What has happened to GW models?

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.

**Goliath**

azreal13 wrote:
Goliath wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
BryllCream wrote:
So how do you define "innovation" then? I stupidly assumed you meant designing new kits that people want to buy. GW is hit and miss, but by virtue of them being the largest manufacturer, that would mean that they also produce the most amount of "hits", wouldn't it?

I don't define innovation, the whole world defines it, go look it up.

Doing the same thing but different month in month out is not innovation. Innovation would be finding a way of machining better texture on plastic or reducing the tolerances in manufacturing to the nth degree.

Hahaha no.
You state that they should put money into "innovation" then you should define what "innovation" is relating to. It has multiple meanings. Just because you want an excuse to change the goalposts in case one of your points get shot down doesn't mean the burden of proof (or burden of definition in the case) isn't on you.

Also, you have seen Dark Vengeance haven't you? You're honestly saying that the models within it aren't an "innovation" related to the previous starter sets? How about the recent plastic characters? I'd say they're an "innovation" in regards to how previous plastic models were released and assembled but, again, I don't know what definition of innovation you're intending on using, so go ahead and shift the goalposts as much as you like.

Yes, I'm honestly saying Dark Vengeance isn't an innovation. They're mono pose plastic sculpts. This isn't a new concept. The fact that the set contains some nice sculpts doesn't make them innovative, it makes them well executed.

I honestly haven't moved the goal posts, but you do appear to have turned up on the wrong pitch.

Have edited to bold my comment where I very clearly offer a couple of examples where GW could innovate.

Actually you invited people to a football match and then didn't have any goalposts set up.

And then you came up with a witty comment about how I was on the wrong pitch when I tried to put a couple of jumpers down to act as goalposts.

And fine, maybe DV isn't innovative, but your arguments regarding innovation are contradicting themselves.
You insist that GW's models are too expensive. You also insist that they should innovate. Innovation costs money, which old be passed onto the consumer in the form of more expensive models.

**Azreal13**

Goliath wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
Goliath wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
BryllCream wrote:
So how do you define "innovation" then? I stupidly assumed you meant designing new kits that people want to buy. GW is hit and miss, but by virtue of them being the largest manufacturer, that would mean that they also produce the most amount of "hits", wouldn't it?

I don't define innovation, the whole world defines it, go look it up.

Doing the same thing but different month in month out is not innovation. Innovation would be finding a way of machining better texture on plastic or reducing the tolerances in manufacturing to the nth degree.

Hahaha no.
You state that they should put money into "innovation" then you should define what "innovation" is relating to. It has multiple meanings. Just because you want an excuse to change the goalposts in case one of your points get shot down doesn't mean the burden of proof (or burden of definition in the case) isn't on you.

Also, you have seen Dark Vengeance haven't you? You're honestly saying that the models within it aren't an "innovation" related to the previous starter sets? How about the recent plastic characters? I'd say they're an "innovation" in regards to how previous plastic models were released and assembled but, again, I don't know what definition of innovation you're intending on using, so go ahead and shift the goalposts as much as you like.

Yes, I'm honestly saying Dark Vengeance isn't an innovation. They're mono pose plastic sculpts. This isn't a new concept. The fact that the set contains some nice sculpts doesn't make them innovative, it makes them well executed.

I honestly haven't moved the goal posts, but you do appear to have turned up on the wrong pitch.

Have edited to bold my comment where I very clearly offer a couple of examples where GW could innovate.

Actually you invited people to a football match and then didn't have any goalposts set up.

And then you came up with a witty comment about how I was on the wrong pitch when I tried to put a couple of jumpers down to act as goalposts.

And fine, maybe DV isn't innovative, but your arguments regarding innovation are contradicting themselves.
You insist that GW's models are too expensive. You also insist that they should innovate. Innovation costs money, which old be passed onto the consumer in the form of more expensive models.

You misunderstand me, which may be down to poor language on my part, I can't be arsed to trawl back through and check, but I don't think most of the GW plastics are too expensive, I think they're poor value. Not the same thing.

The Finecast and plastic single models are pants on head crazy prices, especially when the sculpts themselves sometimes hark back to the early to mid nineties.

IF it could be clearly seen that GW were investing heavily in new technology and turning out stunning sculpts and kits that were a joy to build on a regular basis, I'd be queuing up outside the store on release day like and Apple fanatic.

The simple fact is that, for many people, they aren't. They are charging high prices because a) they can b) Kirby wants to retire soon and c) they're stuck with a retail chain which puts their fixed costs through the roof in comparison to their competition.

Please leave the football metaphor alone now, as you've butchered it so efficiently I really can't follow what you mean!

PS Still waiting for you to offer your own argument, which, judging by your responses to mine would be along the lines that GW are still offering some of the best models available anywhere, rather than simply attacking posters and their own opinions.

**Alfndrate**

cincydooley wrote:
Maybe I'm on an island here, but I don't want to have to help you develop your game and your universe. That's your job. Then you can sell it to me and ill play it.

So you won't help me beta test my game?

**cincydooley**

Alfndrate wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Maybe I'm on an island here, but I don't want to have to help you develop your game and your universe. That's your job. Then you can sell it to me and ill play it.

So you won't help me beta test my game?

I'll beta test rules, sure! The whole Antares thing wanted the community to develop the actual game, though. And they wanted the community to develop the universe. Oh yeah, and they wanted you to pay for the privlege to do their work for them.

But for you Alf, of course I will!

**Alfndrate**

cincydooley wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
Maybe I'm on an island here, but I don't want to have to help you develop your game and your universe. That's your job. Then you can sell it to me and ill play it.

So you won't help me beta test my game?

I'll beta test rules, sure! The whole Antares thing wanted the community to develop the actual game, though. And they wanted the community to develop the universe. Oh yeah, and they wanted you to pay for the privlege to do their work for them.

But for you Alf, of course I will!

20 dollar bill incoming

As to the GW models, I honestly think that they're still producing really good, detailed models. I won a Dakkajet at my FLGS, and the thing, while a pain to put together (it's been awhile since I've had to put together a multi-part plastic model), it looks fantastic, and like it can actually fly

. I've been thinking about buying a second one just because. My only problem with GW models is the pricing. If GW games were the only thing around me, I would have to swallow the prices and pay them to play GW games, thankfully that is not the case, and I live in an area that welcomes all gaming. Because of this, my gaming dollar goes to other places because I'm playing games that produce models of a quality I enjoy, and that get me more game for my money. If GW models could live up to the hype of "best and biggest in the business" I would have no problem with their prices. But that's just me.

And I also think that finecast was a great idea, but terrible execution, and is something they've been trying to "fix" since it's release like 2 years ago (or is it 3?). I own three finecast models, and my problem is that the detail is spot on when it's there, but the issues that I've had with my finecast models just detract too much from the model that I immediately regret the price I paid for them (thankfully 1 is used for my Pathfinder character, 1 I paid for and used in 1 game, and the last one was given to me for free, admittedly the best one in the bunch

).

**Goliath**

azreal13 wrote:
You misunderstand me, which may be down to poor language on my part, I can't be arsed to trawl back through and check, but I don't think most of the GW plastics are too expensive, I think they're poor value. Not the same thing.

The Finecast and plastic single models are pants on head crazy prices, especially when the sculpts themselves sometimes hark back to the early to mid nineties.

IF it could be clearly seen that GW were investing heavily in new technology and turning out stunning sculpts and kits that were a joy to build on a regular basis, I'd be queuing up outside the store on release day like and Apple fanatic.

The simple fact is that, for many people, they aren't. They are charging high prices because a) they can b) Kirby wants to retire soon and c) they're stuck with a retail chain which puts their fixed costs through the roof in comparison to their competition.

Please leave the football metaphor alone now, as you've butchered it so efficiently I really can't follow what you mean!

PS Still waiting for you to offer your own argument, which, judging by your responses to mine would be along the lines that GW are still offering some of the best models available anywhere, rather than simply attacking posters and their own opinions.

In that case I apologise, as from what I understood from your comments was that the models were flat out too expensive, rather than merely being poor value for money. Still, would innovating in order to improve the models not also cost money, and therefore increase the costs?

The plastic single pose models are all recent sculpts, so there is no way that they could hark back to the mid nineties, the finecast models may do so, however I will agree with you that it is a dodgy material, though with the caveat that the bits that I have bought that have been cast properly have had far crisper detail than the same model in metal.

As far as my own argument goes, I am indeed of the opinion that GW produces some of the better war gaming miniatures (not models) available, however this is a personal preference and mainly due to my liking for the backstory behind the models, and enjoying models that are not too complex to assemble and paint, whilst also not too "busy" as this allows me to go over the top with extra detail.

(As I have said before, I am "attacking" posters' "statements of fact" that are not backed up with reasoning) not the posters themselves)

A point that could be made is that, as is often complained, a large part of GW's target is youngsters, and so "stunning" models may be unfeasible as they would possibly alienate part of the core audience due to their difficulty?

**Jehan-reznor**

I personally think the dark vengeance plastic figures are very well done, some of those chaos marines give finecrap a run for their money

**BaconUprising**

azreal13 wrote:
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.

Yes of course how much I like the model is entirely what dictates to me how much it should cost. For example I love the Farsight model, love it but at £30 I wouldn't even think of buying it. It's massively over costed for what you get so I would not buy it...

**cincydooley**

You're both mistaking your perceived value with what a product should actually be priced.

**Azreal13**

cincydooley wrote:
You're both mistaking your perceived value with what a product should actually be priced.

Lol, what?

As the consumer, we are the final arbiters in whether a product succeeds or fails, purely by whether we buy it or not. Consumers are unlikely to buy anything they perceive as poor value. That perception is completely subjective for each person, but if too few people feel a product is good value then it will ultimately fail. Now, we appear to be on different sides of that line, but that line appears to keep moving, and, I assume, at some point may surpass what you deem a good return on your money.

There is no what a product should cost, there is only what a product can sell for. If that price is insufficient to make money, then its a poor product and deserves its fate.

You could argue there is what a product must cost in order to break even, but again, in an open market if that number is in excess of what your consumer base is willing to pay, you're SOL.

Our perceived value is the only relevant fact in a conversation about our opinion of whether pricing is reasonable or not, we don't owe GW or any other company a damn thing, and if they're not making money at the prices they charge (lol) it isn't our problem.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Backfire 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.

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.

The vast majority of imperial flyers don't look like they could fly, or if they could fly, could only fly at extremely low speeds and be extremely not-manoeuvrable. They are horribly un-aerodynamic, look at planes from WW1 or even earlier and you'll realise your average imperial flyer has worse aerodynamics than even those early day flyers, let alone what was around by WW2.

**BryllCream**

azreal13 wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
You're both mistaking your perceived value with what a product should actually be priced.

Lol, what?

As the consumer, we are the final arbiters in whether a product succeeds or fails, purely by whether we buy it or not.

Right. So if people pay it, that's its price. The fact that you as an individual disagree is irrelevent.

**Azreal13**

BryllCream wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
You're both mistaking your perceived value with what a product should actually be priced.

Lol, what?

As the consumer, we are the final arbiters in whether a product succeeds or fails, purely by whether we buy it or not.

Right. So if people pay it, that's its price. The fact that you as an individual disagree is irrelevent.

Did you just read that part of the post, think gleefully "ooh, I can quote that out of context" without reading anything else I'd written?

**Pacific**

cincydooley wrote:

@Pacific - Gates of Antares didnt show us gak. They showed us a poorly developed business model with non-concrete ideas that were heavily reliant on the community. It played right into this community at-large's sense of entitlement but in actuality was poorly planned and incredibly ambiguous. It failed because they didn't actually know what their product was and they were banking too heavily on a name.

Maybe I'm on an island here, but I don't want to have to help you develop your game and your universe. That's your job. Then you can sell it to me and ill play it.

I agree that the fan-input element of GoA was perhaps too much - the game should have been far more defined, the rules also, prior to the start of the Kickstarter rather than seemingly floundering around for concept art.

That being said I still think there were some fantastic ideas within the formation of the game - those 'real time' development of a living, sci-fi universe that evolves as the players get involved with it? I think such a thing has the potential to be massive if implemented well. In fact, it excited me a lot more than is probably healthy!

Like you say , those ideas weren't concrete (although Rick Priestley did apparently have some games/internet design guys on board) but that takes nothing away from their potential. Arguably, the wargaming industry is going to need that kind of fresh innovation to keep it relevant within the increasingly fast-paced modern world

**cincydooley**

Pacific wrote:
cincydooley wrote:

@Pacific - Gates of Antares didnt show us gak. They showed us a poorly developed business model with non-concrete ideas that were heavily reliant on the community. It played right into this community at-large's sense of entitlement but in actuality was poorly planned and incredibly ambiguous. It failed because they didn't actually know what their product was and they were banking too heavily on a name.

Maybe I'm on an island here, but I don't want to have to help you develop your game and your universe. That's your job. Then you can sell it to me and ill play it.

I agree that the fan-input element of GoA was perhaps too much - the game should have been far more defined, the rules also, prior to the start of the Kickstarter rather than seemingly floundering around for concept art.

That being said I still think there were some fantastic ideas within the formation of the game - those 'real time' development of a living, sci-fi universe that evolves as the players get involved with it? I think such a thing has the potential to be massive if implemented well. In fact, it excited me a lot more than is probably healthy!

Like you say , those ideas weren't concrete (although Rick Priestley did apparently have some games/internet design guys on board) but that takes nothing away from their potential. Arguably, the wargaming industry is going to need that kind of fresh innovation to keep it relevant within the increasingly fast-paced modern world

And then they'll have to have that infrastructure to maintain that vision. The people involved with Gates of Antares absolutely don't have that, and that was made pretty clear by their inability to run or plan their KS. Everyone seems to forget that just because someone can write miniatures rules doesn't mean they can run a business. As much as the basement MBAs here don't want to acknowledge it, those bean counters and cutthroat strategizers are necessary.

@Azrael - my point was that it doesn't matter what you think, especially considering you tried to state it as a categorical fact that it was overpriced. The fact remains that the hellbrute is appropriately priced in the context of the rest of GWs product line. Whether or not YOU think it's worth it has no bearing on that fact.

**Azreal13**

Of course it matters what I think! I'm a damn customer, if I think it's too expensive and don't buy it then that's a big problem. If I choose to buy something else from the competition instead, that's a bigger problem.

These are both things that are true for me and my buying habit.

It is only irrelevant if I am in an insignificant minority, and it is becoming increasingly apparent, both at my local club and in the wider context of posters in here, that while I well be in a minority, globally speaking, it's far from insignificant.

I keep trying to address your comment about 'appropriate' pricing, but I have repeatedly failed, I just don't have the energy to address the massive fail that is that statement after I've been up this long. My brain has melted, perhaps I'll try again tomorrow.

**TheAuldGrump**

azreal13 wrote:
Of course it matters what I think! I'm a damn customer, if I think it's too expensive and don't buy it then that's a big problem. If I choose to buy something else from the competition instead, that's a bigger problem.

These are both things that are true for me and my buying habit.

It is only irrelevant if I am in an insignificant minority, and it is becoming increasingly apparent, both at my local club and in the wider context of posters in here, that while I well be in a minority, globally speaking, it's far from insignificant.

I keep trying to address your comment about 'appropriate' pricing, but I have repeatedly failed, I just don't have the energy to address the massive fail that is that statement after I've been up this long. My brain has melted, perhaps I'll try again tomorrow.

Pretty much this - I haven't bought any GW in six months, and then it was at 30% off because of a store closing.

If prices are driving enough people away, then it is bad business.

***

I do not consider DV to be innovative - but I did consider 3e WH40K to be an innovation.

Massive improvements to the rules, better models, and they got rid of the stupid card based psycher system. But, at the same time, they managed to hold on to enough elements that it was still obviously WH40K.

4e... was not as good, in my estimation. DV... I haven't bothered.

The Auld Grump

**RedSarge**

In regards to what has happened to GW models. I WISH that the vehicle models that aren't flyers would get some of the parts and pieces back.

I mean, a Chimera is as simple as a Rhino to build now as is the Leman Russ... it makes me think that I'm buying a toy.. A TOY!
A very expensive toy that goes together so quickly I wonder why GW can't just ship it like that.

If we are in "the HOBBY" to build models and not just game [if you are?] then the amount of MODEL is waning somewhat. I know, the HUEG big base kits are nightmares of constructikon and coral flames, BUT they occupy organic creatures or WH:FB contraptions.. and they have a lot of customization for sure.

**timd**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
[
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).

If a very small company like Dreamforge Games can do complex multi-part molds for its Eisenkern line through Wargames Factory, then GW should have no trouble doing similar stuff.

Diagram of a multi-part sliding core mold for Dreamforge's Leviathan Crusader:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dreamforge-games/something-wicked-this-way-comes-crusader-plastic-m/posts?page=14

**Trasvi**

^^ Crazy multi-part molds can work for regular, mechanical shapes. They're a much more difficult proposition the more organic or detailed your parts become and the more parts you get on a sprue, and I think GW does a much better job of multi-part plastics than any other manufacturer I've experienced.

Dreamforge also had the 'issue' that their leviathans were previously resin models, cast in flexible molds. They faced the decision of resculpting the master to deal with solid molds, or to make 3-piece molds where necessary.

multi-part molds aren't impossible by any means... just are they worth the extra effort when you could use a cheaper 2-part mold to make 4 components and have your customer stick them together for you?

**Azazelx**

ashrog wrote:
The models as a whole have only improved. They are better looking now than they were 10 years ago, and they were better then than when GW first hit the scene. You can point at some of those old models and call them "classic", but by today's standards they are poor models.

Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you there. SM characters sculpted by Jes Goodwin? Still great. Eldar sculpted by Jes, going back even to the original line with chainmail undersuits (mesh armour!) Still solid models. Original Kev Adams Plaguebeaers, Orcs or Goblins?Hardly poor.

Which isn't to say that a lot of the current stuff isn't great. I think a lot of the newer stuff just seems a bit conceptually odd, visually (new DA Landspeeder-thing) or suffers a bit from being 3-D modelled (some of the OK stuff through selected models right up to current range).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

scarletsquig wrote:

HE are the perfect example, this release could have been new archers and spearmen instead of stupid eagle chariot and shadow warriors plastic kit that doesn't look much different to the old metals and is the same price.
I don't know how GW have managed to constantly and completely screw up the HE release.. this edition they've both been in the starter, and gotten an army book but they're still stuck with the same old goofy as hell hamfist core plastics.
Even the Mantic elves look better than those ancient minis. Seriously, I own both the GW and Mantic ones. And I don't really like the mantic ones all that much, but the GW ones are just atrocious and need to be sent to go live on a farm pronto.
They're so bad I couldn't even give the models away to someone with a 4th edition HE army, he flat-out refused. :p

I'll take 'em.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flashman wrote:
For those putting on their rose tinted glasses of nostalgia, there have been plenty of poor sculpts in the past.

I present Exhibit A...

Yeah, those are the middle ones. Sculpted by.. I'm not sure. The original Jes sculpts still kick their arses!

**Sidstyler**

Azazelx wrote:
ashrog wrote:
The models as a whole have only improved. They are better looking now than they were 10 years ago, and they were better then than when GW first hit the scene. You can point at some of those old models and call them "classic", but by today's standards they are poor models.

Yeah, I'm going to disagree with you there. SM characters sculpted by Jes Goodwin? Still great. Eldar sculpted by Jes, going back even to the original line with chainmail undersuits (mesh armour!) Still solid models. Original Kev Adams Plaguebeaers, Orcs or Goblins?Hardly poor.

Also, the old metal CSM daemon prince compared to the new plastic one. The metal model looked far superior.

**ExNoctemNacimur**

The metal model is still available in Finecast. I think it looks 20 times cooler, but I got it in metal and can't be bothered to convert it to a winged prince.

**MandalorynOranj**

Azazelx wrote:
The original Jes sculpts still kick their arses!

It's a good model compared to others from the time, but it in no way hold up to the current Scorpions.

Compared to this:

the head, pistol, and sword are all pretty lacking.

**AllSeeingSkink**

MandalorynOranj wrote:
Azazelx wrote:
The original Jes sculpts still kick their arses!

It's a good model compared to others from the time, but it in no way hold up to the current Scorpions.

Compared to this:

the head, pistol, and sword are all pretty lacking.

Actually, I think it holds up quite well. The newer model has more "bling", but that doesn't make it a better model IMO.

**Azazelx**

The newest ones are very good. My main point is that the old/original ones still hold up solidly. The middle period of 2nd Edition in the early-mid 90's saw a lot of formerly great sculpts replaced by awful ones. The other Eldar shown earlier, the bloodletters and daemonettes (also shown earlier), and quite a few more. It approximately lines up with the GW "red period".

**Grimtuff**

ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
The metal model is still available in Finecast. I think it looks 20 times cooler, but I got it in metal and can't be bothered to convert it to a winged prince.

"Convert" it? You do realise that model was purpose built to take these wings? You just don't put on the backpack vanes. The lugs are 100% the same.

**ExNoctemNacimur**

No, I was not aware. Thanks for that.

**TheFatElf**

See, I think most of GW's stuff is pretty good! There are a few releases now and again that I'm not so keen on, but really I suppose it's down to opinion?

**Squigsquasher**

TheFatElf wrote:
See, I think most of GW's stuff is pretty good! There are a few releases now and again that I'm not so keen on, but really I suppose it's down to opinion?

Same here. Whilst they do release some rather poor stuff, most of it is still good, and they still have a lot of their older models on sale (they are discontinuing a few of them, but they weren't selling at all, so there was little reason to keep making them).

Also, even some of the bad-looking stuff can be made to look excellent with a little bit of converting and a good paintjob. And as someone who maintains that if a problem can be easily fixed it's not a problem, to me that makes them worthwhile purchases. Even supposedly "dreadful" sculpts like the Razorgors (which I rather like) can be made to look superb with minimal conversions and a decent paintjob.