried.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
At least when it comes to the larger kits anyway.

That's a good distinction actually.

I think their infantry kits are a cut above most others. The new Pathfinders are some of my fav Tau models in the range, and as much as I deride the One Hairstyle To Rule Them All nature of those new High Elf ladies, the kits itself is very good. Yet I dread their new "big base" releases. I always wonder what horrid monstrous thing they're going to make next. I can't imagine what the new Eldar giant Wraithlord is going to look like. Hopefully it'll be good, but looking at things like the Baby-Carrier makes me worried.

I was going to mention the flyers, I see it pretty much the same way, examples being loads of great chaos models, the chosen for example, and then a bloody awful flying dinobot?

I wonder if they deliberately go for a more childish look on the larger models because they are the ones young lads will notice across a crowded store?

The problem here is that most folks aren't saying that GW sculpts are CAD so they are bad - they are saying that GW sculpts are bad CAD sculpts.

That they would be bad regardless, and that they are the result of GW rushing the CAD process.

There is a pretty danged major difference.

Raging Heroes does CAD sculpts - and I like most of the Raging Heroes sculpts.

Mantic has some CAD Enforcers in the new Kickstarter - I am very much looking forward to seeing them in plastic.

GW does the Coral Crap Castle - and it would look like crap if it were sculpted out of platinum using diamond chisels - it just looks like crap.

You see the difference there?

Like any other method of sculpting taking shortcuts while working in CAD means cutting corners. Cutting corners in a sculpt means a bad sculpt. GW is cutting corners in its CAD sculpts. Therefore GW is making bad CAD sculpts.

As I mentioned above - the plastic starter sets were better than I expected for the elves, but right about where I expected for the Skaven. On the elves somebody took the time to make a decent sculpt. On the Skaven they cut corners.

Both were done using CAD. One is good, the other isn't. They come from the same danged box....

Capisce?

The Auld Grump

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
This looks horrendous?

Like I said, sculpted flames look terrible UNLESS you do good OSL which 99.9% of people can't do. That paintjob looks pretty good, but the 999 other people who paint sculpted flames will end up with something that looks terrible.

The bigger the flames, the worse it looks IMO. A small torch, yeah, whatever, when half the model is covered in flames like that chariot, yeah, it looks horrendous unless you are a god with OSL.

It was a response to this great response:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
that fire looks like they just stick one of their trees in its mouth

The whole idea of sculpting fire is pretty stupid to me. The only way it can look good is with good OSL, and 99.9% of people can't paint good OSL.

not even they can, it looks horrendous

It wasn't directed at you.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
It was a response to this great response:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
that fire looks like they just stick one of their trees in its mouth

The whole idea of sculpting fire is pretty stupid to me. The only way it can look good is with good OSL, and 99.9% of people can't paint good OSL.

not even they can, it looks horrendous

It wasn't directed at you.

if what he said wasn't directed at me, then why did he quote me?!
unless you meant something else

It's ok Rainbow Dash. I think you're horrendous, so you can sleep easier knowing that.

I guess I don't understand why people have such a negative reaction the the sculpted flames. If you can't paint them well, just leave them off the model! In my opinion, they give a great opportunity for more advanced painters to really make a model "pop." Not every model is oriented towards the same skill level-- and that applies to both painting and assembly.

To be honest, I think GW's recent models have been excellent. The only part of the Tau release I wasn't a huge fan of was the flyer. The Pathfinders in particular strike me as one of the best infantry kits out there from any manufacturer, and also work great with the old Fire Warrior sprues for conversions. The Riptide could have been disastrous but ended up very good.

I'm with Kingsley here.

I don't see the problem with the flames. The "Coral Chariot" was down to the paint scheme, where they used the blue/purple/pink/whatever "flames" and it looked awful. The other version, with the fire painted like fire, makes it look great.

 mattyrm wrote:
Again though, who cares if it's CAD or not?

I remember how pleased I was a few years back when I bought the new space hulk, great models. All CAD apparently, they won me over with those blood angel termies, absolutely beautiful.

Embrace change! I think almost all those "too smooth" models on the photo are great!

I agree that the chariot is a bit garish but... They can't all be winner's eh?

The Terminators are purely mechanical with only small fabric elements, so they are perfect for a CAD design with cut corners.*
*The Terminators do have some small undercut issues where parts meet at the helmet, waist, ect

@ ExNoctemNacimur: The small torch looks fine and can look great even without OSL. (See Redemptionist minis from Necromunda)

@TheAuldGrump: Yes, they're bad CAD sculpts.

I don't decry CAD used for miniatures but I also disagree with deleting hand sculptors from miniature design as a way to "modernize" and kick out plastic kits that will be looked back at as goofy failures in a few years past.

If GW's only edge is rabid fans and its use of the BEST painters and the BEST hand sculptors around. Removing the sculptors and heck maybe even some of the painters, will defeat GW as a whole. What's to say that company A can't CAD sculpt BETTER and take more TIME and release a product that far exceeds what GW are doing? It appears this has already taken place.

A new slogan is required for GW
"The best 3D video game models turned into miniatures in the whole world!" "Now with former COD:Modern Warfare 3D artists and ex-Midway studios designers of famed skulls, skulls Mortal Kombat skull ninja's"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm with Kingsley here.

I don't see the problem with the flames. The "Coral Chariot" was down to the paint scheme, where they used the blue/purple/pink/whatever "flames" and it looked awful. The other version, with the fire painted like fire, makes it look great.

It's obviously just personal preference, I just personally think flames look terrible unless painted with epic OSL, otherwise (to me) it just looks very fake and cartoonish. Only a small subset of painters even attempt OSL and of those a tiny subset can actually make it look good (I sure as hell can't). If the flames aren't permanently sculpted on and are optional, whatever, I don't care, it's just my personal preference that I don't like models with sculpted flames.

But I'm weird like that, I also don't like NMM, as it only looks good in pictures and not in the flesh.

Probably repeating half of whats been said here but page 7...

Whilst there have been some really bad sculpts from CAD there have also been really bad hand sculpts for miniatures in the past, (pask, previous metal chaos possessed). This to me indicates not so much bad execution is at fault, but bad design.

If I may put some possible reasons for this forward, I would like to point out the increase in production output by games workshop over the last few years, up until now where we have a codex/army book a month, something I certainly cannot remember happening over the past decade I have been with the hobby.

Whilst on the one hand this might be good with the new methods that are being used (CAD/CAM) the molds for these multi plastic kits are expensive to design and produce as they have to be machined (equipment, maintenance and specialized staff costs), the design (more staff, software licenses, more equipment etc) as well as the increased costs of materials means GW has been under financial strain to not only up its prices but up its output - as in sales-, unfortunately one way of doing this is to reduce design turn around, we are already seeing in-game point costs decreasing to encourage bigger armies with a shift to bigger must have flavor of the month models. I am glad I stay away from the 2k point tournament scene.

A final point is that games workshop has shareholders, last year I heard (though I cannot find the source again, I think it was bols) GWplc made so much profit from 6th edition, the hobbit and other big releases, that it actually delayed some things for release this year to prevent shareholders feeling the company was growing fast, I don't understand business and tbh from what I've seen I don't want to but if GW has a good year shareholders will expect GW to do better year on year, another thing that would eat into profits.

tl;dr
Warhammer isn't a hobby its a buisness, the more they sell the more they will want to sell and the quicker they can design them the quicker they can sell them, bad model or not why should they care so long as we all keep buying them.

2 pence
noodles

 OneManNoodles wrote:
Probably repeating half of whats been said here but page 7...

Whilst there have been some really bad sculpts from CAD there have also been really bad hand sculpts for miniatures in the past, (pask, previous metal chaos possessed). This to me indicates not so much bad execution is at fault, but bad design.

If I may put some possible reasons for this forward, I would like to point out the increase in production output by games workshop over the last few years, up until now where we have a codex/army book a month, something I certainly cannot remember happening over the past decade I have been with the hobby.

Whilst on the one hand this might be good with the new methods that are being used (CAD/CAM) the molds for these multi plastic kits are expensive to design and produce as they have to be machined (equipment, maintenance and specialized staff costs), the design (more staff, software licenses, more equipment etc) as well as the increased costs of materials means GW has been under financial strain to not only up its prices but up its output - as in sales-, unfortunately one way of doing this is to reduce design turn around, we are already seeing in-game point costs decreasing to encourage bigger armies with a shift to bigger must have flavor of the month models. I am glad I stay away from the 2k point tournament scene.

A final point is that games workshop has shareholders, last year I heard (though I cannot find the source again, I think it was bols) GWplc made so much profit from 6th edition, the hobbit and other big releases, that it actually delayed some things for release this year to prevent shareholders feeling the company was growing fast, I don't understand business and tbh from what I've seen I don't want to but if GW has a good year shareholders will expect GW to do better year on year, another thing that would eat into profits.

tl;dr
Warhammer isn't a hobby its a buisness, the more they sell the more they will want to sell and the quicker they can design them the quicker they can sell them, bad model or not why should they care so long as we all keep buying them.

2 pence
noodles

I have no issue with a business being or acting like a business, but don't say you're a hobby-the only hobby, and expect people to buy that
The staff always tries to sell me things with a "so what if you don't need it now, buy it anyways" attitude.
I have a lot of hobbies, be they more hobby then business or business then hobby. Just because something is new and they say its cool doesn't give any intensive to buy it when all it is, is an 80 dollar chunk of plastic.
No hobby, a shelf filler.

Although there have been some "misses" (the christmas ornament on the vortex beast, the forsaken, the dark angels speeder and flyiing wedding cake), there have been way more home runs: The deathwing knights, ravenwing knights, the entire tau relese, the entire high elf release...

I dont understand the hate for the skycutter. Its gorgeous. Not enough people ever read or played Space 1889 I guess.


Also keep in mind the amount of design and engineering in these kits. Now, I like warmachine (yay Convergence!), but go ahead privateer... make a space marine drop pod. I DARE YOU. (it would cost $140 and the doors still wouldnt line up).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
At least when it comes to the larger kits anyway.

That's a good distinction actually.

I think their infantry kits are a cut above most others. The new Pathfinders are some of my fav Tau models in the range, and as much as I deride the One Hairstyle To Rule Them All nature of those new High Elf ladies, the kits itself is very good. Yet I dread their new "big base" releases. I always wonder what horrid monstrous thing they're going to make next. I can't imagine what the new Eldar giant Wraithlord is going to look like. Hopefully it'll be good, but looking at things like the Baby-Carrier makes me worried.

The big base models work when they've got an existing aesthetic that works. The Tyranid monsters look great, because they stuck to the Tyranid aesthetic (and mirrors the Heirophant shape, which was a cool way to tie that outlying model into the range). The Riptide looks great, because they stuck with the Tau aesthetic, but but sleekified it, like the new Broadside (but that had a lot of bulk added too). The problem with that range now is the Crisis suits looking too dated. The Daemon chariots don't work for some people because Daemons don't have a vehicle aesthetic, so nothing to tie them in to the range aside from the daemons riding them. I don't mind them, honestly.

The Dreadknight wasn't based at all on any existing designs from any form of power armoured army, so it looks absurdly bizarre. It extends to Warhammer Fantasy too. Some of them, when done to fit the army, look great. Others, when done as 'something new', like the Pheonix, look terrible.

Eldar have a great range of wraithbone constructs, from Wraithguard to Wraithlords to Titans. They all have the exact same look. Considering Jes is rumoured to be heavily involved in the design of the new Eldar, I wouldn't worry about the Wraith King or whatever they're calling it. I doubt it'll look like much more than a big Wraithlord.

 mattyrm wrote:

I was going to mention the flyers, I see it pretty much the same way, examples being loads of great chaos models, the chosen for example, and then a bloody awful flying dinobot?

GW flyers are puzzling. Some of them are throughly awesome, some of the best looking vehicles within the industry (Valkyrie, Dakkajet), some of them are throughly horrible to the point you have to wonder what, if any, the sculptor was thinking (Storm Talon, Razorshark).

Talking about CAD, and particularly flames, GW isn't the only one who has recently faced criticism. For example, many Malifaux minis of late have split opinions since they moved to plastic:






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Loki- wrote:

The Dreadknight wasn't based at all on any existing designs from any form of power armoured army, so it looks absurdly bizarre.

What was also problem with Dreadknight is that the model is so stiff. Same thing with for example Slaugherbrute. By contrast, Riptide is throughly posable. You can make the model of your "own" by creative posing - much harder with some of the other large monsters.

Look at second edition tyranids and tell me that the sculpts are worse today.

Some models are poor, sure...but it's not as though I love everything from any other company. Everybody puts out a few duds.

RedSarge wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Again though, who cares if it's CAD or not?

I remember how pleased I was a few years back when I bought the new space hulk, great models. All CAD apparently, they won me over with those blood angel termies, absolutely beautiful.

Embrace change! I think almost all those "too smooth" models on the photo are great!

I agree that the chariot is a bit garish but... They can't all be winner's eh?

The Terminators are purely mechanical with only small fabric elements, so they are perfect for a CAD design with cut corners.*
*The Terminators do have some small undercut issues where parts meet at the helmet, waist, ect

@ ExNoctemNacimur: The small torch looks fine and can look great even without OSL. (See Redemptionist minis from Necromunda)

@TheAuldGrump: Yes, they're bad CAD sculpts.

I don't decry CAD used for miniatures but I also disagree with deleting hand sculptors from miniature design as a way to "modernize" and kick out plastic kits that will be looked back at as goofy failures in a few years past.

If GW's only edge is rabid fans and its use of the BEST painters and the BEST hand sculptors around. Removing the sculptors and heck maybe even some of the painters, will defeat GW as a whole. What's to say that company A can't CAD sculpt BETTER and take more TIME and release a product that far exceeds what GW are doing? It appears this has already taken place.

A new slogan is required for GW
"The best 3D video game models turned into miniatures in the whole world!" "Now with former COD:Modern Warfare 3D artists and ex-Midway studios designers of famed skulls, skulls Mortal Kombat skull ninja's"

The only problem with sculpting in CAD is if you lack either the skill or tooling to do it properly. You can sculpt anything in CAD, you can zoom in to the micron scale and sculpt "Tom Kirby is a poo poo head". You can then machine that in to the mould as long as you have the tooling capable of doing it and can spend the time on the machine to get it done. A friend of mine used to operate a micro-scale CNC mill in the laboratory opposite mine that will machine details far beyond what anyone could sculpt by hand.

Also, undercut issues aren't CAD issues, they are plastic issues. You can't have undercuts in plastic models because plastic is rigid and the mould is rigid. You could CAD an undercut and machine an undercut in to a mould, but when you go to make the final part, it'll never come out of the mould unless you do crazy 3+ part moulds (which can be done, though I'm not sure how practical it is for miniatures).

I do personally think a lot of the "issues" with GW models these days is simply a move to more cartoonish models, maybe they've moved that way because of CAD, though if they have it's not CAD's fault, it's GW's fault for not having appropriate tooling and time to do it properly.

Kingsley wrote:I guess I don't understand why people have such a negative reaction the the sculpted flames. If you can't paint them well, just leave them off the model! In my opinion, they give a great opportunity for more advanced painters to really make a model "pop." Not every model is oriented towards the same skill level-- and that applies to both painting and assembly.

To be honest, I think GW's recent models have been excellent. The only part of the Tau release I wasn't a huge fan of was the flyer. The Pathfinders in particular strike me as one of the best infantry kits out there from any manufacturer, and also work great with the old Fire Warrior sprues for conversions. The Riptide could have been disastrous but ended up very good.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm with Kingsley here.

I don't see the problem with the flames. The "Coral Chariot" was down to the paint scheme, where they used the blue/purple/pink/whatever "flames" and it looked awful. The other version, with the fire painted like fire, makes it look great.

I disagree, this is what good flames look like from an advanced painter.


image hosting site

The gw sculpted flames look like a big pile of coral/root system random plastic. Just airbrush them whatever random warm colors and wash with yellow wash and call it day. There's nothing advanced about them. That random pile of plastic honestly doesnt deserve to be nitpicked over IMO.

Of course they are down to personal taste like everything else. I assume those that like the flames have a very powerful imagination. Personally i cannot convince myself that they look anything like fire.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

RedSarge wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Again though, who cares if it's CAD or not?

I remember how pleased I was a few years back when I bought the new space hulk, great models. All CAD apparently, they won me over with those blood angel termies, absolutely beautiful.

Embrace change! I think almost all those "too smooth" models on the photo are great!

I agree that the chariot is a bit garish but... They can't all be winner's eh?

The Terminators are purely mechanical with only small fabric elements, so they are perfect for a CAD design with cut corners.*
*The Terminators do have some small undercut issues where parts meet at the helmet, waist, ect

@ ExNoctemNacimur: The small torch looks fine and can look great even without OSL. (See Redemptionist minis from Necromunda)

@TheAuldGrump: Yes, they're bad CAD sculpts.

I don't decry CAD used for miniatures but I also disagree with deleting hand sculptors from miniature design as a way to "modernize" and kick out plastic kits that will be looked back at as goofy failures in a few years past.

If GW's only edge is rabid fans and its use of the BEST painters and the BEST hand sculptors around. Removing the sculptors and heck maybe even some of the painters, will defeat GW as a whole. What's to say that company A can't CAD sculpt BETTER and take more TIME and release a product that far exceeds what GW are doing? It appears this has already taken place.

A new slogan is required for GW
"The best 3D video game models turned into miniatures in the whole world!" "Now with former COD:Modern Warfare 3D artists and ex-Midway studios designers of famed skulls, skulls Mortal Kombat skull ninja's"

The only problem with sculpting in CAD is if you lack either the skill or tooling to do it properly. You can sculpt anything in CAD, you can zoom in to the micron scale and sculpt "Tom Kirby is a poo poo head". You can then machine that in to the mould as long as you have the tooling capable of doing it and can spend the time on the machine to get it done. A friend of mine used to operate a micro-scale CNC mill in the laboratory opposite mine that will machine details far beyond what anyone could sculpt by hand.

Also, undercut issues aren't CAD issues, they are plastic issues. You can't have undercuts in plastic models because plastic is rigid and the mould is rigid. You could CAD an undercut and machine an undercut in to a mould, but when you go to make the final part, it'll never come out of the mould unless you do crazy 3+ part moulds (which can be done, though I'm not sure how practical it is for miniatures).

I do personally think a lot of the "issues" with GW models these days is simply a move to more cartoonish models, maybe they've moved that way because of CAD, though if they have it's not CAD's fault, it's GW's fault for not having appropriate tooling and time to do it properly.

I lumped the bad undercuts in as 'problems with the model', as opposed to 'problems with CAD that led to problems with the model'.

Though I do think that making the parts separate would have helped, so neither CAD nor plastic problem, but rather 'model design problem'. Caused by the designer not making allowances or taking pains to palliate the design problem. (Making the arms, shoulders, and weapon a separate piece from the torso, head, and legs.)

But, at their worst, the elves - on the same frame - were much better sculpts than the Skaven.

First wave prepped, primed, painted, and will be handed off on Friday, along with the second batch, most likely.

In honesty - while I think that the box is overpriced... had the box contained nothing but elves and had the same total number of models... I would not have considered this a bad deal.

H is allowing me to keep one of the two mini rulebooks. Yippee.... But then both he and I play Kings of War, not Warhammer, these days.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* And, yes, the cartoony style bothers me, whatever motive drives the design choices....

I'm just gonna throw my $0.02 in here.

I have no issue with CAD sculpting, but I think what we are/will see happening is sculptors learning on it and messing up things that people sculpting by hand wouldn't. More likely than not CAD will be the way of the future but I'd hope that the CAD sculptors would learn hand sculpting at the same time as CAD and transfer the knowledge instead of people dropping hand sculpting to focus on CAD entirely.

kb305 wrote:
I disagree, this is what good flames look like from an advanced painter.

Yeah... we were talking about sculpted flames, not painted flames. Bit of a difference there.

Depends on how much you thin your paints I suppose.

 OneManNoodles wrote:
Warhammer isn't a hobby its a buisness, the more they sell the more they will want to sell and the quicker they can design them the quicker they can sell them, bad model or not why should they care so long as we all keep buying them.

Problem is that GW doesn't act like a business (nor a hobbyist). They sell less and less products for 7 years (in a growing market), ignoring basic economic wisdom and every feedback. So they get worse economically AND in quality. Happens when managers who don't do their job, also try to keep designers from doing their job.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 OneManNoodles wrote:
Warhammer isn't a hobby its a buisness, the more they sell the more they will want to sell and the quicker they can design them the quicker they can sell them, bad model or not why should they care so long as we all keep buying them.

Problem is that GW doesn't act like a business (nor a hobbyist). They sell less and less products for 7 years (in a growing market), ignoring basic economic wisdom and every feedback. So they get worse economically AND in quality. Happens when managers who don't do their job, also try to keep designers from doing their job.

Do you make a point of commenting to criticise GW's business practice every time that business is remotely mentioned in a thread regarding GW? I honestly cannot remember the lat post I saw of yours that wasn't "GW business practice sucks" or "GW managers have occupied te last free realm in the land"

On topic: I feel that a large amount of criticism regarding kits being of poor quality at be partially because its in comparison to other GW models that are legitimately good. Compared against nothing they might be quite good models (or just need a different paint job to that given to them by the GW website), but compared against some of the other models they appear bad. (See the new Tau flyer. Viewed in isolation it isn't that bad, but compared to something like the dakkajet it looks shoddy)

No, new Tau flyer is just terrible, there is no going around it. The model's visual problems are legion. It just gets even worse when compared to good looking flyers like Dakkajet, Barracuda or Valkyrie.