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.

@KK - when you recognize that 40k is about spectacle, not strategy, the giant kits belong within 40k.

They could be in there as options, like they used to be.

 Polonius wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Big models in wargames aren't innovative. Firstly, it's not even a new idea. Secondly, to be innovative generally carries the connotation that it is more advanced or an improvement than what came before it, not simply "different". Most games simply choose not to have giant models for the sake of the game.

Having lots of big plastic kits in a wargame isn't innovative, big plastic kits have been around for decades and if your wargame is experiencing severe scale growth like 40k and AoS is doing then having big plastic kits in a wargame is simply a natural progression of the fact big plastic kits have always existed.

We may just have different views of innovation, but if you look at 40k plastics from roughly 1989 (MKI Rhinos) through ~2005, the models slowly got larger and more detailed, but the difference between, say, the MK I Landraider and MKII landraider wasn't that huge. However, starting in about 2006, markedly larger kits started coming out, at least partially due to the switch to CAD sculpting.

I don't think innovation needs to be revolutionary or gamechanging. But I know if you look at a pick up and play night from 2005, you'd see mostly rhino sized vehicles, with the odd Landraider or Monolith. Now, nearly every army has at least one kit that's way bigger than even a landraider.

You're viewing it within the box of GW rather than the wider world.

Are big models in wargames new? No. Forge World have been doing it forever.

Are big plastic models new? No. I can buy a 1/24 scale Airfix Hurricane that was first released in 1973, it's bigger than anything in GW's current line up. Things that might be more similar are Dreamforge's big thingamibob.

Are big plastic models in wargames innovative? No, they are just the natural progression when you make a game that revolves around big models instead of having them as something rare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Imagine if GW placed their product as high end model kits only.
Not wargame models, just "highly detailed" models of the grim-dark future.
Then compare them to Gundam or any of those kits with metal barrels, photo-etched parts, cast to colour and pose able.

I suspect that you have no clue what modern scale armor kits cost, if you're talking about a high-end kit with lathe-turned barrel and metal etch. Especially if you're accurizing the various external stowage with a resin drivetrain. I think a proper 1/35 scale tank with all of the "good stuff" for an acceptable IPMS competition build will set you back the same $150-$200 when you add it all up.

And it won't be appreciably easier if you want to do an IPMS competition-level battleship or better yet, an aircraft carrier with all the aircraf. Those aren't cheap, once you go the accurizing route with the PE and resin bits. For example, I've kind of wanted to do a Junkers Ju-290, and the base kit alone is about $100.

I'm not as familiar with armour kits, but aircraft you get way more when you buy a big expensive box than you get with GW.

That kit you linked to is no where near $100. Swanny models lists that kit as MSRP of $30.50, and from the looks of it, it's huge, it has a 23 inch wingspan.

I bought a 1/32 Spitfire from Revell for only $50AUD, that's the same Australia where things cost a fortune and it was still only $50. It blows anything GW do out of the water for value and it pretty good quality to boot. It's still pretty big with a 13" wingspan.

On the high end, you have something like Tamiya's 1/32 kits. A Tamiya 1/32 Spitfire costs $140.... but feth me look at the contents compared to your average GW kit, it has...

360 parts in grey plastic; 17 parts in clear; two nickel-plated photo-etched frets; six parts in flexible black vinyl; eight steel pins; seven miniature magnets; various small screws and metal parts; a self-adhesive masking sheet for the canopy parts; two metallic self-adhesive name plates and two decal sheets with markings for three aircraft.

And on top of that it includes...

In addition to the intructions and a separate marking guide, this package includes an A5 szed, 16 page full-colour booklet conatining reference photos.

If you start including lots of resin bits for added detail, you are really comparing apples with oranges, if you're going to do that you might as well start comparing to Forge World instead.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They could be in there as options, like they used to be.

Except, allowing opponent a veto is antithetical to the desired creation of spectacle. GW might as well not bother making big kits. Fortunately it's moot, because that ship has long sailed and fallen off the edge of the world. For how GW conceives the game as a loud, boisterous carnival, unbound is the core selection concept. So knights any titans are

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Are big models in wargames new? No. Forge World have been doing it forever.

Are big plastic models new? No. I can buy a 1/24 scale Airfix Hurricane that was first released in 1973, it's bigger than anything in GW's current line up. Things that might be more similar are Dreamforge's big thingamibob.

Are big plastic models in wargames innovative? No, they are just the natural progression when you make a game that revolves around big models instead of having them as something rare.

All of these are true.

Yet, it's indisputable that a large percentage of people who remain 40k fans really enjoy those big plastic GW kits, and prefer them over either scale models or Forge World resin models, not by a little, but by a lot. We can argue about whether Epic 28mm is good or terrible for 40k, whether it's a ridiculous game, or whether it throws up huge barriers to entry, but the fact is, GW makes big expensive kits because a lot of the spending with GW is with big, expensive kits, and a big percentage of models that are fielded are those, too -- even though MSU in today's meta is very effective.

So, the flip side of it all is simply that GW isn't so much "innovating" as they are improving their technology and iterating their designs to give their most profitable segment *exactly* what they want, and just charging them a premium for it. If that well dries up, GW will do something else, but while Imperial Knights and Sicaran Tanks and Warlord Titans stay on their top seller lists (likely by revenue rather than volume), they're going to keep making centerpiece models and keep pushing the envelope of, "if I make it more grand, will they pay more?". I mean, I think it's really telling that FW's best selling product is a $2,000+ model, and their second best selling product is a $500 model, with only 2 of the top 10 being "regular units" (invictarus and rapier quad, which people buy as TFC proxies). I'll bet dollars to donuts that when the list of best selling 28 GW models fills out, the top will be flush with big kits, probably topped by IK.

I'm not really all that sure what innovation in plastic models is anyhow, because the whole field is relatively mature. Until there's some breakthrough technology, where the money's at in terms of being able to say "my product is technically better" is making more complex pieces that fit more exactly than previous iterations. And aesthetically, being able to build things that weren't previously possible (or practical) due to material constraints.

Just my 2 cents

Sure... though that's not really what I was responding to.

Obviously big kits are getting GW money in their pockets otherwise they wouldn't be bothering with them. They just aren't innovative unless you live in a bubble where you only pay attention to GW stuff.

It's as if people were saying technology in a new Chevy is innovative when BMW had been using the same technology for years... of course there's still people who prefer Chevy over BMW and that's fine, but you can't call something innovative when you are simply ignoring the rest of the market

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Now, a typical game of 40k expects multiple Knight-class models, each of which unambiguously towers over any of the older models. Things like the Stompa and Baneblade are simply HUGE, and armies feature few dozen to several dozen models. The game is dramatically larger, and GW has gotten players hooked into buying (and fielding) their bigger kits.

From a personal view this is one of the key reasons why I no longer play 40k, huge chunks of plastic have no interest for me. I gladly play with Baneblades, Titans and entire infantry companies in Epic because that sort of thing belongs there. In 28mm I find the sight of some giant warmachine taking up a huge area of the table completely incongruous.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


Except, allowing opponent a veto is antithetical to the desired creation of spectacle.

Im going to quote that for AOS discussions

 Talys wrote:

I'm not really all that sure what innovation in plastic models is anyhow, because the whole field is relatively mature. Until there's some breakthrough technology, where the money's at in terms of being able to say "my product is technically better" is making more complex pieces that fit more exactly than previous iterations. And aesthetically, being able to build things that weren't previously possible (or practical) due to material constraints.

Just my 2 cents

The whole discussion started when someone claimed GW was being innovative with their new kits; several people pointed out that it simply wasn't the case which resulted in the argument being refined to just include wargame miniatures which was also refuted with examples. I agree, outside of what we already see from Japanese manufacturers, there isn't a whole lot of innovation in plastic models these days, not since CAD sculpting and current manufacturing techniques which GW relatively recently switched to yet had been used throughout the industry by other companies for quite some time.

Aesthetics are subject but technical quality of product is out there in model manufacturing and GW has always been the little minnow in that arena comparatively. If someone likes GW kits, great but to state with all seriousness that they are technically exceptional is a bit silly.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They could be in there as options, like they used to be.

Except, allowing opponent a veto is antithetical to the desired creation of spectacle. GW might as well not bother making big kits. Fortunately it's moot, because that ship has long sailed and fallen off the edge of the world. For how GW conceives the game as a loud, boisterous carnival, unbound is the core selection concept. So knights any titans are

That is one of their mistakes.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They could be in there as options, like they used to be.

Except, allowing opponent a veto is antithetical to the desired creation of spectacle. GW might as well not bother making big kits. Fortunately it's moot, because that ship has long sailed and fallen off the edge of the world. For how GW conceives the game as a loud, boisterous carnival, unbound is the core selection concept. So knights any titans are

That is one of their mistakes.

One of many

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Imagine if GW placed their product as high end model kits only.
Not wargame models, just "highly detailed" models of the grim-dark future.
Then compare them to Gundam or any of those kits with metal barrels, photo-etched parts, cast to colour and pose able.

I suspect that you have no clue what modern scale armor kits cost, if you're talking about a high-end kit with lathe-turned barrel and metal etch. Especially if you're accurizing the various external stowage with a resin drivetrain. I think a proper 1/35 scale tank with all of the "good stuff" for an acceptable IPMS competition build will set you back the same $150-$200 when you add it all up.
And it won't be appreciably easier if you want to do an IPMS competition-level battleship or better yet, an aircraft carrier with all the aircraf. Those aren't cheap, once you go the accurizing route with the PE and resin bits. For example, I've kind of wanted to do a Junkers Ju-290, and the base kit alone is about $100.

No clue?!? Hardly. Have been into models before 40k came along. Really want to see the logic in that one...
I like how you think with all the add-ons at least in doing a model "right" but I said GW cannot compete with that: the quality is not as good and they do not "accurize" to that level.
I don't know why you would even start comparing "high end" when a standard kit weighs-in at less than $20 and looks better than a GW kit: that is what I am getting at.

Look at this model for instance:
http://www.amazon.com/Tamiya-25146-Russian-Tank-Parts/dp/B0069IQNIA
Photo etched parts and metal barrel, Tamiya is known for good kits and it is "list" price of around $130 but just over $100 and is 1/35 scale.

40k is around the 1/56 to 1/48 scale so they already supply a smaller size model.
So what do I compare to? The Leman Russ with all of 2 sprues for about $60?
Or the Leman Russ tech command at around $90? Would that be more comparable?
The Bane Blade is about $170, so would that be a bit more competitive?

So would you like to compare that very nice BTW Junkers JU-290 (Thought the price tag said $16 but it could be $76 in the picture) with say a $80 Valkyrie?

I still maintain that GW without having a game with their models would be a lackluster modeling company.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@KK - when you recognize that 40k is about spectacle, not strategy, the giant kits belong within 40k.

Or have deluded yourself into beliving that to be the case - which I believe that GW has done, and managed to convince some of their most ardent followers.

At its core, 40K is a game.

To be more precise, it is a wargame.

And wargames, at their core, are about strategy and tactics.

And GW has lost sight of that salient fact - so, thus, we end up with Age of Sigmar, with no pretense of strategy, tactics, or balance.

The Auld Grump

Great read. Seems spot on.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@KK - when you recognize that 40k is about spectacle, not strategy, the giant kits belong within 40k.

Or have deluded yourself into beliving that to be the case - which I believe that GW has done, and managed to convince some of their most ardent followers.

At its core, 40K is a game.

To be more precise, it is a wargame.

And wargames, at their core, are about strategy and tactics.

And GW has lost sight of that salient fact - so, thus, we end up with Age of Sigmar, with no pretense of strategy, tactics, or balance.

The Auld Grump

Ah yes, the most recent debacle of GW's games: Age of Wallet. Where he who has the most wins.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@KK - when you recognize that 40k is about spectacle, not strategy, the giant kits belong within 40k.

Or have deluded yourself into beliving that to be the case - which I believe that GW has done, and managed to convince some of their most ardent followers.

At its core, 40K is a game.

To be more precise, it is a wargame.

And wargames, at their core, are about strategy and tactics.

And GW has lost sight of that salient fact - so, thus, we end up with Age of Sigmar, with no pretense of strategy, tactics, or balance.

The Auld Grump

Wait, you just posted that pile of utter nonsense, and I'm the delusional one?

40k and WFB may have the trappings of a wargame, but they are actually meta, with the grimdark gothic of the background now permeating the arcana of rules construction in addition to the models. 40k and WFB are poor excuses of a wargame, have been since 40k6 & WFB8 released. And it's even stupider that you're suggesting that AoS is less of a game than WFB8.

It's laughable that you don't get that 40k and WFB have always been about the models, not the rules. Just because you can game with them doesn't make them a wargame at heart. But them I suppose you call a dog standing on its hind legs a bipedal walker...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Imagine if GW placed their product as high end model kits only.
Not wargame models, just "highly detailed" models of the grim-dark future.
Then compare them to Gundam or any of those kits with metal barrels, photo-etched parts, cast to colour and pose able.

I suspect that you have no clue what modern scale armor kits cost, if you're talking about a high-end kit with lathe-turned barrel and metal etch. Especially if you're accurizing the various external stowage with a resin drivetrain. I think a proper 1/35 scale tank with all of the "good stuff" for an acceptable IPMS competition build will set you back the same $150-$200 when you add it all up.
And it won't be appreciably easier if you want to do an IPMS competition-level battleship or better yet, an aircraft carrier with all the aircraf. Those aren't cheap, once you go the accurizing route with the PE and resin bits. For example, I've kind of wanted to do a Junkers Ju-290, and the base kit alone is about $100.

No clue?!? Hardly. Have been into models before 40k came along. Really want to see the logic in that one...
I like how you think with all the add-ons at least in doing a model "right" but I said GW cannot compete with that: the quality is not as good and they do not "accurize" to that level.

Look at this model for instance:
http://www.amazon.com/Tamiya-25146-Russian-Tank-Parts/dp/B0069IQNIA
Photo etched parts and metal barrel, Tamiya is known for good kits and it is "list" price of around $130 but just over $100 and is 1/35 scale.

I still maintain that GW without having a game with their models would be a lackluster modeling company.

If you say something completely ridiculous, I have to assume you're completely ignorant, consistent with what you posted.

You're the one who asked that we compare with "any of those kits with metal barrels, photo-etched parts," and I responded as such. If you're comparing with a comparably-sized kit, those kits are expensive, and they will require expensive bits to make right. As expected, the base Tamiya kit lists for $131 - comparable stuff is not cheap. Also, that particular kit saves the modeler a fair chunk of cash by including a turned barrel and PE that you used to have to buy separately at much higher cost than bundled! I don't think you get to discount, or you have to discount the GW kits, too, apples to apples. Comparing a 1/35 scale Baneblade-sized tank with a 1/60 scale Leman Russ that had its molds cut 20+ years ago seems apples-to-oranges. It'd be like comparing GW's Stormsurge with an Airfix kit (whose molds date back to the 1970s - or earlier!).

GW makes some pretty decent kits. Even OOTB, the Wraithknight looks pretty good, even if there are some rather questionable artistic concept and kit engineering design decisions. Same with the Stormsurge. I'm not sure GW is in a position to move volume like global models powerhouses Tamiya, Bandai or Dragon. I mean, I think GW's Citadel models effort is more comparable to, say, Plastic Soldier Company or Warlord than Dragon or Bandai or Tamiya. Apples-to-apples, I think GW actually holds up pretty well.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@KK - when you recognize that 40k is about spectacle, not strategy, the giant kits belong within 40k.

Or have deluded yourself into beliving that to be the case - which I believe that GW has done, and managed to convince some of their most ardent followers.

At its core, 40K is a game.

To be more precise, it is a wargame.

And wargames, at their core, are about strategy and tactics.

And GW has lost sight of that salient fact - so, thus, we end up with Age of Sigmar, with no pretense of strategy, tactics, or balance.

The Auld Grump

Seems like willful ignorance. At this point, I don't see how any who plays the game could say AoS has no pretense of strategy and tactics. We're past theorizing about it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@KK - when you recognize that 40k is about spectacle, not strategy, the giant kits belong within 40k.

Or have deluded yourself into beliving that to be the case - which I believe that GW has done, and managed to convince some of their most ardent followers.

At its core, 40K is a game.

To be more precise, it is a wargame.

And wargames, at their core, are about strategy and tactics.

And GW has lost sight of that salient fact - so, thus, we end up with Age of Sigmar, with no pretense of strategy, tactics, or balance.

The Auld Grump

Wait, you just posted that pile of utter nonsense, and I'm the delusional one?

40k and WFB may have the trappings of a wargame, but they are actually meta, with the grimdark gothic of the background now permeating the arcana of rules construction in addition to the models. 40k and WFB are poor excuses of a wargame, have been since 40k6 & WFB8 released. And it's even stupider that you're suggesting that AoS is less of a game than WFB8.

It's laughable that you don't get that 40k and WFB have alwaysbeen about the models, not the rules. Just because you can game with them doesn't make them a wargame at heart. But them I suppose you call a dog standing on its hind legs a bipedal walker...

Be careful using absolute terms. RT for one edition was about "forging the narrative" more than anything else and the game was more an RPG than a miniature game; heck, they used to have tutorials on how to make tanks out of deodorant containers. No, the "all about the models" aspect of GW didn't come about until the takeover, Priestly's pretty spot-on about that. The model business and the game business were actually separate entities at one point weren't they?

What? We're perma-banning hyperbole on Dakka? Say it isn't so!

I only go back to 2E, and at the time, GW had minis that were head and shoulders better than anybody else in the gaming industry. They also had the largest selection of "big" models (classic Dreads, 'fex, and tanks).

For the past decade (or more), GW has been a model-driven company.

Wait...40k isnt a wargame?
Its a crappy one but its still a wargame.
And for the past decade their revenue has declined.
They think they are a model company and that's part of the problem. Its why so many people are leaving in favor of games that had effort put into them.

Games Workshop used to be a games company. There's a clue in the name.

They are a Workshop.

Harping over "Games" is nonsense. Do you expect that the staff at FFG can fly like birds? Or that PP are literally pirates? Get over it.

Yet, weirdly, you have wang in your name!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
You're the one who asked that we compare with "any of those kits with metal barrels, photo-etched parts," and I responded as such. If you're comparing with a comparably-sized kit, those kits are expensive, and they will require expensive bits to make right. As expected, the base Tamiya kit lists for $131 - comparable stuff is not cheap. Also, that particular kit saves the modeler a fair chunk of cash by including a turned barrel and PE that you used to have to buy separately at much higher cost than bundled! I don't think you get to discount, or you have to discount the GW kits, too, apples to apples.

What I was pointing to is that the new standard of military model kit is much more than it was, it sounds like the included parts were a bit of a surprise to you but I could be wrong. To try to avoid the "apples to oranges" argument where I can point to some of the newer similarly priced tanks by GW, their pricing scheme would need a major adjustment to match a similarly sized and detailed model like those other brands you had pointed out.

Comparing a 1/35 scale Baneblade-sized tank with a 1/60 scale Leman Russ that had its molds cut 20+ years ago seems apples-to-oranges. It'd be like comparing GW's Stormsurge with an Airfix kit (whose molds date back to the 1970s - or earlier!).

I think I would look a little harder at the Leman Russ model, they had redone the dies for that guy only a few short years ago so don't get too excited. (You only had one choice of load-out for the "20 years ago" model, there are now two kits with about 3 different main gun options each)

GW makes some pretty decent kits. Even OOTB, the Wraithknight looks pretty good, even if there are some rather questionable artistic concept and kit engineering design decisions. Same with the Stormsurge. I'm not sure GW is in a position to move volume like global models powerhouses Tamiya, Bandai or Dragon. I mean, I think GW's Citadel models effort is more comparable to, say, Plastic Soldier Company or Warlord than Dragon or Bandai or Tamiya. Apples-to-apples, I think GW actually holds up pretty well.

I am still unsure if you are basing the argument solely on technical/esthetic outcome or including price.

As best I can tell, present tank kits by GW that sell at around the $60 mark are competing with similar sized tanks for around $40 of a similar technical standard.
For fun, here is a ~$45-55 tank kit that includes etched brass:
http://www.hobbylinc.com/trumpeter-german-jagdpanzer-e100-super-heavy-tank-plastic-model-military-vehicle-kit-1:35-scale-1596

Plus I think the "apples to apples" you are trying to achieve is not there: most comparably priced models not intended for wargaming are far better than GW's.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
They are a Workshop.

Harping over "Games" is nonsense. Do you expect that the staff at FFG can fly like birds? Or that PP are literally pirates? Get over it.

No, they are a Games Workshop. They ought to make some games.

Why do you think their revenue has been in serious decline?

Why do you think the new CEO has announced the return of SGs and produced three new titles in the past year?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
What? We're perma-banning hyperbole on Dakka? Say it isn't so!

I only go back to 2E, and at the time, GW had minis that were head and shoulders better than anybody else in the gaming industry. They also had the largest selection of "big" models (classic Dreads, 'fex, and tanks).

For the past decade (or more), GW has been a model-driven company.

You are so funny. Seriously, I'm laughing, I get you now; carry on.

I'll also pretend that companies like airfix didn't exist, making tanks, trains, etc back in the 80's like they were already doing in the 60's.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
They are a Workshop.

Harping over "Games" is nonsense. Do you expect that the staff at FFG can fly like birds? Or that PP are literally pirates? Get over it.

No, they are a Games Workshop. They ought to make some games.

Why do you think their revenue has been in serious decline?

Why do you think the new CEO has announced the return of SGs and produced three new titles in the past year?

No, he is just unfamiliar with the phrase 'a flight of fancy' and has decided to be literal in that instance.

Because the 'Games' in Games Workshop is obviously just hyperbole.

Whereas some people look at the name and go - 'a workshop is a place where people make stuff, I wonder what a company named Games Workshop could possibly be in the business of making?

'Obviously the proper answer is 'objects of jewel like wonder'....'

The Auld Grump - they make toy soldiers, and they make them for use in the games that they also manufacture. All else is sophistry.

DD, you're trying way too hard to defend GW and you're saying a lot of nonesense. Unless you're a comedic genius and in that case I applaud you.

 MWHistorian wrote:
DD, you're trying way too hard to defend GW and you're saying a lot of nonesense. Unless you're a comedic genius and in that case I applaud you.

Devil's advocate has it's place... but if you have to explain the joke...

To try to get back on topic however, Rick Priestley's comments are appreciated but yes, he has some product to sell so he is not completely a neutral party.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's as if people were saying technology in a new Chevy is innovative when BMW had been using the same technology for years... of course there's still people who prefer Chevy over BMW and that's fine, but you can't call something innovative when you are simply ignoring the rest of the market

Well, what I really meant is that I don't really see any "innovation" from anyone. I do see better materials and better use of really small, increasingly detailed bits that all fit together better -- not just by GW, by lots of folks. But that's not innovation; that's iteration and technology improvement, much in the same way that the iPhone 4, 5, and 6 and all the S models in between are not really innovative to me, though they're good iterations that make the technology superior.

Innovation is like the Hololens, that really redefines what's possible. In the context of models? If they could come not requiring any prep (mould lines, for example) or if they could come pre-primed or if they came in a material other than plastic resin or the common white metal *for a good reason* -- that would be innovative. If someone made a finishing spray that was antistatic and repulsed dust! If my flyers could hover on my game board, I would pay $1,000 for each of them If my Tidewall Rampart actually floated across the board. If someone collaborated with Microsoft with their Surface table, and made an intelligent gaming table that identified all of the game pieces, so that when you pick up a model or touch it, it shows movement and firing ranges -- on an animated board that could display terrain (and damage like craters), plus all of the model rules!

Really, things that don't make little changes, but are such big changes that would make me say, "OMG. How did they do THAT?"

Yeah yeah, I have high expectations


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
As best I can tell, present tank kits by GW that sell at around the $60 mark are competing with similar sized tanks for around $40 of a similar technical standard.
For fun, here is a ~$45-55 tank kit that includes etched brass:
http://www.hobbylinc.com/trumpeter-german-jagdpanzer-e100-super-heavy-tank-plastic-model-military-vehicle-kit-1:35-scale-1596

Plus I think the "apples to apples" you are trying to achieve is not there: most comparably priced models not intended for wargaming are far better than GW's.

This always comes back to the apples to apples comparison of scifi is not equivalent to real-life scale models, because at least some of the people who are interested in scifi vehicles have zero interest in scale models. Therefore, even if the scale models are superior in every single technical aspect, it is worth nothing to the person who just doesn't have any interest in it.

To make fair comparisons, at a minimum you need to compare scifi tanks with scifi tanks, and scifi robots with scifi robots, because at least the size of the potential market will be similar. As other people have done before, these comparisons do exist, though there are a lot less scifi kits than scale kits for vehicles, and the prices aren't as great because it's a smaller market. Even so, it's not really helpful if there's a great price for something "comparable" that the buyer just doesn't want. If the choice is between an expensive model I can't afford and cheap model that I don't like -- my solution is to do something other than modeling, not to get something I'm not happy with. At the end of the day, what's right for the customer is the size, type and aesthetic of model that appeals to them at a price that they feel good about spending. On the other hand, what's right for GW is the size, type and aesthetic of model that maximizes its profit in the short and long term. Where you find an intersection of those two, GW is a good fit, or Revell is a good fit... or perhaps nothing is a fit at all.