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.

JJ Rackham was the stuff, never was a fantasy player but i played Confrontation (you could say the pre warmachine game) just because the miniatures where so beautiful.

Ordered some from a Japanese retailer just to use for my inquisitor warband.

I don' care about the material (as long as it is not Restic), i imported some helios space ships because i am a BFG nut, and they were pricy, but for me it was worth it. If i like a model i buy it (well the space constraints are the only thing).

I would love to have some addmech stuff but the prices here in Japan are Australian ridiculous.

The point i am trying to make is that everybody has different criteria on what they are willing to pay for display or/and play miniatures. Another person would scratch his/her head as what i paid for some of the imported miniatures (my girlfriend usually )

 jah-joshua wrote:
@Skink:i could not disagree more...
i think that a large part of GW's range make beautiful showcase models...
the "heroic scale", comic book styling, and physical 3D representation of the Warhammer settings are what make GW minis top of the heap for me...
no other setting inspires me the same way, even though i collect nearly a dozen different companies' minis...
the fact that the sculpts get better every year (for the most part) keeps me inspired to continue painting GW minis over all of the rest in my collection...

it would be interesting to hear what you think qualifies as "good enough" to be a showcase model...

cheers
jah

Each to their own of course, I wouldn't disparage anyone for wanting to showcase GW models and certainly I think the work some collectors put in to the models is worthy of display, but the underlying models, not so much.

While I love the 40k and pre-AOS WHFB settings, I've never been happy enough with the models to leave them in my display shelf for any length of time, when I see models every day in my display shelf I start to notice all the flaws and when it comes to GW models those flaws make me think of them as toys more than art. So often the proportions are wonky, I can understand taking artistic license with human proportions, Michaelangelo's David being a classic example, but GW usually cross the line from "artistic" to "that just looks weird" for me. Human-based models often don't look like they were created with an actual human armature as a basis. Anatomy is often just wonky as well (which I mention separately to proportions), limbs coming out at angles that don't look physical, joints don't look like real joints. I feel like models often lack a solid artistic direction, there's often detail for the sake of detail which makes me feel like the model was made by an artist in their very early stages before they developed an eye for "how does this add to the overall model" instead of "you know what would be cool! If this was shaped like an ..... and he had more ..... hanging from his ....." (I'll let you fill in the blanks, but you get the idea ). When it comes to vehicles I can't get over things like the physical impossibility of most of them (things like turrets that are too small for the person hanging out of them, guns that are so large that the breech loading mechanism wouldn't actually fit inside the vehicle. Then you have the fact a lot of the details are chunky and excessive and when they get put in the display cabinet next to more finely made models they have a tendancy to look like toys.

That's not to say I find *all* GW unworthy of display, but they are few and far between rather than a representation of the whole range. The appeal of GW isn't that all individual models are worthy of display, but rather the completeness of the whole range to create an army with a cohesive aesthetic.

As for models I do think are showcase worthy? There's actually not a whole lot in the 28mm wargaming arena that I would bother showcasing. Forge World stuff comes to mind, much more of that is what I'd consider works of a well developed artist doing what they want to do. There is other stuff I like in the 28mm field I like but my memory is failing me, I think it's mostly scratch built stuff from crazy Russians and Poles There's probably a lot more stuff in the 54mm arena that makes me go "phwoah, I wouldn't mind having that on my shelf".

Most of what is actually on display in my home are military models, particularly WW2 tanks and aircraft and also some car models, framed pictures from friends who are professional photographers (mostly cars and nature pics), a few oil paintings that took my fancy, some pics of my nieces and nephews. Next to all that stuff, GW models often end up looking like toys I do put them on display when I do a paintjob that I'm particularly happy with, but they usually get removed after I've seen them enough to start getting annoyed with the sorts of things I mentioned above. Definitely if I ever put a GW vehicle next to one of my military vehicles I'm almost immediately unhappy with it because of that, lol.

But each to their own, a mate of mine has a display cabinet full of Transformers, I wouldn't do that either but he likes them enough to do that and I don't think any less of him for it, lol.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
This one is just, just short of the $1 per point line


$48 for a 50 point transport.
Which again we'd supposedly want in bulk.
Compared to the Chimera, more points for $37

You know, I wouldnt pay $48 for that assembled and painted by studio, its too fething ugly.
Ok, I would to resell it, but I would feel embarassed to keep such a vile kit. The Chimera was the right kind of ugly, this just isnt.
Why couldnt they have made a half track.

 Polonius wrote:
One problem I have with 40k recently *** pulls out soapbox and ascends it *** is that the "armies" that people play don't look like armies! it's a hodge podge of support and elite units, alllies and detachments, with no meat. Call me old fashioned, but a space marine army should have a couple of tactical squads, maybe some scouts, a dreadnought, an assault squad, and a devestator squad. IG armies should have plenty of lads, and a few tanks.

That's why I've soured so much on competitive play. I still like a competitive game, but I just have no interest in building the kind of army it takes to have a good showing at a big event these days.

Yes, there are builds that can compete without silly-looking alliances and umpteen detachments. But generally speaking, if you're not taking advantage of those army construction options, you're not giving yourself the best chance to win.

Ultimately, I'd just rather spend my hobby time working on armies that look like proper armies to me, and on playing friends whom I know won't be throwing an endless array of deathstars and alliance abominations at me. I still think there's plenty of fun -- and well-played, tight, competitive games -- to be had in 40K so long as you find opponents who are similarly willing to dial it back a notch or two.

Just to note, we're not talking about what people choose to spend on display miniatures. If a collector or painter likes a model and they can afford it, they buy it. A gamer has a different set of criteria.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Each to their own of course, I wouldn't disparage anyone for wanting to showcase GW models and certainly I think the work some collectors put in to the models is worthy of display, but the underlying models, not so much.

While I love the 40k and pre-AOS WHFB settings, I've never been happy enough with the models to leave them in my display shelf for any length of time, when I see models every day in my display shelf I start to notice all the flaws and when it comes to GW models those flaws make me think of them as toys more than art. So often the proportions are wonky, I can understand taking artistic license with human proportions, Michaelangelo's David being a classic example, but GW usually cross the line from "artistic" to "that just looks weird" for me. Human-based models often don't look like they were created with an actual human armature as a basis. Anatomy is often just wonky as well (which I mention separately to proportions), limbs coming out at angles that don't look physical, joints don't look like real joints. I feel like models often lack a solid artistic direction, there's often detail for the sake of detail which makes me feel like the model was made by an artist in their very early stages before they developed an eye for "how does this add to the overall model" instead of "you know what would be cool! If this was shaped like an ..... and he had more ..... hanging from his ....." (I'll let you fill in the blanks, but you get the idea ). When it comes to vehicles I can't get over things like the physical impossibility of most of them (things like turrets that are too small for the person hanging out of them, guns that are so large that the breech loading mechanism wouldn't actually fit inside the vehicle. Then you have the fact a lot of the details are chunky and excessive and when they get put in the display cabinet next to more finely made models they have a tendancy to look like toys.

That's not to say I find *all* GW unworthy of display, but they are few and far between rather than a representation of the whole range. The appeal of GW isn't that all individual models are worthy of display, but rather the completeness of the whole range to create an army with a cohesive aesthetic.

That's how I would describe most of GW's miniatures too. Over the years they moved into a style that is more toylike and less sculptural. They still have some kits (without even considering FW) that are great but way too many are influenced by this trend. They seem to just add stuff because they can and it's bonus details they can add to the sprue to increase the value at nearly zero cost because they use a digital sculpting process these days.

 Nevelon wrote:
The $30 mono-pose plastic SM HQs get me. While the cash per points ratio isn't that bad, the value is awful. $50 will get you the sternguard box, which will crank out five captain level blinged marines. The GK kits can produce similar results for librarians.

Drop pods are another bad one. You pay for a terrain piece with a storm bolter. An ugly, irritating to build/paint one at that.

Coincidently, they're my two gripes as well. Almost all of my sw HQ's are converted from sergeants and elite / blingy troops.

I wanted to 4 or 5 drop pods, but yeah...at that price, sooner scratch build them.

Here's an idea. Stop buying GW's overpriced crap! There are cheaper and funner games out there.

Ken52682 wrote:
Here's an idea. Stop buying GW's overpriced crap! There are cheaper and funner games out there.

What an awesome idea, why didn't i think of it before!

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

Ken52682 wrote:
Here's an idea. Stop buying GW's overpriced crap! There are cheaper and funner games out there.

What an awesome idea, why didn't i think of it before!

Sarcasm aside - it is also the best solution, and the one that is most likely to impact on GW.

The Auld Grump