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.

Backfire wrote:
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.

I quite like the look of it.

Backfire wrote:
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.

I don't like it and no one else is allowed to like it because I said so and my word is law because I said so.

 Goliath wrote:

Backfire wrote:
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.

I don't like it and no one else is allowed to like it because I said so and my word is law because I said so.

Pretty much.

I like it to. It's not as nice as the Barracuda, but it's still really nice looking. And it was an easy kit to build.

 Goliath wrote:

Backfire wrote:
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.

I don't like it and no one else is allowed to like it because I said so and my word is law because I said so.

You are bringing nothing to this discussion.

Rather than attacking other posters for their point of view, try posting an opposing point of view and support that position with your reasoning. That way the discussion moves forward and doesn't descend into a slanging match.

Sorry, but what's an undercut and why is it bad that they're missing?

 Goliath wrote:

Backfire wrote:
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.

I don't like it and no one else is allowed to like it because I said so and my word is law because I said so.

Model has obvious visual problems which is why most people don't like it, including me. I've pointed them out before, but I love repeating myself:

-Nose is stubby, and nose armament installation is very blunt & unaerodynamic. Contrast to much smoother armament installation in Remora or Barracuda.
-Tail armament follows the same very unaerodynamic pattern. Box-like missile pod mounted on top of tail without any aerodynamic fairing looks ridiculous. Razorshark's cumbersome Ion stream thingie is scarcely better.
-with these unaerodynamic elements, it is then extremely strange how cockpit is very streamlined and wings look smooth, like they could be from a real aircraft. The model's visual themes are in confict with each other. It's like parts of the plane were designed by different people altogether.
-struts serve no obvious purpose. It seems they were added as an aftertought, to make the plane look more "scifi".
-wings, whilst they look quite realistic, do not convey any sense of speed or aggressiveness. Straight, long and thick wings generally belong to slow-speed, often civilian, aircraft. Only minor saving grace is inverted gull wing tips, but it's too little, too late.
-engines look small, again reinforcing "slow flying" machine feeling
-inverted V tail makes the plane look subdued and unaggressive
-there are also external problems, mainly how the plane fits to estabilished Tau aesthetics. It was a huge mistake to base the flyer on Piranha, which is a ground vehicle. Since people expect Piranha to be ground-bound (even if it's a skimmer), the flyer with similar lines, similar engines etc doesn't really look like it's particularly dangerous, aggressive or fast. None of the other factions have flyers based on ground vehicle. Dakkajet doesn't look like Warbuggy, Storm Raven doesn't look like Rhino, Razorwing doesn't look like a Raider, etc.

 jonolikespie wrote:
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.

This is something I would have to echo. It's nice seeing that the FW guys still do mostly hand sculpting, and the forthcoming Merwyrm for the Warhammer Forge line looks far more fantastic and appropriate for the High Elf army than the ridden Phoenix ever could in my opinion.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

Backfire wrote:
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.

I don't like it and no one else is allowed to like it because I said so and my word is law because I said so.

You are bringing nothing to this discussion.

Rather than attacking other posters for their point of view, try posting an opposing point of view and support that position with your reasoning. That way the discussion moves forward and doesn't descend into a slanging match.

A) because your comment brought much more to the discussion than mine did?

B) my point of view was implied by the criticism of the lack of support Backfire gave to his in his original comment. Just saying "it has loads of visual problems" is not supporting your position, it is saying no more than "I don't like it", which I believe is what you were criticising me for?
Now that he has supported his claim with examples then I'm not going to criticise him, he has backed up his claims with evidence and reason; I am still allowed to disagree with him, because it is subjective, but at this point you coming and going

 azreal13 wrote:
You are bringing nothing to this discussion.

Rather than attacking other posters for their point of view...

(Which amusingly is in fact contributing nothing to the discussion, and attacking another poster for their point of view) is more useless than me criticising his lack of evidence.

But I digress.

The entire Tau vehicle line, in my opinion, seems based around vehicles that should not reasonably be able to fly. The devilish chassis is able to become stationary and drop troops off, whereas the piranha is a small bike equivalent that keeps on moving to attack weak spots in the enemy's line, so, to me at least, having the two vehicles in the range that are based around constant movement share similar design cues seems logical to me.

The fin on the top would serve to disturb air passing over it before it reached the missile pod, removing a measure of the aerodynamic issues. Besides which, this is a race that has antigravity tech, and uses it in most of its vehicles. What makes it a requirement that this plane be run using propulsion as we think of it? Is it not feasible that it be run using antigravity tech?

Size doesn't always matter, and just because the engines are small doesn't mean that they do not supply power.

The struts look to serve to break up air as it passes between the two pairs of wings, as well as reinforcing the rear pair.

So yeah, you're entitled to not like it, but I will disagree with some of your reasons. Thank you for coming back and backing up your original comment with actual support.

Azreal13, try to be slightly less dismissive of people in future maybe?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
Sorry, but what's an undercut and why is it bad that they're missing?

An undercut is a term used to describe a part of the model that cannot be cast, effectively.

If you think of a mould as two parts, if there was an undercut it would be a part where when the plastic hardened it would hold itself into the mould, which obviously means that they cannot be cast as you would have to destroy the mould to remove the model.

It was one of the advantages of metal models, as they were made using flexible moulds which allowed for a slight degree of undercutting.

It's also the reason why a fair number of the more recent large model kits have smooth surfaces, as if there was a texture on them they would form minute undercuts which would make the model uncastable.

Goliath wrote:

 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)

Goliath wrote:

Backfire wrote:
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.

I don't like it and no one else is allowed to like it because I said so and my word is law because I said so.

My contribution to the discussion was to try and prevent further comments like these from you, and promote a better discussion. I stand by my opinion that I was right to do so. I will also dismiss these comments out of hand as being of little value.

If you present a reasoned argument to the contrary, I will happily try and rebuff it, and if you make a point I agree with I will offer support to it if I can.

The two comments I've highlighted we're neither, and merely attacks on the poster, not their argument, which is why I pulled you up on them.


As far as the main topic goes, there have always been poor sculpts and poor concepts. In fact, on returning to the game a couple of years ago, I was pleasantly surprised by how many models had been updated, and how frequently those updated models were better in many ways to those they'd replaced.

The derp virus doesn't really seem to have kicked in wholesale until CSM, but it doesn't seem to be going away, which suggests to me it isn't some technical issue, but perhaps a change in design philosophy. This in turn could suggest a change in demographic targets, or be a symptom of time pressure.

Either way, I'm not liking the way things seem to be going.

 azreal13 wrote:

Goliath wrote:

 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)

Goliath wrote:

Backfire wrote:
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.

I don't like it and no one else is allowed to like it because I said so and my word is law because I said so.

My contribution to the discussion was to try and prevent further comments like these from you, and promote a better discussion. I stand by my opinion that I was right to do so. I will also dismiss these comments out of hand as being of little value.

If you present a reasoned argument to the contrary, I will happily try and rebuff it, and if you make a point I agree with I will offer support to it if I can.

The two comments I've highlighted we're neither, and merely attacks on the poster, not their argument, which is why I pulled you up on them.


As far as the main topic goes, there have always been poor sculpts and poor concepts. In fact, on returning to the game a couple of years ago, I was pleasantly surprised by how many models had been updated, and how frequently those updated models were better in many ways to those they'd replaced.

The derp virus doesn't really seem to have kicked in wholesale until CSM, but it doesn't seem to be going away, which suggests to me it isn't some technical issue, but perhaps a change in design philosophy. This in turn could suggest a change in demographic targets, or be a symptom of time pressure.

Either way, I'm not liking the way things seem to be going.

Boom! This guy knows what he's talking about: 1- @Goliath, you seem to be disagreeing with people for the sake of disagreeing.
2- I totally agree, everything was going fine up until the chunky, clunky CSM models hit the shelves and now the models, with the exception of the Tau (but not their flyers (grrrr)) are terrible!

BaconUprising wrote:Boom! This guy knows what he's talking about: 1- @Goliath, you seem to be disagreeing with people for the sake of disagreeing.
2- I totally agree, everything was going fine up until the chunky, clunky CSM models hit the shelves and now the models, with the exception of the Tau (but not their flyers (grrrr)) are terrible!

You have just done exactly the same thing that I criticised Backfire for doing. "The models are awful, but I won't give any reasons or support, just say that they're awful"
If you're going to make blanket statements, give them support. I am not disagreeing with people for the sake of disagreeing (though I did disagree with your statement regarding me disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing), I just find it annoying when people make statements of "fact" without supporting them in the slightest; you'll notice that once Backfire supported his position with actual reasoning I responded in kind.

azreal13 wrote:My contribution to the discussion was to try and prevent further comments like these from you, and promote a better discussion. I stand by my opinion that I was right to do so. I will also dismiss these comments out of hand as being of little value.

If you present a reasoned argument to the contrary, I will happily try and rebuff it, and if you make a point I agree with I will offer support to it if I can.

The two comments I've highlighted we're neither, and merely attacks on the poster, not their argument, which is why I pulled you up on them.


As far as the main topic goes, there have always been poor sculpts and poor concepts. In fact, on returning to the game a couple of years ago, I was pleasantly surprised by how many models had been updated, and how frequently those updated models were better in many ways to those they'd replaced.

The derp virus doesn't really seem to have kicked in wholesale until CSM, but it doesn't seem to be going away, which suggests to me it isn't some technical issue, but perhaps a change in design philosophy. This in turn could suggest a change in demographic targets, or be a symptom of time pressure.

Either way, I'm not liking the way things seem to be going.

My first comment was in two parts, the second of which you seem to have ignored in order to "dismiss me out of hand" due to you having superior rhetorical abilities compared to a mere peasant such as I. Regardless, the first half of my first comment was, I will admit, off topic; the comment was in response to the fact that the only comments that I have seen from Kroot recently have been him going into topics that tangentially relate to GW's business practise in order to make a post that doesn't really fall under the purview of the thread, and criticise their business practise. I am all for criticism, but when the subject at hand warrants it, not hearing the word "business" or "manage" in a thread about GW and immediately going into a rambling post about how "the free realms have fallen" and "GW managers have cast their shadow across the entire land".

The second half of my first comment was entirely related to the subject at hand, but you appear to have ignored it in order to enable yourself to dismiss my comments more easily.


My second comment was, as I have said, in response to Backfire's lack of actual support for his statement of fact. You say that you wish to "promote a better discussion", and yet the only point you pounce on is one criticising a lack of quality discussion. Backfire, before he posted again to give the reasoning behind his position, had effectively posted "Nuh uh! It does suck! It looks awful!" I pointed out that this was what he had done by paraphrasing him, and rather than think "actually, Backfire's post was kinda shallow" you went "this outrage must be stopped!!" And leapt in with a hypocritical comment about how I was providing nothing to the discussion and was merely attacking other users, whilst at the same time, you were providing nothing to the discussion and merely attacking me.


In summary:

I am not attacking other people, merely their lack of support for their "statements of fact"; if I offended anyone I apologise

if you make a statement that "XXXX product is 'objectively awful'", please actually support it with reasoning; if you don't support your statement it just comes across as "Nuh uh! Yeah Too! Nuh Uh! Yeah Too!" which, needless to say, is incredibly puerile.

Don't attack other users for "attacking other users". It's hypocrisy 101 guys.

And finally:
As Clint Eastwood once said "Opinions are like butt-holes, everybody has one"

Hmmm interesting. Did it not cross your mind that as I set up this thread I may have previously made my point and backed it up? Im mearly repeating a basic version of my "statement" to you...

Play nice kids, I'm trying to take a nap back here....

Telling each other to shut up is not going to work for either side.

It may well be that the more cartoony style rose up because it is easier to replicate with CAD/CAM.

As for the Tau... I think that they are a very interesting race that really does not fit with the fluff of 40K.

The figures themselves...
...
...

Most look pretty good to me, and fairly consistent across the line. They would be very nice for a game that isn't 40K.

Scarily, that works both ways - I think that there are rules that would better support the style of the Tau than 40K does....

The Auld Grump, heck, I think that the Tau would work fine for an Invasion: Earth scenario.

BaconUprising wrote:
Hmmm interesting. Did it not cross your mind that as I set up this thread I may have previously made my point and backed it up? Im mearly repeating a basic version of my "statement" to you...

I think Jackson Pollock paintings look like 2nd grade splatter art. Other people are willing to pay millions of dollars for it. That's based on aesthetics and personal opinion.

Stating that the GW models have become technically "worse" is simply wrong. Never have kits gone together easier. Never has there been more detail packed on a sprue. You may not like them aesthetically, but lets not pretend they're technically worse. It isn't true.

BaconUprising wrote:
Hmmm interesting. Did it not cross your mind that as I set up this thread I may have previously made my point and backed it up? Im mearly repeating a basic version of my "statement" to you...

I had not noticed that, in which case I apologise. I normally just look at what people have posted, rather than the poster, so I did not notice that you were the creator of the thread.

That said, upon looking through the thread, your comments seem to all be along the lines of "they're goofy/blocky/chunky" which was exactly the sort of thing I was criticising. Using a single word to critique an entire release worth of models does not a comment make, though I will commend you for at least commenting on what you see as the problems, rather than just saying "they suck"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Play nice kids, I'm trying to take a nap back here....

Telling each other to shut up is not going to work for either side.

It may well be that the more cartoony style rose up because it is easier to replicate with CAD/CAM.

For the first point, I haven't told anyone to shut up, at worst I have been slightly sardonic in my criticisms.

As for the second point, that does seem a reasonable hypothesis, though ,as previously stated, a cartoony style and the advantages and disadvantages thereof are down to personal preference.

I'm not even following who is making what claims anymore...

Anyway, of course there are always bad and good sculpts, it's not like all 1990's sculpts are so awesome, despite them made in PROPER hand-sculpting and cast in PROPER material (metal). I'd agree with RedSarge that sometimes plastic monsters tend to look bit flat & toylike. Plastic monopose minis (like in starter) sometimes have this 2d-feeling. Computer sculpting OTOH has made it easier to put small details on to minis and some designers feel this is a license to put as much crap on a mini as is possible (again, not completely new phenomenon - count the number of skulls in old Terminator Captain for example). And sometimes there are models which feel like their aesthetics don't belong to 40k (Storm Talon), or models which imply complete lack of ideas by studio so they just throw together whatever random sketches (CSM Dinobots). Also, GW is not only manufacturer who have these issues in their newer production.

As I said a basic overveiw of what I said, of course I dont mean all the models since then have been terrible, although all the chaos ones were...

My opinion overall is that of course GW produces fantastic models accounting for its massive fan base. However my view is that they were turning outer better sculpts in early 2012 than they do currently. Obviously many of their new sculpts are quality products making use of the ability to add more detail however I think their appeal to me has faded slightly. Mainly die to the cartoony and clunky details of man of the sculpts. Of course this is a matter of opinion whether you like or perceive the models to look like that. But I for one cannot condone the purchase of another of their garish MC models at twice the price it should be...

Backfire wrote:
I'm not even following who is making what claims anymore...

Anyway, of course there are always bad and good sculpts, it's not like all 1990's sculpts are so awesome, despite them made in PROPER hand-sculpting and cast in PROPER material (metal). I'd agree with RedSarge that sometimes plastic monsters tend to look bit flat & toylike. Plastic monopose minis (like in starter) sometimes have this 2d-feeling. Computer sculpting OTOH has made it easier to put small details on to minis and some designers feel this is a license to put as much crap on a mini as is possible (again, not completely new phenomenon - count the number of skulls in old Terminator Captain for example). And sometimes there are models which feel like their aesthetics don't belong to 40k (Storm Talon), or models which imply complete lack of ideas by studio so they just throw together whatever random sketches (CSM Dinobots). Also, GW is not only manufacturer who have these issues in their newer production.

"Proper" sculpting in a "proper" material? What a load of nonsense.

There are plenty of examples of CAD sculptures that look fantastic, and there are plenty of examples of resin that looks better than metal.

It's cool older guys, we get that metal and hand sculpture was what you were weaned on, but that doesn't mean it's the best or only option today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Bacon - "twice the price it should be?" What should they be priced at then? What should the privateer Colossals be priced at?

 Goliath wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
Sorry, but what's an undercut and why is it bad that they're missing?

An undercut is a term used to describe a part of the model that cannot be cast, effectively.

If you think of a mould as two parts, if there was an undercut it would be a part where when the plastic hardened it would hold itself into the mould, which obviously means that they cannot be cast as you would have to destroy the mould to remove the model.

It was one of the advantages of metal models, as they were made using flexible moulds which allowed for a slight degree of undercutting.

It's also the reason why a fair number of the more recent large model kits have smooth surfaces, as if there was a texture on them they would form minute undercuts which would make the model uncastable.

To explain it better, an undercut is quite literally a cut underneath another part of a model. For example, a model with a utility belt. At the back where the pouches tuck back down near the belt, that is an undercut. An old plastic mold would need to do that as either a separate peice, or without the pouch tucking back down near the bealt, just a flat surface all the way to the main part of the body. It allows a sculptor to add better depth to a model.

It's worth noting that undercuts can be done now with sliding sections of a tooled plastic mold. You slide them out before popping the sprue out, then slide it back in for the next cast.

@cincydooley You honestly think that the abomination of a model that is the slaughterbrute should be worth £50? In answer to your question yes I do think it should be half the price-less even. £20-£25 would still seem like a rip off to me with that model!

You know what? I don't see why people are calling the Slaughterbrute an abomination, I honestly think it's a rather cool model. The worst thing about the model is it's in the wrong army. It would have been right at home with Daemons rather than Warriors.

BaconUprising wrote:
@cincydooley You honestly think that the abomination of a model that is the slaughterbrute should be worth £50? In answer to your question yes I do think it should be half the price-less even. £20-£25 would still seem like a rip off to me with that model!

So you're basing the pricing of the model on how much you like the model? That doesn't really work.

I haven't seen the brute in person, and while its a bit too static, I don't think it's any sort of "abomination". If its as large as it appears, then based on GWs present pricing it should absolutely be priced there.

My Riptides were absolutely worth what I paid, which is about $40 less than my Stormwalls.

 cincydooley wrote:

BaconUprising wrote:
@cincydooley You honestly think that the abomination of a model that is the slaughterbrute should be worth £50? In answer to your question yes I do think it should be half the price-less even. £20-£25 would still seem like a rip off to me with that model!

So you're basing the pricing of the model on how much you like the model? That doesn't really work.

I haven't seen the brute in person, and while its a bit too static, I don't think it's any sort of "abomination". If its as large as it appears, then based on GWs present pricing it should absolutely be priced there.

My Riptides were absolutely worth what I paid, which is about $40 less than my Stormwalls.

I'm leery of saying too much, as this isn't a discussion on price, but I recently ordered a more detailed kit with more options and poseability from Japan that cost less than half what a Riptide costs. It's cool that you're happy with them, but don't delude yourself that the price is in any way reasonable based on what you receive.

Ummm, yes, how much I like a model does affect how much I would be willing to pay for the model.

I cannot even begin to understand why anybody wouldn't expect that to be one of the deciding factors.

Not just for GW miniatures, or even miniatures in general - the same would hold true for any number of products, including things like food....

The Auld Grump

Granted, but there's a line between knowingly overpaying for something because you want it and trying to convince yourself that the price is reasonable when it blatantly isn't. I was just trying to underline that.

 azreal13 wrote:
Granted, but there's a line between knowingly overpaying for something because you want it and trying to convince yourself that the price is reasonable when it blatantly isn't. I was just trying to underline that.

I wasn't aware that there were Riptides available from other companies, mind sharing?

 azreal13 wrote:
Rather than attacking other posters for their point of view, try posting an opposing point of view and support that position with your reasoning. That way the discussion moves forward and doesn't descend into a slanging match.

What a preposterous notion!








Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Loki- wrote:
You know what? I don't see why people are calling the Slaughterbrute an abomination, I honestly think it's a rather cool model. The worst thing about the model is it's in the wrong army. It would have been right at home with Daemons rather than Warriors.

I think we're in the minority here. I can see why people don't like it, especially the way it's yet another goofy big base model in an army that didn't need one. I still think it's great though, despite its flaws. And think of it this way - it could've been worse. It could've been another Chaos War Altar.

 BryllCream wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Granted, but there's a line between knowingly overpaying for something because you want it and trying to convince yourself that the price is reasonable when it blatantly isn't. I was just trying to underline that.

I wasn't aware that there were Riptides available from other companies, mind sharing?

I wasn't aware that my point was confined solely to Riptides.

If we are focusing on them, would you mind sharing how a very similar style and size of kit being offered for sale at half the retail price isn't relevant?

My Rip Tides are all piloted by straw men.

Geddit???

 azreal13 wrote:

If we are focusing on them, would you mind sharing how a very similar style and size of kit being offered for sale at half the retail price isn't relevant?

Sure. It's not a Riptide, for one.

There are many things in the world that aren't riptides, would you like me to list them for you? Or are you going to list a load of GW "alternatives" which are either piss-poor, or more expensive than GW to begin with, all the while insisting that because you think they're good, they're objectively superior. Not that there aren't alternative models that *are* better than GW, but they're in my experience pretty rare, and generally more expensive/the same price as GW.