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.

 solkan wrote:

 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.

I get you're joking, but even that requires hundreds/thousands/millions of *insert currency here* in tech plus web access and the necessary spare time.

A hobby is, by definition, a luxury because it means you have time and money above that which is needed to ensure you can eat and not be homeless.

It is a daft argument made by people who don't really understand the issue at the heart of the debate, it isn't about the amount of cash spent, it is about whether the consumer feels they're getting a good return of enjoyment on their investment, and it is on that criteria that GW is starting to suffer in many people's eyes.

 Carnage43 wrote:

 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/Greeblei

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.

Yeah except insane amount of detail was always in warhammers art and was added to everything not just larger objects ie Iann Miller, GW just seems to follow with the style, for better or worse. Not to mention I consciously like the style and models like for example Karamazov for its sheer ridiculousness and pointless decoration, it greatly fits the sheer ridiculousness and pointless direction of the whole universe. I appreciate the stupidity and insanity in the sea of "realistic" and "probable" sf which btw rarely succed in that anyway if you start to analyse. 40k as science fantasy can afford things without purpose, like church on Titans shoulders for example. I have other universes/games where I can look for logic, sense, sleek designs or mecha that could walk and work. So, me liking excessive detail is not because I fell for cheap illusion trick. Btw I'm a fan of battletech mechs also love Evangelion designs to death, hows that in the theory of my greeble love. Have that blue 20cm something Eva 00 figurine next to my pc and not a single 40k model.

So no it does not work pretty well "in this case" as you, with all the failed smartassery, put it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
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.

Im fine with losing an argument, not to mention I dislike the notion of discussion as a competition. It happens to turn into one in my case quite often but rather because of my posting style or my dislike for certain posting techniques of others, or misundertstandings, not because my objective is to win so be always right, prove everyone wrong or other bs. Such attitude is kind of crap to be honest and internet tough guy stuff, the main objective of discussion is truth or getting as close to it as possible.

On the other hand, to admit being wrong I have to think I'm wrong. Nothing is proven either way yet, sure burden of proof is on me but that takes time, I don't remember the source of data and thought process of every opinion I've ever formed. Not to mention some ultimate conclusion might be impossible because we lack data.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
So no it does not work pretty well "in this case" as you, with all the failed smartassery, put it.

No, you just don't understand that "greeble" is a factual description, not criticism. It simply refers to "complex detail with no function besides adding detail" and is neither good nor bad. When used well (the Star Wars ship models, for example) it is a legitimate aesthetic choice that can produce good results. Excessive greebling only becomes an issue when it's poorly done and just adds clutter to the model instead of being a coherent design. Whether 40k's models are on the good or bad side of that line is, yet again, subjective preference. Some people like it, some people think GW is too determined to maximize skulls per square inch and should get rid of some of the clutter. But either way the term definitely applies to GW's art style.

And, just to be clear, successfully putting greebles on everything is not a sign of skill. This kind of detail is usually composed of fairly simple shapes and the only real limiting factor on it is how much time you're willing to spend adding it.

Plumb don't you mean that GW models have a better mass product technology in their entire line of models compering to other firms plastic models, because that thing could be defended.
Other firms can do plastic models, what ever good looking or not is a matter of taste, but GW does produce the biggest number of different plastic kits with more options then other firms, what ever the options are needed or not is again a matter of taste. So under that point of view GW models or rather their model line is superior.

Makumba wrote:
Plumb don't you mean that GW models have a better mass product technology in their entire line of models compering to other firms plastic models, because that thing could be defended.
Other firms can do plastic models, what ever good looking or not is a matter of taste, but GW does produce the biggest number of different plastic kits with more options then other firms, what ever the options are needed or not is again a matter of taste. So under that point of view GW models or rather their model line is superior.

Yes that too. Also Im not sure whether other companies would be able to make that much of intricate and complicated detail with such precision or not. I read somewhere that GW has the advantage like that but is that machines, experience, software or something added to polystyrene for better flow, I cant remember.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

In the end, whether it's bling, fine detail, clutter, beauty or gribble, if vast majority of your consumers want gribble, GRIBBLE IS QUALITY.

No it isn't. That's the whole point.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
And I hate majority of recent GW sculpts for example crimson chosen, because they're TOO BUSY and I dont consider fuking eyes on a chestplate a good detail on a chaos space marine. Don't even start with Taurox where excessive detail is exactly what ruins the not that bad chasis. But, again, despite the fact that I consider my taste 1st class and vastly superior than one of average person, my opinion here is irrelevant.

Your responses confuse me.

 vipoid wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

In the end, whether it's bling, fine detail, clutter, beauty or gribble, if vast majority of your consumers want gribble, GRIBBLE IS QUALITY.

No it isn't. That's the whole point.

Quality is meeting the requirements of the customer, that's a defnition I have to work with everyday in my line of work. I hate it because it allows to m stretch it into statements that bBieber is better than Bach. But the definition that I prefer,where quality is meeting the requirements of the customer that he/she is not aware of having is hardly applicable in real world, it's not your role to tech the customer. In short, if you target entire population and vast majority of it wants a fat beat and sugar sweet lyrics, you give them that but made good within required criteria. If your target audience is 40k wargamers and they want gribble, you give them gribble. Thats not an analgy heh.

Therefore dv chosen are quality producy also from that standpoint unless you have nukbers that a signficant part of customer base hate them like I do. Then we discuss set per entages for quality and see whats next.

vipoid wrote:Your responses confuse me.

Thats because I speak about objective comparision of minis quality. If you want to establish an objective way to compare minis and take the important part that is design into equation, you cant base it on single person taste but numbers. Funny part is that I dont even use it as argument pro knight be ause I dn't have that numbers but just mentioned assesing it and there you go. And you could spend a trillion, make a 60 question questionare about knight and ask whole western world plus Asia about it.

Ofc any method of comparision propised will be imperfect because everything is. We can try though.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Quality is meeting the requirements of the customer, that's a defnition I have to work with everyday in my line of work.

No, no it isn't.

Quality - "the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something."

I think you're confusing it with customer satisfaction, which is another matter altogether. e.g. Some people might end up buying a low-quality speaker system simply because, in their opinion, it looks nicer than the ones which produce better quality sound (or perhaps they're just cheaper). It still doesn't make those speakers high-quality.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
In short, if you target entire population and vast majority of it wants a fat beat and sugar sweet lyrics, you give them that but made good within required criteria.

That's supply and demand, not quality. It *might* relate to the quality of a product, but this is far from certain. Sometimes it is even the opposite - where people buy something because it is cheap, even if it is of poor quality.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
If your target audience is 40k wargamers and they want gribble, you give them gribble. Thats not an analgy heh.

As above, that's supply and demand - not quality.

Also, where did we establish that 40k gamers want gribble?

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Therefore dv chosen are quality producy also from that standpoint unless you have nukbers that a signficant part of customer base hate them like I do. Then we discuss set per entages for quality and see whats next.

Please provide the numbers proving a significant portion of the customer base does like that gribble.

 Peregrine wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
So no it does not work pretty well "in this case" as you, with all the failed smartassery, put it.

No, you just don't understand that "greeble" is a factual description, not criticism. It simply refers to "complex detail with no function besides adding detail" and is neither good nor bad. When used well (the Star Wars ship models, for example) it is a legitimate aesthetic choice that can produce good results. Excessive greebling only becomes an issue when it's poorly done and just adds clutter to the model instead of being a coherent design. Whether 40k's models are on the good or bad side of that line is, yet again, subjective preference. Some people like it, some people think GW is too determined to maximize skulls per square inch and should get rid of some of the clutter. But either way the term definitely applies to GW's art style.

And, just to be clear, successfully putting greebles on everything is not a sign of skill. This kind of detail is usually composed of fairly simple shapes and the only real limiting factor on it is how much time you're willing to spend adding it.

It's you that reduced my point about detail to greeble, skulls per inch etc. I meant detail like lets say, leaves and small branches on a treefolk as in, GW probably has the capability to make it finer, more precise while maybe thinner etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Quality is meeting the requirements of the customer, that's a defnition I have to work with everyday in my line of work.

No, no it isn't.

Quality - "the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something."

I think you're confusing it with customer satisfaction, which is another matter altogether. e.g. Some people might end up buying a low-quality speaker system simply because, in their opinion, it looks nicer than the ones which produce better quality sound (or perhaps they're just cheaper). It still doesn't make those speakers high-quality.

As per my next quote, you have to make it good within required criteria which are inherent to the product, the closer you get the better. So, perfect sound comes first with speakers, just as material quality and casting in case of the mini. But then if you want to make quality design of the speakers, you gather data about your consumer's preference and define criteria by that. Ofc with the car, design would be related to many more things like aerodynamics or safety, you define it per product.

vipoid wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
In short, if you target entire population and vast majority of it wants a fat beat and sugar sweet lyrics, you give them that but made good within required criteria.

That's supply and demand, not quality. It *might* relate to the quality of a product, but this is far from certain. Sometimes it is even the opposite - where people buy something because it is cheap, even if it is of poor quality.

Yes unless you already have a product and defined customer base. Then everything that is not inherent requirement becomes quality. If your cheap speakers buyers tell you they want them pink and you deliver, is that not an excellent product in design department? Who are we to say that pink speakers are ugly hehe. Ofc your cheap speakers will probably still have much to correct when it comes to inherent product requirements. Unless your dreamforge then you are value product but excellent all around, sorry just had to.

vipoid wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
If your target audience is 40k wargamers and they want gribble, you give them gribble. Thats not an analgy heh.

As above, that's supply and demand - not quality.

As above, gw already produces 40k and sells it to 40k wargamers,established and incoming. Meeting their requirements in design would be quality, assuming you want to use quality measurement about design instead doing whatever the f you want and eat it or not.

vipoid wrote:Also, where did we establish that 40k gamers want gribble?

We didn't. I'd love to know myself. I guess 40k gamers do but never used it without "if" in the sentence.

vipoid wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Therefore dv chosen are quality producy also from that standpoint unless you have numbers that a signficant part of customer base hate them like I do. Then we discuss set per entages for quality and see whats next.

Please provide the numbers proving a significant portion of the customer base does like that gribble.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
So no it does not work pretty well "in this case" as you, with all the failed smartassery, put it.

No, you just don't understand that "greeble" is a factual description, not criticism. It simply refers to "complex detail with no function besides adding detail" and is neither good nor bad. When used well (the Star Wars ship models, for example) it is a legitimate aesthetic choice that can produce good results. Excessive greebling only becomes an issue when it's poorly done and just adds clutter to the model instead of being a coherent design. Whether 40k's models are on the good or bad side of that line is, yet again, subjective preference. Some people like it, some people think GW is too determined to maximize skulls per square inch and should get rid of some of the clutter. But either way the term definitely applies to GW's art style.

And, just to be clear, successfully putting greebles on everything is not a sign of skill. This kind of detail is usually composed of fairly simple shapes and the only real limiting factor on it is how much time you're willing to spend adding it.

It's you that reduced my point about detail to greeble, skulls per inch etc. I meant detail like lets say, leaves and small branches on a treefolk as in, GW probably has the capability to make it finer, more precise while maybe thinner etc.

But they don't!

Whether a company has in house machinery or not makes no odds to the overall capability for injection moulded hard plastic available.

In actual fact, last year at one of the events, having out dated tech was one of the reasons cited by the design team (it might have been Jes Goodwin himself) that SoB had yet to be made in plastic.

One of the downsides of owning your own machinery is that you have to ensure you get a return in that investment before upgrading, meaning sometimes you're actually behind the curve of what is technically possible. Using a third party company means you can choose to use one that has invested in the latest tech.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
So no it does not work pretty well "in this case" as you, with all the failed smartassery, put it.

No, you just don't understand that "greeble" is a factual description, not criticism. It simply refers to "complex detail with no function besides adding detail" and is neither good nor bad. When used well (the Star Wars ship models, for example) it is a legitimate aesthetic choice that can produce good results. Excessive greebling only becomes an issue when it's poorly done and just adds clutter to the model instead of being a coherent design. Whether 40k's models are on the good or bad side of that line is, yet again, subjective preference. Some people like it, some people think GW is too determined to maximize skulls per square inch and should get rid of some of the clutter. But either way the term definitely applies to GW's art style.

And, just to be clear, successfully putting greebles on everything is not a sign of skill. This kind of detail is usually composed of fairly simple shapes and the only real limiting factor on it is how much time you're willing to spend adding it.

It's you that reduced my point about detail to greeble, skulls per inch etc. I meant detail like lets say, leaves and small branches on a treefolk as in, GW probably has the capability to make it finer, more precise while maybe thinner et

But they don't!

Whether a company has in house machinery or not makes no odds to the overall capability for injection moulded hard plastic available.

In actual fact, last year at one of the events, having out dated tech was one of the reasons cited by the design team (it might have been Jes Goodwin himself) that SoB had yet to be made in plastic.

Well if that is so, that's one less, significant point I can make. But what about chemistry, designers experience, sheer advantage with resources? Idon't know now I ask.

Churn out DV chosen can't do sisters? I know monopose is easier but what's that about, hair in the wind, nails to paint? Weird.

And if true, could other companies make sister like GW wants them to be. Maybe they set the standard that high?

Azrael13 wrote:One of the downsides of owning your own machinery is that you have to ensure you get a return in that investment before upgrading, meaning sometimes you're actually behind the curve of what is technically possible. Using a third party company means you can choose to use one that has invested in the latest tech.

Thats a valid point but now the question is how it really is out there ie equipment avilable for sensible price vs what GW has etc. I welcome data if you have it. Wouldnt PP or FFG or someone outdone GW on their own turf already if there was nothing special about gw?

Also even if thats just money that prevents other companies to produce as many kits at comparable quality level, doesnt that still leave GW at best drastic plastic position?

Well, chemistry is a nonsense, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say, that GW have a team of boffins spending their days engineering the perfect plastic?

No, they will most likely just buy in large quantities of plastic beads from a plastic manufacturer, which are melted down and injected into the sprue moulds - there are different forms of plastic in use by different manufacturers, but these are choices based on various criteria, not a secret recipe.

Why are DV Chosen so difficult to produce?

They're not. They just have a lot of greeble.

Why are sisters difficult to produce?

The distinctive features, such as the long, flowing fabrics and hair are difficult to reproduce in plastic, because of the limitations of casting in that medium (no undercuts) and GW have eliminated any alternate material from their mainstream lines.

I can't answer if other companies could do them like GW wants, because I have no idea what that is, do I think a company like Dreamforge could produce kick-ass looking female warriors in armour? Absolutely.

You're also correct that, within wargaming, GW is in the best position to produce plastic kits, because they have the highest sales volume and are able to leverage this against the high initial overheads of producing them and exploit the higher than average unit sales in comparison to their competition to maximise the long term return in those overheads.

This doesn't have any bearing on quality though, again, to use McDonalds as a comparison, does the fact that McDondalds are in a position to drive the cost of each individual burger they produce to the lowest level, and also spend large amounts of cash on developing new dishes every month mean that what they are producing is inherently better quality than the old fashioned, higher priced burger joint around the corner?

Possibly, but I'd expect the lower volume, more bespoke retailer to usually be able to make a better product.

I think pertinent to this discussion is the new PP Convergance battle engine, in plastic like GW kits, looks to give them a run for their money detail wise and is also a pretty good price for the size kit it is.

This?



That's probably a pretty good comparison, it is of a similar level of detail, similar price, and similar size (but slightly larger) than this..



But, subjectively, I don't like The Battle Engine, I mean, I'm not a huge fan of the spore either as I generally don't like the Nid aesthetic, but I'd be more likely to buy one some day.

So, objectively very similar, but subjectively, I don't much care for the PP model.

There will, of course, be people who feel the exact opposite way - that's the nature of subjectivity. However, nobody will be able to argue that the RRP of both is similar, because that's a matter of fact.

Which returns me to the original point I was making about a week ago, which, when you take subjectivity out of the equation and just factor in how much of a contribution the PP makes to the total of an average sized list in comparison to the Nidpod, that in gameplay terms, while having a similar Cost the Battle Engine poses much better Value.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
It's you that reduced my point about detail to greeble, skulls per inch etc. I meant detail like lets say, leaves and small branches on a treefolk as in, GW probably has the capability to make it finer, more precise while maybe thinner etc.

Again with the speculation. GW "probably" has the ability to make better detail, but you don't provide any evidence of this claim. It seems like the only reason to make the claim in the first place is your assumption that GW somehow has to have better models.

Also, remember that F-104? GW's level of fine detail is not even close to the limits of injection-molded plastic kits.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Quality is meeting the requirements of the customer, that's a defnition I have to work with everyday in my line of work. I hate it because it allows to m stretch it into statements that bBieber is better than Bach. But the definition that I prefer,where quality is meeting the requirements of the customer that he/she is not aware of having is hardly applicable in real world, it's not your role to tech the customer. In short, if you target entire population and vast majority of it wants a fat beat and sugar sweet lyrics, you give them that but made good within required criteria. If your target audience is 40k wargamers and they want gribble, you give them gribble. Thats not an analgy heh.

The problem with your definition is that it it's incomplete. You define customer satisfaction based only on the people who buy the product, not the people who decided not to buy it because they didn't like it. That's a relevant way to look at it when the question is how frequently you have defective products (miscast rate, etc) that don't meet customer expectations, but it fails completely when you consider aesthetic factors because a customer that buys a model because they like how it looks is almost by definition going to be satisfied with it. But, for example, if I don't buy a Taurox because I think it's a terrible design then I don't count as a customer at all and that lost sale is never counted. You can have an ugly kit that only 10% of the potential customers buy, but as long as you don't have any miscasts that 10% will be happy and you can claim 100% satisfaction and awesome quality. But that's obviously not a successful product.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Churn out DV chosen can't do sisters? I know monopose is easier but what's that about, hair in the wind, nails to paint? Weird.

It's down to the flappy fabric parts, mostly.

Companies with more advanced plastic moulding machinery might have a chance of replicating the current metal sisters (Japanese model companies have been producing plastic kits with undercuts, hollow weapon barrels (without having to cut them in half like GW do with thei heavy weapons) and even parts cast in multiple layered colours for years now) but with the machinery that GW have on hand they would have to significantly redesign the sisters' armour, and supposedly Jes has consistently refused to do that.

And if true, could other companies make sister like GW wants them to be. Maybe they set the standard that high?

As above... yes, other model companies could probably make them in plastic as is.

Wouldnt PP or FFG or someone outdone GW on their own turf already if there was nothing special about gw?

Privateer very specifically focussed on metal production up until fairly recently. Their move into plastic has been a gradual affair... but even there, by choosing a different production method they managed to produce a first wave of kits in plastic that were virtually identical to the metal kits they replaced.

GW's move from metal to plastic has almost always resulted in a loss of detail.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Well, chemistry is a nonsense, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say, that GW have a team of boffins spending their days engineering the perfect plastic?

No, they will most likely just buy in large quantities of plastic beads from a plastic manufacturer, which are melted down and injected into the sprue moulds - there are different forms of plastic in use by different manufacturers, but these are choices based on various criteria, not a secret recipe.

Yes polystyrene is polystyrene but I have a vague recollection of something about improving the flow or sth. That's why I asked.

Azrael13 wrote:Why are DV Chosen so difficult to produce?

They're not. They just have a lot of greeble.

Why are sisters difficult to produce?

The distinctive features, such as the long, flowing fabrics and hair are difficult to reproduce in plastic, because of the limitations of casting in that medium (no undercuts) and GW have eliminated any alternate material from their mainstream lines.

I can't answer if other companies could do them like GW wants, because I have no idea what that is, do I think a company like Dreamforge could produce kick-ass looking female warriors in armour? Absolutely.

I have no idea what it is then either because there's plenty of fabric on their various plastics, gals on coven throne seem to have nice hair too. They must plan something far better than current metals. But Im not going to argue with mr. Goodwin obviously about his own production.

Azrael13 wrote:You're also correct that, within wargaming, GW is in the best position to produce plastic kits, because they have the highest sales volume and are able to leverage this against the high initial overheads of producing them and exploit the higher than average unit sales in comparison to their competition to maximise the long term return in those overheads.

This doesn't have any bearing on quality though, again, to use McDonalds as a comparison, does the fact that McDondalds are in a position to drive the cost of each individual burger they produce to the lowest level, and also spend large amounts of cash on developing new dishes every month mean that what they are producing is inherently better quality than the old fashioned, higher priced burger joint around the corner?

Possibly, but I'd expect the lower volume, more bespoke retailer to usually be able to make a better product.

You can make pretty strong case against quality of mcdonalds burgers, you can't make similarly strong case against quality of gw plastics. Making burgers is not making models either and eating burgers is not modelling. I understand why you use the analogy but the connotation is unfair for GW, a lot (Microsoft maybe for the bully attitude and monopolising tendencies if you really want to bash them) and does not reflect on gw vs small companies models quality. Not to mention low volume burger seller is much less controled and rats are not that differnt in taste from what Ive read.

That was a much better post and informative post from you than newsflash type smartassery, so thank you I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
It's you that reduced my point about detail to greeble, skulls per inch etc. I meant detail like lets say, leaves and small branches on a treefolk as in, GW probably has the capability to make it finer, more precise while maybe thinner etc.

Again with the speculation. GW "probably" has the ability to make better detail, but you don't provide any evidence of this claim. It seems like the only reason to make the claim in the first place is your assumption that GW somehow has to have better models.

Also, remember that F-104? GW's level of fine detail is not even close to the limits of injection-molded plastic kits.

Yes I wanted to add Attention Speculation sign to that post and one to mr Azrael just for you. Im still on the crap phone and I know that reffering to vague old article or blog without link got cheap a page ago at least. I dare to speculate because I didn't see other plastic kits with that kind of detail GW puts on to compare and those that were close in style I saw were all worse. If talking about real things that were were comparable like model planes or tanks to vehicles, those of my friends I saw seemed worse too.

Ill look up the plane, I ignored it tbh. It's still not direct comparision imo.

Peregrine wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Quality is meeting the requirements of the customer, that's a defnition I have to work with everyday in my line of work. I hate it because it allows to m stretch it into statements that bBieber is better than Bach. But the definition that I prefer,where quality is meeting the requirements of the customer that he/she is not aware of having is hardly applicable in real world, it's not your role to tech the customer. In short, if you target entire population and vast majority of it wants a fat beat and sugar sweet lyrics, you give them that but made good within required criteria. If your target audience is 40k wargamers and they want gribble, you give them gribble. Thats not an analgy heh.

The problem with your definition is that it it's incomplete. You define customer satisfaction based only on the people who buy the product, not the people who decided not to buy it because they didn't like it. That's a relevant way to look at it when the question is how frequently you have defective products (miscast rate, etc) that don't meet customer expectations, but it fails completely when you consider aesthetic factors because a customer that buys a model because they like how it looks is almost by definition going to be satisfied with it. But, for example, if I don't buy a Taurox because I think it's a terrible design then I don't count as a customer at all and that lost sale is never counted. You can have an ugly kit that only 10% of the potential customers buy, but as long as you don't have any miscasts that 10% will be happy and you can claim 100% satisfaction and awesome quality. But that's obviously not a successful product.

Exactly what you say and that's why I wrote in one of my posts earlier that you sample and ask imperial players, then 40k gamers, then wargamers. You can also ask teen or entire population of the world. Depends on your target audience, at given moment, if we wanted to compare the reception of knight to the reception of crusader, asking sf wargamers should be enough I guess.

btw wasnt dreamforge trying to do a churchy titan? Not that sleek then.

Fun fact is also that I wouldn't want company like gw to ask customers about designs, I hate the idea of artist driven by polls. But that's a different topic ofc.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Azrael13 wrote:You're also correct that, within wargaming, GW is in the best position to produce plastic kits, because they have the highest sales volume and are able to leverage this against the high initial overheads of producing them and exploit the higher than average unit sales in comparison to their competition to maximise the long term return in those overheads.

This doesn't have any bearing on quality though, again, to use McDonalds as a comparison, does the fact that McDondalds are in a position to drive the cost of each individual burger they produce to the lowest level, and also spend large amounts of cash on developing new dishes every month mean that what they are producing is inherently better quality than the old fashioned, higher priced burger joint around the corner?

Possibly, but I'd expect the lower volume, more bespoke retailer to usually be able to make a better product.

You can make pretty strong case against quality of mcdonalds burgers, you can't make similarly strong case against quality of gw plastics. Making burgers is not making models either and eating burgers is not modelling. I understand why you use the analogy but the connotation is unfair for GW, a lot (Microsoft maybe for the bully attitude and monopolising tendencies if you really want to bash them) and does not reflect on gw vs small companies models quality. Not to mention low volume burger seller is much less controled and rats are not that differnt in taste from what Ive read.

This wasn't the comparison I was making, the point I was making was that ubiquity is no assurance of quality, that just because GW can and does put out and sell a lot of plastic kits, it doesn't automatically follow that they are the best at it.

That was a much better post and informative post from you than newsflash type smartassery, so thank you I guess.

Frankly, if that's what you class as gratitude, thank you, but you can keep it. I explained that i was merely attempting levity and meant no offence, if you choose to continue to call me a smartass then I can only begin to assume you're deliberately continuing to choose to attack me personally and act accordingly.

 insaniak wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Churn out DV chosen can't do sisters? I know monopose is easier but what's that about, hair in the wind, nails to paint? Weird.

It's down to the flappy fabric parts, mostly.

Companies with more advanced plastic moulding machinery might have a chance of replicating the current metal sisters (Japanese model companies have been producing plastic kits with undercuts, hollow weapon barrels (without having to cut them in half like GW do with thei heavy weapons) and even parts cast in multiple layered colours for years now) but with the machinery that GW have on hand they would have to significantly redesign the sisters' armour, and supposedly Jes has consistently refused to do that.

And if true, could other companies make sister like GW wants them to be. Maybe they set the standard that high?

As above... yes, other model companies could probably make them in plastic as is.

Wouldnt PP or FFG or someone outdone GW on their own turf already if there was nothing special about gw?

Privateer very specifically focussed on metal production up until fairly recently. Their move into plastic has been a gradual affair... but even there, by choosing a different production method they managed to produce a first wave of kits in plastic that were virtually identical to the metal kits they replaced.

GW's move from metal to plastic has almost always resulted in a loss of detail.

Ok thanks. That PP thing changes things a bit though gw still has the sheer number of impresive kits behind them. Also if thats indeed true that gw has limited technology vs whats avilable then it just got significantly harder to defend best in the world, damn Jes Goodwin being frank and explaining himself to neckbeard fat whiny wargamer plebs. I can still wear you all down maybe heh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Azrael13 wrote:You're also correct that, within wargaming, GW is in the best position to produce plastic kits, because they have the highest sales volume and are able to leverage this against the high initial overheads of producing them and exploit the higher than average unit sales in comparison to their competition to maximise the long term return in those overheads.

This doesn't have any bearing on quality though, again, to use McDonalds as a comparison, does the fact that McDondalds are in a position to drive the cost of each individual burger they produce to the lowest level, and also spend large amounts of cash on developing new dishes every month mean that what they are producing is inherently better quality than the old fashioned, higher priced burger joint around the corner?

Possibly, but I'd expect the lower volume, more bespoke retailer to usually be able to make a better product.

You can make pretty strong case against quality of mcdonalds burgers, you can't make similarly strong case against quality of gw plastics. Making burgers is not making models either and eating burgers is not modelling. I understand why you use the analogy but the connotation is unfair for GW, a lot (Microsoft maybe for the bully attitude and monopolising tendencies if you really want to bash them) and does not reflect on gw vs small companies models quality. Not to mention low volume burger seller is much less controled and rats are not that differnt in taste from what Ive read.

This wasn't the comparison I was making, the point I was making was that ubiquity is no assurance of quality, that just because GW can and does put out and sell a lot of plastic kits, it doesn't automatically follow that they are the best at it.

That was a much better post and informative post from you than newsflash type smartassery, so thank you I guess.

Frankly, if that's what you class as gratitude, thank you, but you can keep it. I explained that i was merely attempting levity and meant no offence, if you choose to continue to call me a smartass then I can only begin to assume you're deliberately continuing to choose to attack me personally and act accordingly.

I wasnt offended it just winds me up when somene posts with zero constructive content. Other than that you can call me an idiot if you provide reasoning behind it and Im ok with that. No that was genuine gratitude and apologies for smartass.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
[...] damn Jes Goodwin being frank and explaining himself to neckbeard fat whiny wargamer plebs. I can still wear you all down maybe heh.

I think this is the crux of the issue right here why you're not getting anywhere.

 Accolade wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
[...] damn Jes Goodwin being frank and explaining himself to neckbeard fat whiny wargamer plebs. I can still wear you all down maybe heh.

I think this is the crux of the issue right here why you're not getting anywhere.

That would surely be the case if you took that sentence seriously. And while I understand that you could, given that when previewing the post I noticed a little vagueness in how the 2 sentences might be understood when taken together and left them like that on purpose, still the number of words you had to bold should be an indication that it's a parody rather than a serious insult.

Basicaly I tried to be funny, maybe I failed but for sure it was not meant as an insult to anyone here. And if it was then although I am neither fat nor have a neckbeard, I still am a whiny wargamer and would qualify for plebs too. That was also a loose reference to that GW former manager and his opinion about gw customers that he voiced on, was it facebook?

So attempt at humour and maybe a little trolling there but not the slightest attack or insult to anyone. And given that I practicaly lost the debate (I could pull Peregrine's previous point that it's the final product not technology that matters but my opinion is, that if you're limited in what you can provide to customers - in this case, sisters - it hurts quality. And you are not best in the world when others can just do better) then you can give me a pass on a subtle troll attempt.

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

The whole concept is fallacious.

Playing Chess

Playing Bridge

Reading

Bird Watching

Playing Checkers

etc... etc...


There are hundreds of non Luxury Hobbies that do not require even close to what it costs to play 40k. The fact is 40k is most certainly a luxury hobby just like model trains , airplanes, etc.. are.

The prices reflect that, and as for a comparison to Privateer Press and others those are luxury hobbies aswell.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
[...] damn Jes Goodwin being frank and explaining himself to neckbeard fat whiny wargamer plebs. I can still wear you all down maybe heh.

I think this is the crux of the issue right here why you're not getting anywhere.

That would surely be the case if you took that sentence seriously. And while I understand that you could, given that when previewing the post I noticed a little vagueness in how the 2 sentences might be understood when taken together and left them like that on purpose, still the number of words you had to bold should be an indication that it's a parody rather than a serious insult.

Basicaly I tried to be funny, maybe I failed but for sure it was not meant as an insult to anyone here. And if it was then although I am neither fat nor have a neckbeard, I still am a whiny wargamer and would qualify for plebs too. That was also a loose reference to that GW former manager and his opinion about gw customers that he voiced on, was it facebook?

So attempt at humour and maybe a little trolling there but not the slightest attack or insult to anyone. And given that I practicaly lost the debate (I could pull Peregrine's previous point that it's the final product not technology that matters but my opinion is, that if you're limited in what you can provide to customers - in this case, sisters - it hurts quality. And you are not best in the world when others can just do better) then you can give me a pass on a subtle troll attempt.

I understood that you were being rude and condescending.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Ill look up the plane, I ignored it tbh. It's still not direct comparision imo.

I'll post it again for you: http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal11/10301-10400/gal10326-F-104-Oslizlo/00.shtm

And here's a picture in case you can't view the page on your phone:



Note the ridiculous level of fine detail even though the plane itself is as sleek and simple as the real one. All of the rivets and panel lines are included (and at the proper scale, not GW's giant rivets and gaping holes between armor plates), wires/hydraulic lines/etc are all included* and at the proper scale, etc. And this is a kit that costs $20-30, not the $40-50+ of an average GW vehicle, despite being roughly the size of a GW Valkyrie kit ($66!). Look at other real-world model kits and you'll see similar levels of detail and prices.

The ONLY objective advantage (IOW, not subjective aesthetic preferences) GW's kits have over that F-104 is that they can be used in the tabletop game while the F-104 is just going to sit on your display shelf and look pretty. So essentially you're paying about double the cost and sacrificing detail in exchange for the 40k IP and some truly awful game rules.


*Some of this seems to be scatchbuilt or third-party upgrade sets, but if you look at the on-sprue pictures elsewhere the standard kit has the same kind of detail, the upgrade kits just add more of it and make sure everything is perfectly accurate for a specific version of the plane.

Hollismason wrote:
There are hundreds of non Luxury Hobbies that do not require even close to what it costs to play 40k. The fact is 40k is most certainly a luxury hobby just like model trains , airplanes, etc.. are.

So you're considering 'luxury' to be synonymous with 'expensive'?

Technically any hobby is a luxury. The hobbies you listed just require an expenditure of time rather than money.

Which I'd already expanded on in my very next post, but it must have been overlooked/ignored.

Or let's look at a tank. Sure, it's 1:35 instead of whatever 1:50ish scale 28mm is supposed to be, but it's about the same size as a GW LRBT. And the difference is just stunning:





Note the much smaller minimum feature size, proportions that aren't completely distorted, etc. And the cost? $35, compared to $50 for a GW LRBT.

 Azreal13 wrote:
This?



That's probably a pretty good comparison, it is of a similar level of detail, similar price, and similar size (but slightly larger) than this..



But, subjectively, I don't like The Battle Engine, I mean, I'm not a huge fan of the spore either as I generally don't like the Nid aesthetic, but I'd be more likely to buy one some day.

So, objectively very similar, but subjectively, I don't much care for the PP model.

There will, of course, be people who feel the exact opposite way - that's the nature of subjectivity. However, nobody will be able to argue that the RRP of both is similar, because that's a matter of fact.

Which returns me to the original point I was making about a week ago, which, when you take subjectivity out of the equation and just factor in how much of a contribution the PP makes to the total of an average sized list in comparison to the Nidpod, that in gameplay terms, while having a similar Cost the Battle Engine poses much better Value.

This is actually a perfect example. While PP has many nice models, especially in the 28mm scale, many of their larger models are just not as exciting to me, objectively, as the larger GW models. There are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking, I like the GW sculpts more. Part of it is the weapons; I like GW weapons much, much more. Also, generally, PP models are nowhere near as customizable, which is a big feature of GW models for me.

@Peregrine -- I think it's perfectly fair to compare historical models to scifi/fantasy models for quality and sculpting detail. However, I don't think comparing price makes any sense, as one is based on real-life objects, while the other is sculpted from imagination. The intellectual property of the latter adds value, but more importantly, they're not really comparable in the same way that you could compare two Abrams tanks.

On the other hand, you could create the most stunning, perfectly detailed WW2 tanks, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, or JSF airplanes, and I would never, ever consider buying even one. On the other hand, I seem to be happy to collect, every year, thousands of dollars of dragons, giant robots, wizards, and Aether-sailing wyches. I would never paint a soldier in a gas mask with an M-16, but swap in a multi-melta or plasma pistol, and I can't wait.

Talys wrote:
many of their larger models are just not as exciting to me, objectively, as the larger GW models.

I think you mean subjectively.

But yeah, Warmahordes has never had a terribly appealing aesthetic to me and that's why I've never gotten in to it. I've always preferred 40k's aesthetic even if I do hate the bobbleheadedness.

Ok here's the thing I've noticed in my 21 years in the hobby. GW has as many die hard fans as die hard haters & neither camp likes to concede the other's point. After 7E hit I quit 40k for the most part. The new IG dex was the true death knell for me. This is because gw basically admitted that 6th was just... bad & instead of saying as much & doing a revision & letting us trade in our now useless rulebooks for the new ones they upped the price & then made the game worse by creating a greater way to make $ off the power gamers. Then the tidal wave of dataslates that are massively over priced for what they are & the monopose plastic characters being sold for more than a metal blister I just started to feel like I was doing business with Bernie Madoff. When the new codex for IG hit & I saw that half the arty & several of our more characterful units were now gone & things that gw needs to just let die (ogryns & ratlings) were still there & the catastrophe that was LE order cards (I mean wtf dumbass thought up this limited run crap for things they could sell lots of anyway?) I just decided to move on to greener pastures. The need to constantly buy a new hard cover codex for $50 & rulebook for $80 every two years or so just isn't worth it to me anymore. I think it's ignorant to act like gw are the greatest company ever still (they aren't, but they were) & 40k is the best game ever made (it's not, but it WAS one of the best) & it's just plain stupid to assume that anyone who isn't gw or doesn't mimic their business model will fail because gw is a failure by far compared to what they were when I started.40k & gw are vastly overpriced & under quality compared to what they could be today. Space marines are, in my opinion, boring models that have actually lost a lot by going to all plastic.

Flame me if you want but I don't like this game or this company any longer because compared to FFG or Mantic, or Corvus Belli they don't hold up when it comes to value per $1 spent for gameplay fun. When it comes to model quality gw is looking very dated in a lot of areas. Compare a plastic cadian to a resin CDF trooper by Mad Robot Miniatures. Both are meant to capture the same aesthetic but plastic cadians are a failure in terms of kit design. Compare danamians to plastic catachans. The catachans have very little of redeeming value to them & tbh gw should give those away they're so poor. Plus I can get a squad of either of the above for $39.99 with a choice of sw, an additional "heavy weapon" that's meant to go with the unit & a fair amount of customizability (choice of head, gun, torso, & arm sets within the unit).

X-Wing is expensive per ship but the value is higher in that I can go buy 5 TIEs & 3 X-Wings & have a TON of variability in those 8 models even though they're exactly the same. Plus they are complete armies if I choose. The starter set is perfectly legal immediately. I can't recall when I have ever been able to say the same about 40k.

Infinity is vastly superior in gameplay to 40k in that it actually engages both players regardless of whose turn it is. That's huge. Many are the times when I'd end up conversing or walking away to get a soda or move my car (parking tickets) during my ork opponent's long & boring turn. Do that with infinity & you probably missed several very real chances to foil his plans.

Wild West Exodus is a very fun game that's very intense & bloody that scales well & has vastly superior minis to gw. The starter set is pricy but considering that it's the equivalent of buying 2 gw battle forces plus the rules & dice & codices vs dark vengeance which is cheaper for more models (which are snap-fit & only of moderate use). Additionally, the company releases new figs for every faction regularly & the game offers a different feel & theme than 40k.

Malifaux doesn't have a 2player starter set but each crew is about on par with a gw battle force plus codex for the price of a 40k heavy infantry squad. The models are much nicer & you need far fewer of them.

All of the above mentioned games are cheaper overall with lower model count & nicer figures. Each offers a more unique gameplay experience than just simply "you go I go" & none use the limited d6.

I find that Malifaux & wild west exodus minis scale well together & look alright side by side. In fact I think the Freikorps match WWX very well.