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.

Or he could just like the metal models more than he wants to risk getting plastic ones he doesn't like. There's a pile of 90's metals across various armies that I prefer to the current plastic versions. I never said it wasn't unrealistic because of GW's business practice, but I don't think it's unreasonable. It costs very little to maintain a range of metals or resins and it doesn't cost a whole lot to add models to a metal or resin range.

Saying the range should stay 100% unchanged (aka the "status quo" that he also wants to break with cheaper models) so it can stay in metal [b]is[/b[ unreasonable.

I have nothing against people who prefer the old models. I have something against people saying to never bother trying to improve things though. Technology has gotten better over the years, the tooling is smaller and the design on a lot of models has gotten better. Saying that we shouldn't even try is frankly silly.

I'm sorry but I'm not really seeing where it is unreasonable to think the current models are fine and not to want them updated.

Also you were the one talking about cheaper, I don't think it was even mentioned until you brought it up.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm sorry but I'm not really seeing where it is unreasonable to think the current models are fine and not to want them updated.

Also you were the one talking about cheaper, I don't think it was even mentioned until you brought it up.

No, he brought it up first. He wanted the existing range unchanged, but add back the missing models and make it cheaper.

And go build a Penitent Engine and tell me the current models a "fine". That monstrosity of a kit NEEDS to be in plastic.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm sorry but I'm not really seeing where it is unreasonable to think the current models are fine and not to want them updated.

Also you were the one talking about cheaper, I don't think it was even mentioned until you brought it up.

No, he brought it up first. He wanted the existing range unchanged, but add back the missing models and make it cheaper.

Where did I say that? I never mentioned price or cost in any of my posts. Just restore the range to what it once was by bringing back the alternate poses. Also, this attitude that metal is impossible to work with is a myth. It just takes some care and forethought. Everything worth doing usually does.

And go build a Penitent Engine and tell me the current models a "fine". That monstrosity of a kit NEEDS to be in plastic.

You can say I'm unreasonable all you want. Skink has it correct: I prefer metals to plastics. I had a pure Grey Knights army in metal when they were the Daemonhunters codex. Those "beautiful" plastics came out with the 5E codex. You know how many boxed sets I bought? None. The GK plastics are ugly. On top of that, they came out with that ridiculous Dreadknight, Castellan Crowe (beautiful sculpt, daft rules), and Purifiers.

You can call me elitist, if that classification makes you feel better. As long as you don't come crying to me when your dream of an army update comes true and they axe more existing units, create new units that contradict 20 years of fluff, and go all "Murderfang, Murderclaws, Murderlust" on your favorite army.

So, as not to derail the thread for the OP any further, I'll remain silent now.

Sorry, you're right. You wanted more variety. Something you won't get in metal. Especially since some of those "axed units" never had models (ex. Zealots).

And I'm not rookie with metal models, but there is a reason there is a section in one of my GW painting books that covers repairing your paint job on metal models. There is also a lot of extra work you need to do with pinning and green stuff to make some models work. It's not a friendly resource, it makes trying to create any kind of custom models incredibly hard.

So you can keep your metal models, I look forward to seeing the army in a form I can do a lot more with.

Sure, I could get in on this. Besides, a sisters army would be kinda nice anyway, so if this will help get plastics out then I'm all for it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Something you won't get in metal.

Only because of GW's current business model. Metals are actually great for variety because the set up costs are lower. Look at all the old Imperial Guard regiments, heaps of variety thanks to metal, no way you'd have that much variety in plastic. Look at historics, for years they've had tons of variety primarily in metal.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Something you won't get in metal.

Only because of GW's current business model. Metals are actually great for variety because the set up costs are lower. Look at all the old Imperial Guard regiments, heaps of variety thanks to metal, no way you'd have that much variety in plastic. Look at historics, for years they've had tons of variety primarily in metal.

Look at Privateer Press who has mostly moved away from metal in favor of a plastic resin.

And if you argued with the old plastics I'd agree, but with how crisp lines get on the current plastic kits and how detailed GW has made models with it I have to disagree. The only limits to your model poses now aren't the way it came in a blister but instead the limits of your own imagination and ability to repose things.

It's a waste of time, I hope you realize. GW will do a new codex or models when it feels like it. Just doing an action like this doesn't mean the army still has overall appeal. I heard people keep saying they'll somehow get GW to make Squats again, but the important thing to note is that it's a VERY specific niche. Quite frankly, you're even lucky you HAVE a codex and models.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's a waste of time, I hope you realize. GW will do a new codex or models when it feels like it. Just doing an action like this doesn't mean the army still has overall appeal. I heard people keep saying they'll somehow get GW to make Squats again, but the important thing to note is that it's a VERY specific niche. Quite frankly, you're even lucky you HAVE a codex and models.

Thanks for the contribution but that's the same bs argument people made about Dark Eldar. Same for Grey Knights. Just because it's not popular NOW doesn't mean there isn't a market there or overall appeal for people to play the army.

So yeah, you can take you fallacious argument back now, because no one is buying.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Something you won't get in metal.

Only because of GW's current business model. Metals are actually great for variety because the set up costs are lower. Look at all the old Imperial Guard regiments, heaps of variety thanks to metal, no way you'd have that much variety in plastic. Look at historics, for years they've had tons of variety primarily in metal.

Look at Privateer Press who has mostly moved away from metal in favor of a plastic resin.

And if you argued with the old plastics I'd agree, but with how crisp lines get on the current plastic kits and how detailed GW has made models with it I have to disagree. The only limits to your model poses now aren't the way it came in a blister but instead the limits of your own imagination and ability to repose things.

I never mentioned crispness or detail, I was imply talking about variety. I guess it depends how you define variety. I find most multipose plastics only go together a couple of different ways if you want them to look natural. I prefer a model that's in a single pose but that pose is well constructed and natural than having multipose where any pose tends to look a bit off. Most my favourite models are monopose. In that context, metal is fine for variety.

There are other reasons to go plastic, like having a larger production run and trying to sell more kits, but for a very niche product, metal has it's advantages over plastic.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's a waste of time, I hope you realize. GW will do a new codex or models when it feels like it. Just doing an action like this doesn't mean the army still has overall appeal. I heard people keep saying they'll somehow get GW to make Squats again, but the important thing to note is that it's a VERY specific niche. Quite frankly, you're even lucky you HAVE a codex and models.

Thanks for the contribution but that's the same bs argument people made about Dark Eldar. Same for Grey Knights. Just because it's not popular NOW doesn't mean there isn't a market there or overall appeal for people to play the army.

So yeah, you can take you fallacious argument back now, because no one is buying.

...Do you honestly believe those armies are very popular?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's a waste of time, I hope you realize. GW will do a new codex or models when it feels like it. Just doing an action like this doesn't mean the army still has overall appeal. I heard people keep saying they'll somehow get GW to make Squats again, but the important thing to note is that it's a VERY specific niche. Quite frankly, you're even lucky you HAVE a codex and models.

Thanks for the contribution but that's the same bs argument people made about Dark Eldar. Same for Grey Knights. Just because it's not popular NOW doesn't mean there isn't a market there or overall appeal for people to play the army.

So yeah, you can take you fallacious argument back now, because no one is buying.

...Do you honestly believe those armies are very popular?

A lot more popular than you do. Dark Eldar was so popular on their launch that their second wave got moved up by a whole year. If you don't think that's popular I can't help you because you're obviously insane.

I'm not a big believer in petitions or that style, but what the hey, I'll support this. If nothing else, it's a fun new thing for me to try to paint.

Big ups.

You're going to teach GW that old, overly expensive models DO sell and it will not encourage them to do anything but keep doing what they're doing.

Not buying them is the only thing that they will notice. (with proper notification to GW on why.)

 MWHistorian wrote:
You're going to teach GW that old, overly expensive models DO sell and it will not encourage them to do anything but keep doing what they're doing.

Not buying them is the only thing that they will notice. (with proper notification to GW on why.)

OR it will tell them that there is a significant market for the product line and that there exists a sizable demand for models, which, if there were to supply with even a few new plastic kits, could generate them a hefty profit, far more than they could expect if they maintain the range as it is.

If you want someone to invest in something then the best idea to get them to do so is probably to show them that their investment would be worthwhile. Nobody invests in something that they don't expect will make money.

 Stonebeard wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
You're going to teach GW that old, overly expensive models DO sell and it will not encourage them to do anything but keep doing what they're doing.

Not buying them is the only thing that they will notice. (with proper notification to GW on why.)

OR it will tell them that there is a significant market for the product line and that there exists a sizable demand for models, which, if there were to supply with even a few new plastic kits, could generate them a hefty profit, far more than they could expect if they maintain the range as it is.

If you want someone to invest in something then the best idea to get them to do so is probably to show them that their investment would be worthwhile. Nobody invests in something that they don't expect will make money.

And the sales of the SOB codex didn't tell them? It was one of the top downloaded books that month on iTunes. That should have been a clue.

If it was a clue and they're doing a proper Sisters update now and this just nets everyone a model they may have been planning on buying anyways.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
You're going to teach GW that old, overly expensive models DO sell and it will not encourage them to do anything but keep doing what they're doing.

Not buying them is the only thing that they will notice. (with proper notification to GW on why.)

OR it will tell them that there is a significant market for the product line and that there exists a sizable demand for models, which, if there were to supply with even a few new plastic kits, could generate them a hefty profit, far more than they could expect if they maintain the range as it is.

If you want someone to invest in something then the best idea to get them to do so is probably to show them that their investment would be worthwhile. Nobody invests in something that they don't expect will make money.

And the sales of the SOB codex didn't tell them? It was one of the top downloaded books that month on iTunes. That should have been a clue.

More positive reinforcement is rarely a bad thing.

 Stonebeard wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
You're going to teach GW that old, overly expensive models DO sell and it will not encourage them to do anything but keep doing what they're doing.

Not buying them is the only thing that they will notice. (with proper notification to GW on why.)

OR it will tell them that there is a significant market for the product line and that there exists a sizable demand for models, which, if there were to supply with even a few new plastic kits, could generate them a hefty profit, far more than they could expect if they maintain the range as it is.

If you want someone to invest in something then the best idea to get them to do so is probably to show them that their investment would be worthwhile. Nobody invests in something that they don't expect will make money.

And the sales of the SOB codex didn't tell them? It was one of the top downloaded books that month on iTunes. That should have been a clue.

More positive reinforcement is rarely a bad thing.

Unless you're reinforcing a wrong behavior. Like giving a treat to a dog that poos on the carpet. It will only teach them to keep pooing on the carpet.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If it was a clue and they're doing a proper Sisters update now and this just nets everyone a model they may have been planning on buying anyways.

Well if they're doing a proper update now anyway what's the point in wasting money buying an old model that may or may not match the aesthetics of the new models and will probably have a cheaper plastic alternative soon?

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
You're going to teach GW that old, overly expensive models DO sell and it will not encourage them to do anything but keep doing what they're doing.

Not buying them is the only thing that they will notice. (with proper notification to GW on why.)

OR it will tell them that there is a significant market for the product line and that there exists a sizable demand for models, which, if there were to supply with even a few new plastic kits, could generate them a hefty profit, far more than they could expect if they maintain the range as it is.

If you want someone to invest in something then the best idea to get them to do so is probably to show them that their investment would be worthwhile. Nobody invests in something that they don't expect will make money.

And the sales of the SOB codex didn't tell them? It was one of the top downloaded books that month on iTunes. That should have been a clue.

More positive reinforcement is rarely a bad thing.

Unless you're reinforcing a wrong behavior. Like giving a treat to a dog that poos on the carpet. It will only teach them to keep pooing on the carpet.

It's a targeted treat with a specified message. Thousands (or a few dozen, probably) of individuals purchasing one copy of the same miniature on the same complete with a message to the company detailing the "why" behind it? Honestly, if they come out of that saying, "Gee golly gosh, they must love the entirety of the current range every so much that we couldn't possibly increase our sales by providing them with a new rang,even though these sales were clearly the result of a targeted campaign aimed aimed specifically to deliver that message," then there is nothing that anyone can do to change anything.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If it was a clue and they're doing a proper Sisters update now and this just nets everyone a model they may have been planning on buying anyways.

Well if they're doing a proper update now anyway what's the point in wasting money buying an old model that may or may not match the aesthetics of the new models and will probably have a cheaper plastic alternative soon?

Because we don't know if they are and are trying to get their attention doesn't hurt.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's a waste of time, I hope you realize. GW will do a new codex or models when it feels like it. Just doing an action like this doesn't mean the army still has overall appeal. I heard people keep saying they'll somehow get GW to make Squats again, but the important thing to note is that it's a VERY specific niche. Quite frankly, you're even lucky you HAVE a codex and models.

Thanks for the contribution but that's the same bs argument people made about Dark Eldar. Same for Grey Knights. Just because it's not popular NOW doesn't mean there isn't a market there or overall appeal for people to play the army.

So yeah, you can take you fallacious argument back now, because no one is buying.

...Do you honestly believe those armies are very popular?

A lot more popular than you do. Dark Eldar was so popular on their launch that their second wave got moved up by a whole year. If you don't think that's popular I can't help you because you're obviously insane.

Probably when GW thought it would make more money; you have to be smart about when to do waves. Doesn't stop them from being overall unpopular, seeing as in a majority of forums they have less threads, subforums, and army lists than any other army, being above Sisters of course.
It's purely the fanboy in you at that point that thinks this'll work. As I said, just be thankful you have a codex in the first place. They could just kill the army for all I care, and the only people that'll be upset would be the Sisters players, and even then some might be thankful for putting the army out of its misery.

Fangirl thank you.

And seriously, I've seen a LOT of people who want to at least get some Sisters allies but don't want $100+ for even that.

And if you don't care about Sisters why are you in a Sisters thread? Just trying to troll for a reason to press the yellow triangle of friendship on others?

I'm gonna be honest, while I agree with Dr. Mathias that at least BlackTalos is trying something, buying items in protest of said items and their price is ridiculous. All GW will see is that people are still buying their models even at the truly absurd price they're selling them at. I bought my Sororitas secondhand, and I've already vowed not to buy a single model for that army retail from GW. I'm sick of them thinking they can just up the price whenever they damn well please and expect us all to go along with it. 90 dollars for a squad of BSS? Please. Counts-as or Craigslist for me, thank you very much.

Let me be clear in that I think your intentions are good, BlackTalos. I would love to see plastic Sororitas. But buying their overpriced metal minis only tells them that people will still buy them, regardless of how badly the army is being treated/priced.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Fangirl thank you.

I thought you were this guy:

If metal is such a financially unviable material, I'd like someone to explain me why some small companies out there are releasing nicely sculpted, well detailed multipart metal kits with 10 models for 25€.

OK, if you want to talk bout the viability of metal, please make another thread rather than derailing this one.