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.

 Envihon wrote:


I will go along with this on the Knight except they had it very detailed from a mechanical stand point with everything making it look like a working machine. I was almost sad to put all the armor plates over it all covering all this detail. Despite people's criticism of it, the Imperial Knight is an awesomely detailed kit and can come out pretty awesome if you know what you are doing. Might not be like the Leviathon, but it probably is my favorite model that I have done so far.

It's a great kit but another example that GW is incapable of creating a walker that actually looks like it can walk.

The GW IK gets shown up by it's FW brothers too, they're infinitely more poseable than the plastic one, in a medium which is less suited to it.

agnosto wrote:

 Envihon wrote:


I will go along with this on the Knight except they had it very detailed from a mechanical stand point with everything making it look like a working machine. I was almost sad to put all the armor plates over it all covering all this detail. Despite people's criticism of it, the Imperial Knight is an awesomely detailed kit and can come out pretty awesome if you know what you are doing. Might not be like the Leviathon, but it probably is my favorite model that I have done so far.

It's a great kit but another example that GW is incapable of creating a walker that actually looks like it can walk.

Azreal13 wrote:The GW IK gets shown up by it's FW brothers too, they're infinitely more poseable than the plastic one, in a medium which is less suited to it.

The Questoris Knight Magaera is on the same chassis as the Errant and the Paladin so FW didn't change much with that one. The other three I see more as a light frame and can move quicker but none of the Knights do I ever get the impression that it can't walk...not in the same sense as the way a Dreadnought looks like it can't walk but I do get what you are saying. The knee joint on the Imperial Knight could of been done better and makes it look stiff, I get that but it doesn't spoil the model for me. I know people herald the Leviathan as this awesome thing but honestly, that exposed core torso area is a bigger distraction for me. It looks like a well placed shot of any heavy weapon could wreck that thing in a single shot, it screams "Shoot right here to disable me quick!" which is why I prefer the Imperial Knight. This is coming more down to personal aesthetics and preferences though and not an objective view of the subject but I guess this topic was going to be heavily opinionated.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The GW IK gets shown up by it's FW brothers too, they're infinitely more poseable than the plastic one, in a medium which is less suited to it.

It's things like these that make me feel they locked the sculptor in a room by themselves until they finish, unable to communicate with anyone who might offer suggestions on how to improve things That and Logan Claus...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
The GW IK gets shown up by it's FW brothers too, they're infinitely more poseable than the plastic one, in a medium which is less suited to it.

It's things like these that make me feel they locked the sculptor in a room by themselves until they finish, unable to communicate with anyone who might offer suggestions on how to improve things That and Logan Claus...

I think the main problem with the IK is that GW forced its designer to use as few sprues as possible, to save GW as much money as possible. If they had allowed just one more sprue's worth of parts to improve the model's articulation and equipment options, they would have had a far superior product.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Talys wrote:

 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!

I think you missed the point. This thing is taller than a knight, FAR more posable, more parts, more detail and its cheaper. Aesthetics are secondary. (for the argument I was making.)

No, I understood, and I suppose it's fair enough. I still don't think Imperial Knights and Manga-style robots are a good comparison, but to reply to your point specifically:

If the model grows is bigger, it's only significantly more valuable if it's also more intricate (otherwise, it's only a little more valuable... or not really at all, since it just means I need to throw more paint at it). In other words, if on a 24 inch Millenium Falcon, I want to see TONS of detail, not just a blown up version of a 9 inch Millenium Falcon. The Manga-style model looks a little like it would look just fine shrunk down to 2 inches tall.

If a model is more posable, that's great, and certainly a plus; but having many equipment options and alternate builds is more valuable, and I wouldn't want to sacrifice model complexity or the ability to make a very cool pose, for a simpler model that was more like an action figure. In the case of many GW models, the studio poses are limited by highly complex (150+ piece) models that have a few cool positions and weapon options to choose from. For the daring, the sky is still the limit, if you're an expert level modeler.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
The GW IK gets shown up by it's FW brothers too, they're infinitely more poseable than the plastic one, in a medium which is less suited to it.

It's things like these that make me feel they locked the sculptor in a room by themselves until they finish, unable to communicate with anyone who might offer suggestions on how to improve things That and Logan Claus...

I think the main problem with the IK is that GW forced its designer to use as few sprues as possible, to save GW as much money as possible. If they had allowed just one more sprue's worth of parts to improve the model's articulation and equipment options, they would have had a far superior product.

Yeah, if they had added another sprue or two, it could have been a much cooler product. Plus, the price point on IK is so high that... well, why not? I find that on the cool, large models, some people buy multiples, to build them with different options (because it's neat, not because they want to field it).

Allowing it to bend at the knees and hips would have required zero extra sprues, but perhaps required trimming of the hoses and cables to fit, which might have been too advanced for Timmy.

Ok since I still can't get behind my PC (it's packed and I find the amount of dust and crap still airborne due to my staircase in the works still too much to get it out), I'll make a long story short. I still would like to answer a few posts but fuk it now and let's get to dreamforge crusader vs imperial knight.

I go by what I read here about crusader and what I can see on their site and google pictures on 5cm squared screen so that's not exactly a final opinion. What I can say is that if you assume that the "slim" aesthetics of the crusader are on purpose and not because they couldn't do any better (because one vehicle I saw there on their site loked like glorified duplo toy and when your robot pretends to be knight already, why not give him just a little ornament or sth? Some of my clix battlemechs have more detail on armor plates), then indeed you can say the are close on quality - hard plastic, sturdy, well fitting, crusader is bigger and supposedly more posable but knight is a more sophisticated model. Aesthetics while objectvely measurable can't be taken into account here because of the lack of data (and please dont mistake something being better with somethng being better for target audience, I mean quality aesthetics in bussiness sense not art sense with the latter much harder to quantify) Crusader is cheaper so better value, what a swell guy that dreamforge guy is btw, when butique resin makers only match forge world sculpts they instantly set prices at or close to FW prices but this guy has GW quality, makes something that big, practicaly a titan if you go by warhound size, and still charges so little. Swell guy I tell you.

So I need to change my statement, from "GW make best plastics" to "GW make best plastics but are sometimes challeneged by an equaly good model or range so still generaly make best plastics".

Ofc it's great that there are companies challenging GW and especialy their pricing. I loved my troll forged zoanthrope and hope the plastic one is as nice as metal one. Still it takes a few looks at gw best plastic minis (not all as obviously some ranges are old and models failed) to see that they are best quality atm as most of the time they give their customers what they want and more, which when it comes to minis are insanely detailed crazy plastic models that are also usable gamng pieces. You can ofc call that fanboyish but sometimes the enthusiasm for pure crap just because it isn't GW shows that the bias goes both ways.

Look, you're still failing to support the original claim you made when first posting in this thread, namely

you compare price of same number of miniatures and their quality and as far as plastics go, GW are best. Quality as in level of detail and sturdines not design as I've already seen those 2 mistaken here. That Taurox is absolute ugly crap does not take away the top notch tech that went to manufacture it, cost, detail, consumer service etc.

You have still failed to provide a set of objective criteria by which this can be proven.

A substantial part of your most recent post is about how the Dreamforge stuff looks, the "slim" aesthetic, the absence of copious detail etc, etc..
This is irrelevant to an objective discussion, which I tried to set out some criteria for and you disagreed with.

You even claim aesthetics to be objectively measurable?

We're done here, you've no concept of what you're arguing, let alone the counter arguments.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Aesthetics while objectvely measurable

You keep using this word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Your whole review sounded a whole lot like a subjective opinion rooted in nothing but your own personal preference and bias coming into the thread.

Also, I support everything Azrael just said.

Maybe come back when you have something objective to add? Otherwise, just admit you prefer GW models because you think they look cooler and carry on.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
...(because one vehicle I saw there on their site loked like glorified duplo toy and when your robot pretends to be knight already, why not give him just a little ornament or sth? Some of my clix battlemechs have more detail on armor plates),

First, will people please come up with a new insult regarding the Leviathan? I'm really getting tired of the word "toy" being used in a derogatory manner against it, when we're all playing with toys to begin with.

And, second, for the love of God, please go look up the word greeble and learn the difference between greeble and real detail. Go look at vehicles in the real world and you will see lots of flat, unadorned surfaces, that are not covered in rivets or other useless stuff. And yet, not once have I ever heard someone say they don't want to buy a Mustang/Camaro/etc. because "it lacks detail."

You don't understand - the busier the model, the more sophisticated it is.

Totally not subjective. Put forward as an objective truth.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
What I can say is that if you assume that the "slim" aesthetics of the crusader are on purpose and not because they couldn't do any better

Sigh. Please spend a little time researching how these kits are designed. They're done entirely in digital form, and any digital sculptor capable of making a model like the Leviathan can easily copy/paste a bunch of skulls all over every surface. It's a trivially easy task, and your stubborn insistence otherwise just demonstrates that you have no clue how the design process works.

and when your robot pretends to be knight already, why not give him just a little ornament or sth

Because some people like clean, elegant designs and don't follow your standard where "skulls per square inch" is the most important factor in the quality of a design? Seriously, I really don't understand why you have so much trouble with this. It's a different aesthetic choice that many people like, and it has nothing to do with lack of skill.

So I need to change my statement, from "GW make best plastics" to "GW make best plastics but are sometimes challeneged by an equaly good model or range so still generaly make best plastics".

So let me get this straight:

The Leviathan is cheaper than the GW knight.
The Leviathan has better posing options than the GW knight.
The Leviathan has better weapon swap options than the GW knight.
The Leviathan has equal or better casting quality compared to the GW knight.
The Leviathan has equal or better detail compared to the GW knight (the only difference being subjective aesthetic preferences).

But yet somehow the Leviathan is only equal to the GW knight? It seems like, for anyone who isn't determined to "prove" how awesome GW is, this would be a compelling argument that the Levaithan is better than the GW kit. It has equal or better quality in every area and it costs less. The only way that the GW knight is a superior product is if you happen to prefer it for aesthetic reasons, but you claim to be talking only about objective quality, not subjective preferences. So how exactly does GW match it in quality instead of falling short?

Still it takes a few looks at gw best plastic minis (not all as obviously some ranges are old and models failed) to see that they are best quality atm as most of the time they give their customers what they want and more, which when it comes to minis are insanely detailed crazy plastic models that are also usable gamng pieces.

Remember how we just established that the Leviathan is better than the knight by every objective standard? Remember that F-104 I posted that makes a sad joke out of the level of detail on any GW vehicle, but costs less? So far the only area you've established a GW advantage in is "skulls per square inch", and that has nothing to do with the objective quality of a model. So what we're left with is nothing more than empty claims about how awesome GW is with no evidence to support them.

There are objective measures for establishing the quality of a moulded plastic structure. Material, material thickness, lack of deformation over an area, surface finish. Those are things that can be measured, and provide an objective standard.

How a structure looks, whether it composed of flat surfaces, or its surfaces are covered in bric-a-brac, are not an objective measure. They are a subjective measure.

Models made by Games Workshop can possibly be said to be better for playing Games Workshop games because they fit the overall style of the game.

Games Workshop do make good models in the Games Workshop "heroic" style but that doesn't mean those models are "objectively" better than other models. I'm sure some are, but some non-GW models are also very nice indeed.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You even claim aesthetics to be objectively measurable?

We're done here, you've no concept of what you're arguing, let alone the counter arguments.

You're quality department. You ask imperial players if they like the aesthetics of the Knight. Then you ask all 40k players if they like the aesthetics of the Knight. Then you ask 28mm wargamers if they like the aesthetics of the Knight. You use representatve samples.

You do the same for Dreamforge Crusader.

Bam, haleluyah, magic - hard data, objective assesment of aesthetics. Aesthetics quality in business sense, as I said in my post.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
...(because one vehicle I saw there on their site loked like glorified duplo toy and when your robot pretends to be knight already, why not give him just a little ornament or sth? Some of my clix battlemechs have more detail on armor plates),

First, will people please come up with a new insult regarding the Leviathan? I'm really getting tired of the word "toy" being used in a derogatory manner against it, when we're all playing with toys to begin with.

How about a simpleton? I was probably going to use it sooner or later about Crusader anyway.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
There are objective measures for establishing the quality of a moulded plastic structure. Material, material thickness, lack of deformation over an area, surface finish. Those are things that can be measured, and provide an objective standard.

Yes and that's also what I mean when I say detail, not only how much of it there is but how well done it is, and both those things in conjunction. Sadly can't see any significant detail on Crusader to compare to but again, need better pics maybe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
What I can say is that if you assume that the "slim" aesthetics of the crusader are on purpose and not because they couldn't do any better

Sigh. Please spend a little time researching how these kits are designed. They're done entirely in digital form, and any digital sculptor capable of making a model like the Leviathan can easily copy/paste a bunch of skulls all over every surface. It's a trivially easy task, and your stubborn insistence otherwise just demonstrates that you have no clue how the design process works.

Yeah design but don't you have to pull it off then with acceptable number of miscasts/ errors. Or GW has no advantage here at all again.

Peregrine wrote:

and when your robot pretends to be knight already, why not give him just a little ornament or sth

Because some people like clean, elegant designs and don't follow your standard where "skulls per square inch" is the most important factor in the quality of a design? Seriously, I really don't understand why you have so much trouble with this. It's a different aesthetic choice that many people like, and it has nothing to do with lack of skill.

Skulls ok, I don't talk abut skulls. A lining on the armor plate maybe? Engraving, a small one? It's a robot with a knight head but wants to look like evangelion or eldar walker otherwise? It's plain like a plain plain.

Peregrine wrote:

So I need to change my statement, from "GW make best plastics" to "GW make best plastics but are sometimes challeneged by an equaly good model or range so still generaly make best plastics".

So let me get this straight:

The Leviathan is cheaper than the GW knight.
The Leviathan has better posing options than the GW knight.
The Leviathan has better weapon swap options than the GW knight.
The Leviathan has equal or better casting quality compared to the GW knight.
The Leviathan has equal or better detail compared to the GW knight (the only difference being subjective aesthetic preferences).

But yet somehow the Leviathan is only equal to the GW knight? It seems like, for anyone who isn't determined to "prove" how awesome GW is, this would be a compelling argument that the Levaithan is better than the GW kit. It has equal or better quality in every area and it costs less. The only way that the GW knight is a superior product is if you happen to prefer it for aesthetic reasons, but you claim to be talking only about objective quality, not subjective preferences. So how exactly does GW match it in quality instead of failng short?

Yeah except

The Leviathan has worse or equal or better casting quality compared to GW knight.
The Leviathan has worse or equal or better detail compared to GW knight.
We still don't have data about which one is considered better aesthetic wise by majority of target audience.

So not having both models, plastic research lab and enough data, I say they are equal quality wise with levathan being a better value for your dollar. It's an imperfect evaluation without means to do it just like yours, but if it's a win for either side it's slim except the price maybe. Which btw suggests that Leviathan might be a much worse quality piece with the maker fully aware of it, unless he wants to catch consumers that aggresively. Or really is a swell guy.

Peregrine wrote:Remember how we just established that the Leviathan is better than the knight by every objective standard?

No we didn't.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
...(because one vehicle I saw there on their site loked like glorified duplo toy and when your robot pretends to be knight already, why not give him just a little ornament or sth? Some of my clix battlemechs have more detail on armor plates),

First, will people please come up with a new insult regarding the Leviathan? I'm really getting tired of the word "toy" being used in a derogatory manner against it, when we're all playing with toys to begin with.

Just thought i'd mention this one in relation to the original topic (costs of gw). Toys are generally something that children bash together while making "pew! pew!" noises. These may be toy soldiers, but for some of us they're game pieces (and rather expensive ones if they're from gw). I'm having a minor conniption here just thinking about a random stranger on the net bashing his two leviathans together and shouting pew pew! Somebody please think of the painters.

Back on topic: For what its worth, gw is more expensive than it should be. I can't honestly judge at this point exactly why gw fails because they seem to be trying to slyly be 'all things to all people' and price at the highest common denominator. On the game side, the pieces and rules cost way more than they should for whats required to make them, and thats objective (happy to elaborate on that one if people are interested). On the collectors side, the models are mass produced enough (from cheap materials) to have no long-term collection value. The price thing seems to be coming about to prop up their failing business model (such as a retail chain that by the numbers can't support itself in any given region). But hey, its their right to do so, and its the right of people who want to support and/or enjoy that to do so. But call a spade a spade.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yeah design but don't you have to pull it off then with acceptable number of miscasts/ errors. Or GW has no advantage here at all again.

So are you going to provide any proof for your claim that adding more skulls per square inch to an injection-molded plastic kit increases the difficulty of successfully casting it without an unacceptable rate of miscasts and therefore requires an exceptionally skilled designer (which GW has and nobody else can match)? Or are you just going to, once again, make wild speculation about how GW's advantage in skulls per square inch must be a sign of superior skill rather than GW's competition favoring cleaner aesthetic choices? Because so far speculation and assumptions are all you've provided.

Skulls ok, I don't talk abut skulls. A lining on the armor plate maybe? Engraving, a small one? It's a robot with a knight head but wants to look like evangelion or eldar walker otherwise? It's plain like a plain plain.

What part of "some people like that aesthetic choice" is giving you so much trouble? If you actually look at the model you can see that it has small details where the designer decided to add them, so it isn't a skill issue. The obvious conclusion here is that the designer wanted a clean look, not GW's "skulls per square inch" appearance. IOW, it's a subjective aesthetic choice, no matter how many times you try to pretend that your preference for the GW style is objective superiority.

So not having both models, plastic research lab and enough data, I say they are equal quality wise with levathan being a better value for your dollar.

Only because you continue to reject the Leviathan's advantage in posing options and easy weapon swaps. The Leviathan indisputably wins on several factors, and the only area where the GW kit could possibly have any advantage is aesthetic preference. I really have no idea how you can continue to claim that this is mere "equality".

Which btw suggests that Leviathan might be a much worse quality piece with the maker fully aware of it, unless he wants to catch consumers that aggresively.

Oh good, more wild speculation about how there must be some hidden flaw, and a product can't possibly be better than GW's version (after all, you've already decided that GW's plastic kits are clearly superior to the competition). Maybe instead of wild speculation you could consider the more likely explanation: the manufacturer is going for sales volume over per-unit profit and GW's kits are overpriced.

No we didn't.

Yes we did. The Leviathan wins on price, posing options, and weapon swaps. And, based on the reports from happy customers who bought them, the kit at least ties GW on quality control. Meanwhile the GW kit has no objective advantages in any area. So I'd say that's a pretty clear victory for the Leviathan if you only consider objective standards and not personal preferences about aesthetic choices.

 Peregrine wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yeah design but don't you have to pull it off then with acceptable number of miscasts/ errors. Or GW has no advantage here at all again.

So are you going to provide any proof for your claim that adding more skulls per square inch to an injection-molded plastic kit increases the difficulty of successfully casting it without an unacceptable rate of miscasts and therefore requires an exceptionally skilled designer (which GW has and nobody else can match)? Or are you just going to, once again, make wild speculation about how GW's advantage in skulls per square inch must be a sign o superior skill rather than GW's competition favoring cleaner aesthetic choices? Because so far speculation and assumptions are all you've provided.

As far as speculation go, kickstarter outsourced to China might be an indication of more limited possibilities vs a company with vast experience and much more money. But that's speculation. Thing is that I read about GW technological advantage in molding etc but NO DON'T ASK because even if I decided to search world wide basement for that extremly popular data just to prove a point on forum, I still don't even know how to post link from this fine piece of technology that requires multiple hits of a button to get a single letter and makes eyes burn after 15 minutes of use. Yes Ill search for it and post it as soon as I have time and means to. You people poking fun at it btw a few pages back, go be funny somewhere else because I log in and discuss here despite the big discomfort and that's respecting the disputants, something you don't do.

Peregrine wrote:

Skulls ok, I don't talk abut skulls. A lining on the armor plate maybe? Engraving, a small one? It's a robot with a knight head but wants to look like evangelion or eldar walker otherwise? It's plain like a plain plain.

What part of "some people like that aesthetic choice" is giving you so much trouble? If you actually look at the model you can see that it has small details where the designer decided to add them, so it isn't a skill issue. The obvious conclusion here is that the designer wanted a clean look, not GW's "skulls per square inch" appearance. IOW, it's a subjective aesthetic choice, no matter how many times you try to pretend that your preference for the GW style is objective superiority.

No it's about you reffering to fine detail as skulls non stop. I only pointed out other kind of detail that could benefit the knightish idea of crusader, probably more than what they chose to go with, not essentialy gw level of bling but some middleground or sth. I already said I assume its clean look is choice for the sake of comparision. Looking at it Im not sure but whatever.

Peregrine wrote:

So not having both models, plastic research lab and enough data, I say they are equal quality wise with levathan being a better value for your dollar.

Only because you continue to reject the Leviathan's advantage in posing options and easy weapon swaps. The Leviathan indisputably wins on several factors, and the only area where the GW kit could possibly have any advantage is aesthetic preference. I really have no idea how you can continue to claim that this is mere "equality".

For the 10th or so time, if you speak from perpective of quality, if people bought 10 times Knights over Crusaders because of the looks, the posability and swappable weapons would be almost irrelevant. But we dont know that (though might strongly suspect) and I only gave small nod to knight for being more complicated model, ok lets ditch that. Still the posability and swapable weapons would only tip the scale in favor of the crusader if the casting quality and detail were better which you decided out of your left pocket without any proof for that either. And even if you had one, you have a slim win for people that cant magnetise or work a bit more on a model and still you would have one model better than something similar (and still excelent) from GW, that can happen and doesn't change the trend. If theyre close to equal then clearly crusader wins on value, I said best not best and cheap. In fact I said overpriced 2 fold.

Peregrine wrote:

Which btw suggests that Leviathan might be a much worse quality piece with the maker fully aware of it, unless he wants to catch consumers that aggresively.

Oh good, more wild speculation about how there must be some hidden flaw, and a product can't possibly be better than GW's version (after all, you've already decided that GW's plastic kits are clearly superior to the competition). Maybe instead of wild speculation you could consider the more likely explanation: the manufacturer is going for sales volume over per-unit profit and GW's kits are overpriced.

Your speculation is as good as mine. Wouldnt so supposedly good kit the size of warhound made of plastic still fly for $200? And I said might, bolded.

Peregrine wrote:

No we didn't.

Yes we did. The Leviathan wins on price, posing options, and weapon swaps. And, based on the reports from happy customers who bought them, the kit at least ties GW on quality control. Meanwhile the GW kit has no objective advantages in any area. So I'd say that's a pretty clear victory for the Leviathan if you only consider objective standards and not personal preferences about aesthetic choices.

No we didn't. And I hope you don't mean the classy reports from dreamforge site like "best in the world so much better than gw crap" or "I need new plastic cutters for this masterpiece old ones are dirty from gw sprues. "

I'm just going to save myself any future wrist strain and not bother responding to Plum anymore. Peregrine, I think your efforts are better directed elsewhere at this point. We're just not getting through the Citadel™ Fine™Tinfoil™ Hat™.

We should be content that we've proven him wrong on his original assertion that the Knight was vastly superior.

His argument now seems like its 'GW makes really good plastics, and other companies do as well now', which I don't think anyone is really against.

GW does make really good plastics. I just think its pretty biased and ignorant to say they're the best in the world, especially given the arguments presented to support that stance.

Finally, when you factor in cost, GW's stuff falls way behind.

I'm still waiting for an explanation for how you can objectively assess the aesthetics of a mini, but agreed, I've already stated I don't believe he fully understands his own argument, let alone other people's, and I stand by that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I'm just going to save myself any future wrist strain and not bother responding to Plum anymore. Peregrine, I think your efforts are better directed elsewhere at this point. We're just not getting through the Citadel™ Fine™Tinfoil™ Hat™.

It's amazing that it works, considering all the holes!

Plumbumbarum wrote:

No it's about you reffering to fine detail as skulls non stop.

What would you prefer? Bling perhaps? Whatever word you use, the meaning is the same - we're referring to details that serve no purpose whatsoever.

- A hydraulic piston as part of an arm or leg serves a purpose, in that it is there to move said limb (or would if the knight was real).

- A skull, purity seal or other embellishment is just bling. It does nothing. It serves no purpose. Depending on your view, it may either make the model look more interesting or make it look more cluttered.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I only pointed out other kind of detail that could benefit the knightish idea of crusader, probably more than what they chose to go with, not essentialy gw level of bling but some middleground or sth.

But that's the thing - some people simply prefer the clean look. Or, perhaps they like having the option to add bells and whistles if they choose to - rather than having unwanted details sculpted onto the model. Maybe some would prefer more bling, but it isn't necessary to make the model good.

 vipoid wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

No it's about you reffering to fine detail as skulls non stop.

What would you prefer? Bling perhaps? Whatever word you use, the meaning is the same - we're referring to details that serve no purpose whatsoever.

In 3D modeling the term is "Greeble"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeble

A greeble or nurnie is a fine detailing added to the surface of a larger object that makes it appear more complex, and therefore more visually interesting. It usually gives the audience an impression of increased scale.

Works pretty well in this case I think.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I'm just going to save myself any future wrist strain and not bother responding to Plum anymore. Peregrine, I think your efforts are better directed elsewhere at this point. We're just not getting through the Citadel™ Fine™Tinfoil™ Hat™.

I had a few people refusing further discussion with me because I was a "GW hater" so imo your citadel tinfoil hat comment only proves both you and them wrong and rather that I do it right. I try to give credit where it's due.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
We should be content that we've proven him wrong on his original assertion that the Knight was vastly superior.

Yes the leviathan box picture doesn't do it justice, it's significantly better when you give it a closer look. I still dont consider myself proven wrong, I' ll let you know though. Indeed dont bother trying it's now me only that can prove me wrong, heard it all.

Blacksails wrote:GW does make really good plastics. I just think its pretty biased and ignorant to say they're the best in the world, especially given the arguments presented to support that stance.

Well some argument could be the sheer number of great gw kits vs the number of kits from other companies that can withstand a comparision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'm still waiting for an explanation for how you can objectively assess the aesthetics of a mini, but agreed, I've already stated I don't believe he fully understands his own argument, let alone other people's, and I stand by that.

Man I did that, multiple times including few posts above answering you directly. I am only left to assume that we don't understand each other and that probably Im crap at explaining these things in English. I will only tell you, and don't take it as a brag or proof of anything but just context, that I am a quality director in my current company, have a degree in sociology and introduced quality systems quite succesfuly to multiple companes. Im talking about objective assesment of quality from a quality managment standpoint, and only that.

Azrael13 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I'm just going to save myself any future wrist strain and not bother responding to Plum anymore. Peregrine, I think your efforts are better directed elsewhere at this point. We're just not getting through the Citadel™ Fine™Tinfoil™ Hat™.

It's amazing that it works, considering all the holes!

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I'm just going to save myself any future wrist strain and not bother responding to Plum anymore. Peregrine, I think your efforts are better directed elsewhere at this point. We're just not getting through the Citadel™ Fine™Tinfoil™ Hat™.

I think you're right. I think it's pretty well established now that his only argument consists of "GW makes the best plastic kits -> anything that seems to be better than GW's plastic kits must have flaws that make it worse, even if I have nothing more than wild speculation about those flaws as "proof" of my claim -> therefore GW makes the best plastic kits".

Plumbumbarum, feel free to come back to this discussion if you want to provide proof of your claims instead of just speculation about what flaws a kit must have so that it can fit into your assumptions of GW superiority, or attempts to turn your subjective aesthetic preferences for GW's "skulls per square inch" art style into objective quality.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I'm just going to save myself any future wrist strain and not bother responding to Plum anymore. Peregrine, I think your efforts are better directed elsewhere at this point. We're just not getting through the Citadel™ Fine™Tinfoil™ Hat™.

I think you're right. I think it's pretty well established now that his only argument consists of "GW makes the best plastic kits -> anything that seems to be better than GW's plastic kits must have flaws that make it worse, even if I have nothing more than wild speculation about those flaws as "proof" of my claim -> therefore GW makes the best plastic kits".

Plumbumbarum, feel free to come back to this discussion if you want to provide proof of your claims instead of just speculation about what flaws a kit must have so that it can fit into your assumptions of GW superiority, or attempts to turn your subjective aesthetic preferences for GW's "skulls per square inch" art style into objective quality.

Yes I will at some point, or will be forced to back off with my claims, which ofc won't exactly mean Im wrong only that I cant prove it. You simplified my arguments beyond the point of fair discussion imo but again lets say it's on me and my inability to properly convey my thoughts. Sometimes I think I don't really understand English beyond some point.

I think the IK looks better (opinion) but the Leviathan wins in every other category I could think of. I didn't really get it until I saw it in person and was blown away.
Sorry, Plum but Peregrine wins on this one.

It's a niche of a niche product, if you think Gamesworkshop is expensive start collectings trains O_O that stuff is crazy expensive.

I mean this is actually a luxury hobby.

Care to define a non-luxury hobby?

The whole concept is fallacious.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Care to define a non-luxury hobby?

Making web comics. They would qualify as an anti-luxury for most of the people involved.