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.

Man, the hex bases are so dated. Especially being slotted for minis that have no tabs. The background is also curious, why they wouldn't go with something more neutral.

As I don't own any Northern minis, I'm not sure, but the head sizes seem overlarge or oversmall - the proportions are not pleasing. Esp with the oversized guns and fat knives.

Also, the molding seems obviously crude and especially toylike - hope they're cheap enough.
____

ETA pic of the crap in question.

Okay, so you don't like them. That's nice. Don't buy them if you don't like them. I do like them, although I think I'm going to pick up some extra 32mm round bases to put them on. I'm pretty jazzed to have these delivered this summer!

The hex bases will have to go. To still have slotted hex bases like that makes me wonder if the PoD has a warehouse full of them somewhere and that's why they continue to push them onto us.

The mini's themselves... they look serviceable. The proportions look odd compared to the white metal models. Not bad, mind you, just different. Not a big fan of the "fists", though I understand why they were modeled that way.

The true test will be when I actually get my models and I start to put them together. What kind of glue will I be able to use? How about getting rid of the mold lines? Will an emery board be good enough, or will I have to break out my diamond metal files? How well will they go together? How easy will they be to modify into different poses? That will pretty much be the make or break on these models. Painting shouldn't be an issue.

The breakdown: The models look different from the white metal. Those bases belong in the 90's. The material and how easy it is to work with will be a big factor in the success or failure of converting to plastic. Painting is irrelevant; The best model is ruined by a bad paint job, and the worst model is raised up by a great paint job.

They still look better than the south pictures they showed us. As a "starter" model, they should be fine.

I agree with T.Wulf. Definitely different, but that in it's own right isn't a bad thing.

Given that they're the final test-pops and the Southern gears were the first test-pops, they're supposed to look better.

Likewise, given that they're the same styrene plastic as GW miniatures (and so many others) it's just a case of a sharp knife and some plastic cement.

They look ok.. not great but ok. They're serviceable as a cheap plastic entry point into the game which is why they were made. I personally prefer the added flare and more natural styling of the Minimaniak/Xactoboy blitz era metals (NOT the tacticals) personally though. I can never get the pics on KS (whether the email or the actual update url) to open up to a good size but it looks like bigger pics were posted on the dp9 forums (clickable to get even bigger).

http://dp9forum.com/index.php?showtopic=17422

The poses are stiff as I previously commented on, the proportions are a bit off (they look like the gears went on a pre-wedding diet and suddenly lost weight), and there are some stylistic changes (like MAC's losing the shoulder stock). All in all, it still comes down IMO to the price. If they're cheap enough, some folks will try it that otherwise would have stayed away. It's tempered praise for sure but it is an achievement for DP9 nonetheless (when they actually start shipping to backers obviously).

edit: so many typos to correct!

Nomeny wrote:
Okay, so you don't like them. That's nice.

Don't buy them if you don't like them.

I do like them, although I think I'm going to pick up some extra 32mm round bases to put them on. I'm pretty jazzed to have these delivered this summer!

No, I do not like them; they are objectively bad.

Don't worry, I didn't and I won't.

Bully for you on liking bad minis. But don't count those chickens just yet.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


Bully for you on liking bad minis.

You know some people think the Mantic mini's look cool?

No need to dump on the man just because your taste in mini is different than his.


As an alternate question: How many different ways can you tell us that you're not buying a particular item (KS stuff in this case)? Granted you've only used one way about 30 times so far...

TL;DR: Don't care if you critique them, but we got it, you're not going to buy them. Get off the dead horse.

There is no accounting for taste.

However, if you guys want to argue the point, I'm not to argue back? Feth that.

And FWIW, I'm happy to have possibly spent more on clearance metal than I would have spend on the plastic gak.

Given that this is HG General Discussion, not HG KS, maybe you fan friends should stop polluting this thread with OT KS crap.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Considering that most of the pics and discussion are by the game's detractors what group are you trying to lump me in with?

There's plenty of accounting for taste: the man likes the models, let him like them. Doesn't invalidate any technical issues in the models.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nomeny wrote:
Given that they're the final test-pops and the Southern gears were the first test-pops, they're supposed to look better.

Likewise, given that they're the same styrene plastic as GW miniatures (and so many others) it's just a case of a sharp knife and some plastic cement.

Took another look at the north picture. They should be fairly easy to convert, which is a plus over the metal models. In theory, a decent modeler should be able to get a fairly diverse army out of it.


For a beginner, the fixed poses would make it easier to get the force assembled.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Considering that most of the pics and discussion are by the game's detractors what group are you trying to lump me in with?

There's plenty of accounting for taste: the man likes the models, let him like them. Doesn't invalidate any technical issues in the models.

Game detractor... still a fun epithet. I always get encyclopedical knowledge of the games I despise, and form part of the inner playtest circles of every game I hate.

Took another look at the north picture. They should be fairly easy to convert, which is a plus over the metal models. In theory, a decent modeler should be able to get a fairly diverse army out of it.

For a beginner, the fixed poses would make it easier to get the force assembled.

The picture doesn't really show it, but they are supposed to have "ball a,d peg" connections in at least head and shoulders.

Detractor seemed to fit better than "Hater".

I also seem to remember reading that the arms (and maybe legs) were also supposed to have ball joints. Don't know if that's the case here, assuming I'm not remembering wrong.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Detractor seemed to fit better than "Hater".

I also seem to remember reading that the arms (and maybe legs) were also supposed to have ball joints. Don't know if that's the case here, assuming I'm not remembering wrong.

I...

detractor - one who disparages or belittles the worth of something

noun slanderer, belittler, disparager, defamer, traducer, muckraker, scandalmonger, denigrator, backbiter, derogator (rare)

...ok. Should I feel offended, then?

 Albertorius wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Detractor seemed to fit better than "Hater".

I also seem to remember reading that the arms (and maybe legs) were also supposed to have ball joints. Don't know if that's the case here, assuming I'm not remembering wrong.

I...

detractor - one who disparages or belittles the worth of something

noun slanderer, belittler, disparager, defamer, traducer, muckraker, scandalmonger, denigrator, backbiter, derogator (rare)

...ok. Should I feel offended, then?

Ok, I forgot about the noun part.

Still better in a lot of ways than:

hate
hāt/
verb
verb: hate; 3rd person present: hates; past tense: hated; past participle: hated; gerund or present participle: hating

1.
feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone).
"the boys hate each other"
synonyms: loathe, detest, despise, dislike, abhor, execrate; be repelled by, be unable to bear/stand, find intolerable, recoil from, shrink from;
formalabominate

noun
noun: hate

1.
intense or passionate dislike.
"feelings of hate and revenge"
synonyms: hatred, loathing, detestation, dislike, distaste, abhorrence, abomination, execration, aversion; hostility, enmity, animosity, antipathy, revulsion, disgust, contempt, odium
"feelings of hate"

Let's just say no insult intended, and that I'm far more familiar with the definition of Hate than is probably healthy.

Fair enough ^_^

It's not "slandering" or "belittling" something's value, when the comment is accurate.
Those minis are lame. The detail is lacking, the proportions are off, the poses are stiff. This is fact.

They're not "good" or "awesome", or even "bad". They're "serviceable". I don't think anyone in this thread will pretend in good faith that those minis are improved over the metal ones, the most praise I've seen so far is that they're "acceptable as a cheaper substitute". That's some praise there...

I guess the Pod should be praised for delivering, within somewhat reasonnable delays, what they promised to deliver. Yeah, I suppose.
Those minis could have been as good as the metal ones, but that was never DP9's intent. For DP9, "quality" has always taken a back-seat to "cheap" and their dreadful "good enough for the fans", and that's what they've done again.
Every aspect of the final models, the detailing, the proportions, the poses, etc... can be directly traced to that lazy attitude, keep that in mind whenever you believe those minis could have been better made.

The one thing I'm not certain of, is what DP9 wants to do with their plastic line.
I think hoping those plastic gears will serve as a cheap entry is wishful-thinking, I can't see DP9 spending 2 years of effort on what would just be beginner models. That's the line they want to push ahead, not the metal ones.
Why would they want to push an inferior line ? Because it's cheaper. For them, that is.

The KS backers will get their stuff. Well, save for the stuff DP9 decided to cancel, of course. Then we see what DP9 wants for the future...

No, not fact, those are your opinions. Facts would include things like the dimensions of the miniatures, their number, or some other quantifiable thing. Whatever adjectives you choose to use instead of quantifiable facts are strictly subjective.

Now it sucks that these aren't 'awesome' to you. It would be great if we could both enjoy these models, and not only because it would mean that we could both support and enjoy Heavy Gear, but because enjoying things is by definition a good thing.

Maybe you have other things in your life you can enjoy.

Nomeny wrote:
No, not fact, those are your opinions. Facts would include things like the dimensions of the miniatures, their number, or some other quantifiable thing. Whatever adjectives you choose to use instead of quantifiable facts are strictly subjective.

Well, not completely. The shown plastic miniatures are objectively worse than the current crop of metal minis: the new minis have less and shallower detailing, stiffer poses, less posing options out of the box, and it looks like they are split in more pieces. All of those are objective, factual statements, absolutely quantifiable. They also happen to be some of the statements Hundson has used.

Of course, opposing those facts are other ones, like the material being plastic instead of metal, the comparative easeness of cutting them up and reposing them and, hopefully, the monetarial cost of the two different versions.

What would be subjective would be choosing which of those facts have more weight for every person.

Yes, completely. For example, you say that the plastics are "objectively worse than the current crop of metal minis" and give some physical characteristics and your opinion of those characteristics. I might, for instance, either prefer or be neutral to the fewer and shallower details. In fact I rather prefer that. I have several companies of Space Marines that I have carefully (and not so carefully) trimmed of all the extraneous skulls and other detailing cruft. I like smooth and sleek.

"Stiffer poses" is just subjective. I'm sorry.

Fewer posing options out the box can be quantified, but I think if you actually count these options you'll find they vary depending on whatever metric you assign per pose.

Likewise that these miniatures are split into more pieces is both objective, and served up with no particular proof (although I agree it's certainly easier to find a metric for pieces than 'poses'), and that is a good thing in my book. Going back to Space Marines again, one of the reasons I like them is that they come in approximately 8-12 pieces.

But hey, let's suppose that these poses are 'stiffer,' that's good because they're plastic, and stiff poses are considerably easier to repose than so-called dynamic poses. It's a reason why GW reversed course from trying to make all their miniatures modular, multi-part miniatures like Space Marines, because reposing miniatures that were sculpted in multiple parts to be posed dynamically only have a few poses they'll actually look good* and the fans generally didn't assemble their miniatures in those poses, lowering their perceived value for onlookers. I'm happy to have those poses rather than more dynamic poses, particularly for both playing pieces and converting. Likewise I agree with M. Dubois' comment about the hands, that they're too small to see comfortably for what are playing pieces. As mentioned, there's a level of detail that's not only superfluous to specifications, but the kind I'd cut off anyways.

*And here 'good' was GW's subjectivity.

Here's the tl;dr: You're still mixing up your facts and values.

Nomeny wrote:
Yes, completely. For example, you say that the plastics are "objectively worse than the current crop of metal minis" and give some physical characteristics and your opinion of those characteristics. I might, for instance, either prefer or be neutral to the fewer and shallower details. In fact I rather prefer that. I have several companies of Space Marines that I have carefully (and not so carefully) trimmed of all the extraneous skulls and other detailing cruft. I like smooth and sleek.

Your preference is of no relevance here. You wanted objective, and the detail is objectively shallower and it has less of it in the plastic miniatures shown. Shallower detail is objectively worse detail than crisper detail. Please, stop fiddling with the posts. It's not nice.

"Stiffer poses" is just subjective. I'm sorry.

Still is not. Sorry. The poses are stiffer because the thights are a single piece instead of separate, so the range of motions is shallower, which provokes the stiffness.

Fewer posing options out the box can be quantified, but I think if you actually count these options you'll find they vary depending on whatever metric you assign per pose.

I'll leave the burden of proof to you on that, then.

Likewise that these miniatures are split into more pieces is both objective, and served up with no particular proof (although I agree it's certainly easier to find a metric for pieces than 'poses'), and that is a good thing in my book. Going back to Space Marines again, one of the reasons I like them is that they come in approximately 8-12 pieces.

My opinions on the matter are documented in the Robotech thread.

But hey, let's suppose that these poses are 'stiffer,' that's good because they're plastic, and stiff poses are considerably easier to repose than so-called dynamic poses.

Opinion. Need more proof.

Here's the tl;dr: You're still mixing up your facts and values.

So are you, so I guess we keep good company?

I'm not asking for objectivity. I'm simply pointing out your errors in presuming your own opinion to be objective fact.

Nomeny wrote:I'm not asking for objectivity. I'm simply pointing out your errors in presuming your own opinion to be objective fact.

Still in good company, then.

I'd like to keep company that was as enthusiastic as I am about the new Heavy Gear KS stuff. I mean, why spend time discussing it if it's not your thing? Surely there's something you enjoy that you could spend your time and attention on.

Nomeny wrote:
I'd like to keep company that was as enthusiastic as I am about the new Heavy Gear KS stuff. I mean, why spend time discussing it if it's not your thing? Surely there's something you enjoy that you could spend your time and attention on.

You're in luck then, such a place exist, I'm sure you'll like it there :
http://dp9forum.com/

Yes, I'm on it. It would be nice to chat about it on Dakka too.

Oh, but we are discussing Heavy Gear here, that the discussion isn't to your liking is just a matter of opinion.

It's true. That's why I'm here, to make sure my opinions are posted too.

I want to talk about Heavy Beer.

Normandy, less detail is worse than more detail; if only because it's easier to cover/remove it than to add it.

In general the amount they put into these models is about the minimum I'd accept as a non-intro figure. The lack of crispness on those details however is a bit more of an issue.

I don't care about the slight differences in proportion. They're all still close enough that I can easily tell what each is supposed to be. If anyone asks, I'll tell them that they're Mk II hunters (ect)


Like my conversation earlier, I prefer objective: not "good" or "bad", but "like and dislike". But when someone points out the undeniable fact about something, something that can be easily shown (difference in proportion), you really can't argue against it.

Nomeny wrote:
No, not fact, those are your opinions. Facts would include things like the dimensions of the miniatures, their number, or some other quantifiable thing. Whatever adjectives you choose to use instead of quantifiable facts are strictly subjective.

Now it sucks that these aren't 'awesome' to you. It would be great if we could both enjoy these models, and not only because it would mean that we could both support and enjoy Heavy Gear, but because enjoying things is by definition a good thing.

Maybe you have other things in your life you can enjoy.

It sucks that your life is spent white knighting for the Pod.

The fact is that the plastic models are worse. If you took off your rose-tinted glasses and looked at the hands, you would have to conclude it an absolute objective fact that the metal hands look more like "hands" than the plastic ones. Similarly, it is an absolute fact that the metal models are a better match to the reference art than the plastic models. It is absolute fact that the metal models reproduce details (with undercuts!) far better than the plastic ones. It is absolute fact that the plastic models were sculpted with very stiff poses to simplify tooling, and that it impacts posing compared to the metal models.

If you want to enjoy badly-done models, that's fine for you. But pretending that the plastics are anywhere near as good as the metals is untrue. The plastics are a clear step downward in accuracy compared to the reference art, and they are a clear step back in terms of detailing and design. They are flat out not as good. And if you want to quantify it, we can look at the amount of undercutting that is present on each model. We can count the number of planes that form each surface. From a numerical quantitiative standpoint, the metals are unquestionably superior. Again, it's fine for you to like bad things. But don't weasel around the fact that the models are objectively worse by any measurement.

While I disagree about the number of planes = quality measuring stick, the rest is on the money.

A decently skilled converter/painter should be able to do well with these regardless, but that leaves the more casual hobbyists in the lurch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Granted, at 2.05 a model, (basic price per model for a four army "starter set"), I'm not really feeling that big of a pinch.