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.

 vipoid wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Show me something close to necrosphinx, latest wood elf guys, or Imperial Knights or Hive Tyrant made from hard plastic.

Are the GW knights really that good? Honestly, I find them pretty unimpressive.

- As far as detail goes, much of it appears to be either bling (oh good, more purity seals), or just painted on (which has nothing to do with the quality of the model itself).

- In terms of aesthetics, they look... strange. Their top 'shell' in particular looks like it was taken off an aircraft or something, giving the overall appearance of a model that was built from scraps - which is something I'd expect more of ork models.

- Finally, they don't even look functional. These things are supposed to be tough, right? So, why is it covered in exposed wires and pipes? Aren't they the sort of thing you'd want to protect? I really can't see this thing being hard to disable. Hell, just look at the back - there doesn't appear to be any armour at all. There's just a frame and what I can only presume to be some pretty important components that are completely exposed.

I was bashing them left and right design wise, you could even find it maybe here in one of that million pages thread. I agree with everything you said plus the legs look too weak to support it for me plus it's a warmachine ripoff and I hate warmachine warcraftish aesthetics. And yes I know how Epic knights looked.

It's still light years ahead of similar warmachine models and I like them as a showing to PP how it is really done. Also everybody seems to love itand unlike the very questionable Taurox, it's a super quality kit by every metric. Again I wouldn't even want it in my army unless heavily nurglified may be

So....no objective criteria just a load of effusive fanboyism with dubious provenance?

 Blacksails wrote:
But why is the Knight a vastly superior kit?

Hell, why is it even just normally superior?

The Leviathan is more poseable. It has built in ability for hotswapping. They're roughly the same size. Both are hard plastic. Levels of detail on both are comparable. Both have options.

There's nothing about the Knight I can see that would make it an objectively vastly superior kit. If you wish to make that claim and continue to tell everyone GW is the bestest ever, I expect you to at least assemble some sort of details rebuttal, rather than a series of excuses or simple condescension.

If you don't have anything to contribute to your own discussion, don't bother contributing at all. Making entirely unfounded claims like you just did without an ounce of support or argumentation really isn't helping your point about GW.

As I said, I can't eveluate it now on tiny pics. I will as soon as I get near my PC. From memory it was hardly that much detailed but I saw it maybe 3 times in my life and never looked again.

Azrael I dont think Im in the corner at all. I only said I dislike aesthetics of it but again it's irrelevant. If I see it as quality kit that just doesn't match my taste, Ill just admit it. It is still similarly expensive for similar size (I think) so it could even support my original point of GW not being that overprced (relatively ofc) at all.

You're in a corner because you've argued that it is possible to argue quality from an objective standpoint and then done nothing but provide subjective examples of why you think some models are better than others.

I'm sure it will all be better when you're back in front of a computer.

But what about details would make something objectively better? The aesthetic of 40k (Imperium) is about clunkiness, wires, rivets, exhaust ports, purity seals and skulls. Having a lot of those is more detail, but that doesn't make it a better kit in any objective sense.

The Crusader has plenty of detail where appropriate; the leg joints, the exhaust/engine on the back, and other gubbins. On a whole, its sleeker because the design isn't one of clunkiness and random details for the sake of details. Arguably, the lack of random stuff can be a sign of being a better design and better kit because the designer understands how much minute detail is appropriate for the model.

In every other way, the Crusader is a better kit; as a gaming piece its more poseable, has weapon swapping built in, and comes in easy to assemble hard plastic. Its as sturdy as a Knight, so what other metric are you going to compare it on to show us the Knight is somehow leagues better than the Crusader as a kit?

You can't keep pointing to details as some sort of end-all, be-all. As said earlier, skulls per square inch, no matter how pretty, are not an indication of quality. At that point it comes down to preference, which is entirely subjective. Since you came into this thread telling us how you can measure this stuff objectively, I expect you to actually measure things on a quantifiable, objective scale.

You have yet to do so.

So, either admit that GW does not produce the best plastics in the world, or prove to us that they do on an objective set of metrics. Otherwise, just say you prefer GW models and leave it at that.

*Edit* As for value, its $50 cheaper and roughly 1.5 larger.

 Azreal13 wrote:
So....no objective criteria just a load of effusive fanboyism with dubious provenance?

I find it a cosmic irony that being called a GW hater a hundred times I am called fanboyish because I dare to defend one thing where they are actualy really good and most probably best on wargaming market, their plastic kits. I mentioned objective criteria already and not once I think including criteria for objective asessment for design, learn to read. I doubt, for example that leviathan guys would be able to do all that bling that is on knight, it's only GW showing off ofc but technical superiority that would be one.

I'm not criticising you for defending it, I'm criticising you for doing it poorly.

EDIT

Plumbumbarum wrote:

I find it a cosmic irony that being called a GW hater a hundred times I am called fanboyish because I dare to defend one thing where they are actualy really good and most probably best on wargaming market, their plastic kits.

Wasn't this "the best plastic kits in the world" yesterday? You know, before a load of people pointed out plastic kits that were better, and in many instances cheaper?

I mentioned objective criteria already and not once I think including criteria for objective asessment for design, learn to read.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

I doubt, for example that leviathan guys would be able to do all that bling that is on knight, it's only GW showing off ofc but technical superiority that would be one.

So, you've no idea how plastic kits are made then? Because if you did, you'd realise this is nonsense.

Why does everyone have to "win"?

The brand that a person prefers is their favorite brand. Some prefer the GW aesthetic, others prefer the look of product from other companies. There's no need to call someone else's preferred models "obviously inferior" or whatever. The only time I ever say this is when specific models are poorly molded, forcing a lot of remediation, or just don't fit nicely (like dragon wings from so many companies).

I like that all GW models other than snapfit have many build options. For instance, the Durthu option of Treeman Ancient looks significantly different; I like that there are heavy weapon choices, and that you can go helmet or head, and I like the extra bits I get after I finish a MPP kit. That doesn't mean that I don't like metal PP models, or resin/metal PP models. Or, for that matter, plastic (or whatever that bendy material is) Reaper models.

We have to live with the fact that there are no inexpensive quality models anymore, from anyone, and that wargaming is more expensive. Just look at the PP new releases: Bradigus is $30+ and Borka is $60; neither are particularly large or complex models. I bought both, by the way.

Want to talk about price? When I started modelling, high quality Games Workshop metal miniatures were $1-$2 each, and plastic miniatures were a small fraction of that.

 Blacksails wrote:

In every other way, the Crusader is a better kit; as a gaming piece its more poseable, has weapon swapping built in, and comes in easy to assemble hard plastic. Its as sturdy as a Knight, so what other metric are you going to compare it on to show us the Knight is somehow leagues better than the Crusader as a kit?

If that is all so, I will admit it. On the pics I saw I thought it looked toyish and never looked on closeups etc or saw sprues. I'm not going to do it now on the phone with a console warm thanks to Alien Isolation fired up especialy when nerds like Azrael that can't respect others time throw cheap jabs at me to make me so.

Ok, so I'm boorish, can't read and I'm a nerd?

You are familiar with the posting rules of this site?

If you can't argue my points, then admit it, don't try and drag the topic into personal name calling. If you feel you have valid rebuttals to my claims, let's hear them.

Azreal13 wrote:Wasn't this "the best plastic kits in the world" yesterday? You know, before a load of people pointed out plastic kits that were better, and in many instances cheaper?

Yeah exactly one that I always considered abysmal. I just give you all benefit of the doubt because Im nice, therefore "probably".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Ok, so I'm boorish, can't read and I'm a nerd?

You are familiar with the posting rules of this site?

If you can't argue my points, then admit it, don't try and drag the topic into personal name calling. If you feel you have valid rebuttals to my claims, let's hear them.

The rules involving not posting memes or stupid pictures? You started it because you wanted to be funny.

Oh dear..

Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.
Jean Jacques Rousseau

*leaves thread*

That would make you wrong. First the picture then jabs suggesting Im using cheap excuses of not being behnd PC with proper screen.

Goodbye.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

In every other way, the Crusader is a better kit; as a gaming piece its more poseable, has weapon swapping built in, and comes in easy to assemble hard plastic. Its as sturdy as a Knight, so what other metric are you going to compare it on to show us the Knight is somehow leagues better than the Crusader as a kit?

If that is all so, I will admit it. On the pics I saw I thought it looked toyish and never looked on closeups etc or saw sprues. I'm not going to do it now on the phone with a console warm thanks to Alien Isolation fired up especialy when nerds like Azrael that can't respect others time throw cheap jabs at me to make me so.

You can check yourself later, but I have a hard time finding the Knight to be vastly superior, perhaps maybe in number of pipes and wires on the model, but the Crusader is naturally much cleaner, so I doubt its a matter of technical superiority in design.

Also, classy with the cheap jab at Azrael.

 Blacksails wrote:
But what about details would make something objectively better? The aesthetic of 40k (Imperium) is about clunkiness, wires, rivets, exhaust ports, purity seals and skulls. Having a lot of those is more detail, but that doesn't make it a better kit in any objective sense.

.

It's also worth noting that there is a difference between real detail (stuff that serves an actual purpose) and greeble (i.e. skulls for the sake of skulls, etc.) GW, unfortunately, has turned into a greeble factory these past few years with the ability to just cut and paste the same elements in their 3D sculpting program.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
As I said, I can't eveluate it now on tiny pics.

Then why do you keep evaluating it? If you don't have good pictures of a model available and don't feel confident in your evaluation then the right thing to say is "I don't know, I'll talk about it later", not "I can't evaluate it well, but the GW model is clearly superior". This pretty strongly suggests that you've already made up your mind about which is the better kit, and your "evaluation" will be nothing more than looking for reasons why the GW kit wins.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I doubt, for example that leviathan guys would be able to do all that bling that is on knight, it's only GW showing off ofc but technical superiority that would be one.

Then you clearly don't know how modern kit design works. Both kits were created as digital models, so the difference between a skull-less non-GW kit and a GW kit covered in skulls and purity seals is just a few minutes copy/pasting skulls onto every flat surface. There's very little skill involved, all you have to do is ask yourself "do I want lots of skulls on this" and then take the appropriate actions. GW decided they want lots of skulls and purity seals, the Leviathan designer decided they want a cleaner look.

This, by the way, demonstrates why your "skulls per square inch" measurement of detail is so badly flawed.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Jesus Peregrine, the thing about giving Tomcat to my child was an example to show the difference in sturdiness between aircraft model and gw tank, it doesn't mean that they literaly have to be made to withstand kids playing with them.

Then why do you even bring it up at all? If the models don't have to survive abuse then why is it relevant that they can survive abuse? You can make as many vague statements about "Peregrine doesn't get it" as you like, but it looks like what actually happened is that you made a claim, completely failed to impress anyone with it, and now you're backing off and pretending that you never made it to avoid the embarrassment of losing the argument.

Just like with the xwing comparision before, I could have used other system as an example of how you can go into absurd with your argument, it had nothing to do with exact point cost or unit numbers.

"It has nothing to do with numbers, but let me make up some numbers that 'prove' that you're wrong". Congratulations, you proved that the cost of playing 40k is not much more than an imaginary game that costs exactly $300 less for a standard army. Now if you want to say anything relevant in this discussion you need to get the actual numbers for the games you're talking about instead of just making up numbers that "prove" your claims.

So, my point is, you can't use your dislike for their designs as an argument that their minis are worse quality than someone elses and therefore are relatively overpriced or sth.

So then why do you get to use your equally unsupported claims about how the market is satisfied with the model's appearance as "proof" that it is a high-quality product?

Amount of detail, sturdiness, how parts fit together and high tech involved that allows them do things other companies are in apable of with plastics (dont ask I read it somewhere) are more objective measures.

Except, as I've pointed out already, those standards are bad.

Amount of detail (as you define it), despite your claims otherwise, is a subjective and utterly useless standard that rewards "skulls per square inch" over good artistic design. It's little more than you attempting to turn your personal preferences about what makes an appealing model design into some kind of objective truth.

Sturdiness is objective, but not very relevant for many customers. If you take care of your models you don't really benefit from GW's excess durability, and GW kits are a lower-quality product than ones from another manufacturer that is willing to design their kits to emphasize appearance at the expense of requiring you to treat them properly.

Parts fit is objective, but a standard that GW is, at best, average on. Their kits don't usually have major fit issues that prevent you from assembling them at all, but gaps between parts are extremely common and it takes a lot of cleanup work to get a GW kit ready for painting (unless you have low standards and don't care about visible mold lines or gaps).

Technology is subjective (how you define "good technology" is personal preference) and utterly useless. As a customer I don't care what methods went into producing a model, I care about the final result. Technology is possibly relevant if it allows the manufacturer to do something I want with their kits that they couldn't otherwise do, but talking about the production technology itself instead of the end result adds nothing to the discussion.

And after coming up with four bad ways of analyzing the quality of a model you completely neglect three very important factors in how much a model is worth to a customer:

Appearance/design: do I like how it looks? I don't know how you think you can keep ignoring this because this is probably the single most important factor in whether a customer wants to buy a model or not. You can claim it is subjective, but if it's too subjective to discuss then the whole "what is a model worth" discussion is too subjective to discuss and you should stop trying.

Gameplay value: what percentage of a complete army is it? Does it come with rules/tokens/etc included, or do I have to buy them separately? This is something GW is pretty bad at. You buy an expensive kit, and it's maybe 10% of a full army. And you don't get any rules for it, you'll have to spend even more money buying those if you actually want to use your expensive new toy.

Options: does it come with everything I need, or does it require other purchases to finish it? Again, this is something GW fails badly at. Most infantry units don't come with all the weapon upgrades you'll want to use in a competitive list, so there's a hidden cost attached to a lot of GW kits that covers buying the melta guns/power fists/etc that you need to have a playable unit.

Not to mention you equaling detail to skulls is unfair, it is used for many great things on 40k plastics.

No, it's entirely fair. GW kits typically have rather blocky, cartoonish detail (remember, as you said, they're made to be durable and that means sacrificing fragile detail parts) with a rather large minimum feature size. The "high detail" you claim is often in the form of purity seals/skulls/etc copy/pasted all over every flat surface just to avoid having flat surfaces. It's fine if you like that style of model, but it isn't some amazing breakthrough in model technology or artistic skill.

(dont ask I read it somewhere)

And this deserves quoting again because it's so hilarious. Let me translate: "I don't have any clue where I got this from, but I think I read somewhere that GW's kits are better, don't ask me for a source but I'm going to keep using it as proof". If you don't know where you got a piece of information or what it really said then stop talking about it.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
That would make you wrong. First the picture then jabs suggesting Im using cheap excuses of not being behnd PC with proper screen.

Goodbye.

OK, last post but I'm not letting this go answered.

You have called me a boor, implied I was illiterate and called me a nerd (apparently completely unironically.)

In turn I appear to have offended you by posting a picture is someone who has painted themselves into a corner rather than simply state the words? Well, more fool me for trying to introduce a little levity.

Theres something you should do BTW, which is give people the benefit of the doubt, even ask for confirmation, before getting offended. I have a dry sense of humour which perhaps due to my failing, possibly to yours, seems to have bunched your panties. I posted things that have offended because of misinterpretation, can the same be said of nerd, boor or illiterate?

I'm also disappointed to see "you started it" as some sort of justification/counter point, especially as anything you cite happened nearly 24 hours after you called me a boor (and I let it ride rather than call you on it or report you) so it isn't even factually accurate.

PS
I wrote this whole post on my phone, just for you.

I wrote this on a piece of paper, which was handed to a carrier pigeon, which flew to an internet cafe, and posted this for me.

Technology these days. Astounding.

Pfft. This post was brought to you via smoke signal and telegraph.

I just have to jump in and say that Plum was claiming the IK as "vastly superior" while giving no reasons why or with little knowledge of the other model in question.

As for what else has amazing detail, highly posable, lots of options and comes in hard plastic?
I bought this bad boy for $35.00 in Japan. (It'll be about $50 or $60 in USA for shipping.)

This was designed by an American, btw, Syd Mead of Blade Runner and Alien fame.

Believe it or not this is too many fine posts to answer on the phone now. Will happily revisit.

Would post more maybe but too afraid that you Peregrine will find something to pick on completly out of context maybe twist a bit or sth. Really man I realised that wot I thought (and respected) you have is pinpoint accuracy logic but it is in fact only discussing techniques. Also I said that "Peregrine dont get it, possibly my fault". Out of context again, and for all your supposed calling me out on sth bs, I will just admit if will be proven wrong, dont feel wrong just yet.

Mr Azrael you were passive agressive I returned the favor. You started mentioning forum rules so maybe it's you who should get over yourself and not get you pants sth not familiar with the expression.

See you fine gentelmen in 2 days and prepare some tasty hats. ( dry humour hehehehe)

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Would post more maybe but too afraid that you Peregrine will find something to pick on completly out of context maybe twist a bit or sth.

You know, when pretty much everyone here is disagreeing with you and saying the same things I'm saying it should be a sign to you that it isn't just a case of "Peregrine picking on things out of context".

 MWHistorian wrote:
I just have to jump in and say that Plum was claiming the IK as "vastly superior" while giving no reasons why or with little knowledge of the other model in question.

As for what else has amazing detail, highly posable, lots of options and comes in hard plastic?
I bought this bad boy for $35.00 in Japan. (It'll be about $50 or $60 in USA for shipping.)

Spoiler:

This was designed by an American, btw, Syd Mead of Blade Runner and Alien fame.

That's a cool model, but I wouldn't compare it against something like an Imperial Knight (or a Crusader). It's not better; it's different. I for example, would never pay $50-$60 to model something like that, because Manga/Robotech-type models don't appeal to me (not even a tiny bit), while Eldar Wraithknights do. I guess, for the same reason, I have no desire to model a Tau Riptide. Though frankly, the IK is not one of my favorite models either.

Nothing against the model you linked, nor anyone who loves that kind of thing... all the power to you!

the way i look at it is that you get what you pay for, i've looked at all the other games people claim to be so much better then GW products at a cheaper price...which to me look cheap and childish(infinity)..i've been eyeballing warhammer 40k since i was about 13 when i entered the mini gaming scene..yes the price is a huge turn off but as an adult i've realised that i'm getting high quality bitz and funding a very rich background of fluff. To have a game where i can go to the local book store and find a novel that enriches my table top expierence is great. I'm tired of reading the anti-GW threads that are beaten like a dead horse, if you don't find pleasure in GW products anymore then disappear and move on instead of bitching, they are evolving not turning back to sludge.

Crimson Heretic wrote:
I'm tired of reading the anti-GW threads that are beaten like a dead horse, if you don't find pleasure in GW products anymore then disappear and move on instead of bitching, they are evolving not turning back to sludge.

So it's either love it or leave it? I can't enjoy doing something with friends but acknowledge fault where it exists?

rigeld2 wrote:

Crimson Heretic wrote:
I'm tired of reading the anti-GW threads that are beaten like a dead horse, if you don't find pleasure in GW products anymore then disappear and move on instead of bitching, they are evolving not turning back to sludge.

So it's either love it or leave it? I can't enjoy doing something with friends but acknowledge fault where it exists?

theres a fine line between seeing the flaws and still pushing through to enjoy it, or breakdown and lose your fething mind on here saying GW is nazi germany

I think that's the first Godwinning in the thread.

And I think most people do "push through" the flaws to find the enjoyment... but after spending almost $1000 on an army, I shouldn't fething well have to "push through" any flaws. This gak should be published as near-perfect as is humanly possible.

Is there a GW Advocate Academy I'm not aware of? It seems every week we get a new graduate who makes the same arguments and misrepresentations and then tells people to love it or get lost.

Can I join, what are the prospects like after I qualify?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Is there a GW Advocate Academy I'm not aware of? It seems every week we get a new graduate who makes the same arguments and misrepresentations and then tells people to love it or get lost.

Can I join, what are the prospects like after I qualify?

I think they are new GW players who haven't become grumpy old men like the rest of us. Yet.