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.

I'm curious about the quality. I was given the box by a friend for two reasons 1) to get me to start playing and 2) as a breather from a 90 model marine army.

My question is this, are the models in the same quality as separately bought models? (As in number of parts and such) They seem to be of the same as the GW starter box sets, easy to assemble (snap together level) and start playing. The battlegroup warjacks are pretty much large hunks of plastic. While impressive, they have left me a little disappointed.

You aren't a fan of the warjack models? You could always go to your store and ask to see someone's warbeast, they may be more up your alley.

And they sort of are the same quality but sort of aren't. For example in the Cygnar battlebox, the ironclad has some of the same parts as the plastic heavy warjack box for Cygnar which includes the ironclad. However, the warjack box also includes arms and heads for a Defender and a Cyclone. So it has the same amount of parts as an ironclad from the heavy warjack box, but not the same amount of parts as the heavy warjack box, if that makes sense...

Thanks for the response.

I'm not saying I'm not a fan, they look great painted. But the seem to be too few parts. I have the Protectorate battlegroup and crusader could have had a few more parts to give it more detail. Re-moveable main plate, etc.

Add in the crusader body is a large hunk of plastic. I was expecting that at least the thigh and should plates were separate. The edges don't seem to be a crisp as I am used to.

I will finish painting the box up and reserve final judgment.

Well if you want a challenge the Skorn Titan has like 83 parts.....

 darefsky wrote:
Well if you want a challenge the Skorn Titan has like 83 parts.....

I dunno, I reckon the archangel still has an edge in terms of 'pain in the kiester gargantuan/colossal to assemble'. Dat tail...

I believe that is what lead me to think there was going to be more parts for the smaller kits. When I was first asked to play and I dug into the models, I no see I was looking at the really large kits and not the 40mm and smaller kits. And GW models normally come in more parts, so I just made and assumption.

And for US$100+ they better have tons of detail.

to be honest, the focus on this game isnt on the models.

Most models range from "yeah, pretty good" to "great", with a few stinkers thrown in.

Youre basically used to the GW approach which is sprues upon sprues of extra bits for conversions, swaps, modifications - essentially, the focus is on the modelling side of it.
With PP, the focus is on the game, and the playing of said game. Models are generally of a pretty good quality, but PP as a company put far less emphasis on customisation of models. It is possible, and quite feasable to convert things, but as a general standard, you dont get it to the same level as with GW.

Not good, or bad. just different.

PP models have far fewer parts than an equivalent GW kit. They also don't have really many options or poses.

You may simply have a problem with the aesthetic of Warmachine, warjacks are stylized steampunk. Not the gritty pseudo-realism of GW products.

Hordes may suit you better.



With the Menoth battleboxes, IIRC, the plastic Jacks are the same as their normal plastic cousins. the heavies just don't have the parts for the other jacks in the box.

The Crusader and Vanquisher are the plastic heavy kit with just the parts for a Crusader/Vanquisher.

The Repenter is the same as the normal plastic kit(Lights don't have a single kit that can make different jacks)

I believe the both of you are correct, I'm used to FW and GW models with options. From what I am seeing in the rules for WM/H is that there really are not options beyond the units. This really doesn't bother me. I was just a bit surprised after looking at the painted models vs. what's in the box.

These styles of models are not very conducive to my way of painting. I paint everything in parts with a base of spray paint they detail in everything else.

This is also not a bad thing, I can step out of my painting comfort zone and learn more skills/tricks. Thanks for all the info. I will throw up the finished pics when I'm done for bashing.

Yeah, the only options that exist in Warmahordes is really unit size. Do you take a min or a max unit. Do you add a UA or Weapon Attachment if one exists. That's about it.

I think the only model that actually has an option is the Man-o-war Drakhun. You can choose to make him a Dragoon or a standard cavalry solo.

Deadnight wrote:
to be honest, the focus on this game isnt on the models.

Most models range from "yeah, pretty good" to "great", with a few stinkers thrown in.

Youre basically used to the GW approach which is sprues upon sprues of extra bits for conversions, swaps, modifications - essentially, the focus is on the modelling side of it.
With PP, the focus is on the game, and the playing of said game. Models are generally of a pretty good quality, but PP as a company put far less emphasis on customisation of models. It is possible, and quite feasable to convert things, but as a general standard, you dont get it to the same level as with GW.

Not good, or bad. just different.

This. PP does not have a great attention to detail. Even on their bigger kits, there's an astounding lack of interest. I'm in the middle of building a Galleon (that would be one of the Colossals), and it's a well made kit (minus some material choices), but the detail just isn't there. It seems like they've decided that more rivets and random things glued on equate to more detail, where it's really just more texture.

I think they have plenty of detail. It's not like we need to cram filigree and skulls on every square inch.

Seen very many Menite models?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Seen very many Menite models?

Kreoss3 is quite busy.

Yeah, but they're the hyper religious faction where it makes more sense for them to be ornate. The others are more standard militaries and should look more spartan. If there's a reason for detail to be there then fine, but I don't want detail thrown on for details sake.

I've noticed the lack of detail. Looking at the studio painted models you don't notice, but building and painting it is a stark difference from out companies.

I've watched a few games at my FLGS and notice it even more. The game does lend itself to quick, broad painting to get the models on the table to play. But with the level of detail (at lest on the jacks) PP could have pre-painted them and add $4-5 to the cost. I guess they are in the niche between full on tabletop games and the hero-click type games.

 hisdudeness wrote:


The edges don't seem to be a crisp as I am used to.

I have noticed this as well when I was painting up my man-o-wars, there are a number of spots on the legs (mostly the knee joints and below) where everthing just kinda runs together and it looks sloppy. It looks like a bad cast but I doubt it because both sets of man-o-wars I own have the same problem.

It doesn't look as bad when its painted because the legs arn't the focus but you do see it when you're painting it.

There are other minor design things that irk me like pistons that don't connect to anything but on the whole I like the models.

 hisdudeness wrote:
I've noticed the lack of detail. Looking at the studio painted models you don't notice, but building and painting it is a stark difference from out companies.

I've watched a few games at my FLGS and notice it even more. The game does lend itself to quick, broad painting to get the models on the table to play. But with the level of detail (at lest on the jacks) PP could have pre-painted them and add $4-5 to the cost. I guess they are in the niche between full on tabletop games and the hero-click type games.

I prefer the design of PP miniatures to other manufacturers actually, they just seem more realistic.

These are supposed to be practical machines to be used in battle, adding skulls, scrolls and other ridiculous things just to add more "detail" would be pointless and silly.

PhantomViper wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
I've noticed the lack of detail. Looking at the studio painted models you don't notice, but building and painting it is a stark difference from out companies.

I've watched a few games at my FLGS and notice it even more. The game does lend itself to quick, broad painting to get the models on the table to play. But with the level of detail (at lest on the jacks) PP could have pre-painted them and add $4-5 to the cost. I guess they are in the niche between full on tabletop games and the hero-click type games.

I prefer the design of PP miniatures to other manufacturers actually, they just seem more realistic.

These are supposed to be practical machines to be used in battle, adding skulls, scrolls and other ridiculous things just to add more "detail" would be pointless and silly.

Exactly my opinion as well.

There are a lot of models in the wm/h range that i dont like. There are also models that i really love.

That being said its the same with 40k for me.

What i like in both games is the overall look when a game is played with 2 painted armies on a decent looking table. Its the whole picture that i really like in both games. Although sometimes i think the tons of tokens used in warmachine kinda destroy the picture.

I put my tokens on the stat cards. In 40k you have no place but near the model to put dice or tokens near the model.

PhantomViper wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
I've noticed the lack of detail. Looking at the studio painted models you don't notice, but building and painting it is a stark difference from out companies.

I've watched a few games at my FLGS and notice it even more. The game does lend itself to quick, broad painting to get the models on the table to play. But with the level of detail (at lest on the jacks) PP could have pre-painted them and add $4-5 to the cost. I guess they are in the niche between full on tabletop games and the hero-click type games.

I prefer the design of PP miniatures to other manufacturers actually, they just seem more realistic.

These are supposed to be practical machines to be used in battle, adding skulls, scrolls and other ridiculous things just to add more "detail" would be pointless and silly.

Warmachine? Realistic and practical? Really? They have a bunch of stylized robots and weapons that don't make any sense; walking tanks that for some reason carry weapons in hands instead of just having weapon limbs (mercs and protectorate excepted since they have stories about it); tiny little legs that would sink through the ground with great big gorilla torsoes, inconsistent proportions, and just plain arbitrary anatomy.

Thing is, skulls, scrolls, and filigree is to Warhammer as rivets, trim, and filigree is to Warmachine. They're different versions of texture with little purpose. Having actually built things with rivets, the placement of rivets in Warmachine is as arbitrary and nonsensical as the proliferation of skulls on GW stuff.

PP has an incredible lack of understanding of how science, society, religion, and language work, focusing on a superficial semblance to these things in their setting, and a solid rules set.

 Surtur wrote:
I put my tokens on the stat cards. In 40k you have no place but near the model to put dice or tokens near the model.

This will get you a lot of hate in the circles I play in. It makes it a lot more confusing who has what on it. You really should have the tokens and focus/fury markers next to the models/units.

Yeah, put it next to the model. Its much easier. I can't read what cards go with what across the table upside-down.

 Surtur wrote:
I put my tokens on the stat cards. In 40k you have no place but near the model to put dice or tokens near the model.

This clears up the table but makes the game impractical as mentioned.

What really helps is using the PP faction token sets. At least i wouldnt want to play without it after i purchased it some time ago.

Nevertheless even when using the official tokens it destroys the picture for me sometimes.

 Mywik wrote:
What really helps is using the PP faction token sets. At least i wouldnt want to play without it after i purchased it some time ago.

Nevertheless even when using the official tokens it destroys the picture for me sometimes.

I still just use my multicolored glass beads (lots of people used to use them for MTG, don't know if they still do)-- bought them for like $3 years ago and less porous than plastic tokens, so easy to write on.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Mywik wrote:
What really helps is using the PP faction token sets. At least i wouldnt want to play without it after i purchased it some time ago.

Nevertheless even when using the official tokens it destroys the picture for me sometimes.

I still just use my multicolored glass beads (lots of people used to use them for MTG, don't know if they still do)-- bought them for like $3 years ago and less porous than plastic tokens, so easy to write on.

Definitely works too. I just especially like the stackable fury tokens out of the faction sets. But thats really just personal preference. Price tag wise glass beads win anyway

 AduroT wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
I put my tokens on the stat cards. In 40k you have no place but near the model to put dice or tokens near the model.

This will get you a lot of hate in the circles I play in. It makes it a lot more confusing who has what on it. You really should have the tokens and focus/fury markers next to the models/units.

I don't see why. It's less cluttered, it's quite clear and reduces the chance of models getting knocked around when moving tokens. A stat card being on the other side of the table does no harm, I fail to see why a token becomes an exception.

 Surtur wrote:


I don't see why

I'd say because its not as easy to see. In tournaments you often have a deathclock running down and if i have to ask for every model which card and tokens it belongs to i waste a lot of time. If there are three tokens next to the caster i know he has 3 fury on a glimpse.

In a friendly game i wouldnt care that much but i'd still prefer having my opponent place tokens next to a model gameplay wise.

I'm not really talking about the skull and scroll type detail. I talking about the basic detail of the models. Take the crusader, the pistons for the arms and torso are just a blob. The edges of the shoulder plates are rounded and the area between the edging and plate itself is not crisp. The Protectorate symbol is raised way too much. The entire line seems to be exaggerated. The posing is very static on the 3 I have.

These are not real issues and I do like the models, they are just different.

And here is a so-so pic of the 2 completed-ish models. I will get some better ones when I finish the last one and the war caster.