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.

 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.

I see you Trolling, execution 6/10

Next you are going to say that Horus Heresy Betrayal at Calth is not a board game, Necromunda is not a skirimish game and Battle fleet gothic is
not a space battle strategy game.

I agree though that Age of Yahtzee is not a wargame, but a miniature collecting game with some rules slapped on.

I think people get way too hung up on the name.

Why does Banana Republic not sell clothes (or bananas or other goods) manufactured from any of the Latin American countries that comprise the banana republics (like Guatemala and Honduras)

Why didn't Tactical Studies Rules (TSR) produce rules for tactical studies for most of the years of its existence?

Why is it that International Business Machines (IBM) derive only a small percentage of its revenue from business machines now?

Why doesn't Grand and Toy sell toys?

What is a Houston Islander? Or a Portland Hurricane? Besides having nothing to do with sports, Houston is landlocked and in the Pacific Ocean, you have tsunamis, not hurricanes.

You get the drift. It's just a name. And they do produce games; just maybe not games that everyone enjoys But hey, dwarf tossing and bog snorkeling are also considered sports, so to each their own.

If GW wants to shift its business from selling models primarily for a game to selling models primarily for collections that occasionally are played in games, that's no different from TSR shifting from miniature rules (Chainmail) to Dungeons & Dragons and then to RPGs and board games more generally, and discontinuing rules about strategy games strategic game. Or IBM shifting from typewriters to business and consumer hardware to enterprise software.

Becausr they used to sell games we loved and now sell poorly written games designed to sell models instead of having fun.

It's really unfortunate that GW took away all of your old models and rulebooks and now you can only play the new games exactly as written...

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

You mean like when someone posts a link to a kit saying that it's $100 to make a point when you can clearly see on that link that it actually only cost them $17 and a little bit of research shows that the MSRP is only $30? That sort of ridiculousness?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
For example, I've kind of wanted to do a Junkers Ju-290, and the base kit alone is about $100 $20.

I'm driving this point home because you used it as an example to prove your point when it actually proves the opposite

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.

Wait what are you comparing it to? Because if you're comparing to GW stuff there is no comparison, Tamiya's expensive kits blow GW's expensive kits out of the water.

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!

It just shows what other companies are doing for a similar price to GW's big kits. If you want a more apples to apples comparison based on what comes in the box, then GW is blown out of the water by the fact similar kits are way cheaper.

If you want to look at an apples to apples comparison based on price, the only things that compare to GW's kits based on price are things like Tamiya's high end kits which include photo etch parts, movable bits, magnetised panels, metal barrels, metal screws and fixings and high quality detailed reference booklets. If Tamiya made a $150 Imperial Knight I can pretty much guarantee it wouldn't have the boring monopose legs that the GW one has

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.

When looking at big kits the comparison is hard to make against PSC or Warlord because PSC and Warlord tend not to make the huge kits because they are scale inappropriate (or don't exist in history). Historically people prefer to play games with smaller cheaper models and save the big expensive ones for their display shelf, so that most of the comparisons for big kits comes from companies that specialise in display kits.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Historically people prefer to play games with smaller cheaper models and save the big expensive ones for their display shelf, so that most of the comparisons for big kits comes from companies that specialise in display kits.

This is actually the crux of it.

In today's GW market (ie: what they're making money off of), the big kits that one used to imagine were for display have turned commonplace on the tabletop. Even a lot of the traditional 25mm base models have been increased to 32mm -- why? Because they look better, or at least, most of GW's happy customers think so. So if you go down that road, which is divisive, the kits and the type of game that it encourages will just become more and more appealing to one group, and less and less appealing to the other.

In contrast, historically -- and factually -- bigger is NOT always stronger. If the GW universe took over modern warfare, boomers would be able to crush attack subs and be invulnerable to torpedoes (you'd have to ram it to have a chance of killing it), and gigantic dirigibles would have a weapons platform that could annihilate Air Force One, which would have a railgun that could simultaneously take out a squadron of F16s. And of course, the Germans wouldn't have stopped at the 140 tonne panzer, because the 300 tonne panzer would have been better!

Although, of course, as I said before, MSU is pretty darned good in today's meta. Though if the Imperium had any sense, they'd stop building dreadnoughts and build more Warlord Titans

Scale creep is the secret to GW's ability to make their figures more detailed than other people's.

 Talys wrote:
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.

Beyond the fact that I see no good reason on your bashing on white metal, I know GW was abysmal in their casting quality, but other companies are casting white metal quite well.

In any case all the above you mentioned have been done in the past decade at least by Bandai and since GW has the same technology they could be doing the same, there is virtually no reason why a space marine sprew for example could not be coloured red with weapons black in the same sprew, "no mouldlines" technology exists though its more a design issue, other materials, I am not sure you can resin gives the best detail but is time consuming, metal is the best of both worlds, plastic is cheap mass produced but has the worse detail capture and its impossible to have organic forms and undercuts without a decent increase to parts count, which increases cost.

The only innovation I can see at the moment, or shift on how things happen, is, for me, going to be when 3D printers come to age and give details, print speed and cost that can be at homes, then as it happened with the PDF market, companies will be able to sell printing rights to users or model shops and people will be able to print their own fully assembled, maybe coloured (one colour?) models, as with current era printed books, the traditionally manufactured models will remain a cheaper solution and higher quality solution for most users.

But that will be "innovative" for the industry, if it happens.

@OP. Thankyou. Exalted!

I must add one thing when comparing kits detail, GW models as is everybody models for gaming are manufactured more robust than the models made for display, because of their intended nature, one of the reasons why the period CB made their models really proportionate and in scale is the reality of gaming, De Fresen is a fantastic model for example yet the sword in particular is problematic for transport and gaming, a fantastic model to display though.

Likewise GW as everybody must make their models with their practical use in mind.

GW failing in my opinion is they remained in their "heroic" proportions and their idea of detail is throw things up and clutter every surface.

The space marines moved from a sleek sci fi design that has no place in a post apocalyptic world (this is really what was the strength of 40k, merging a world and an aesthetic that are not combineable) to a moving shrine.

Clutter does not equal detail.

Stuff cluttering every surface is detail, though.

The aesthetic may not be to everyone's taste, of cousse. For example the 'skulls' theme of Chaos arguably has gone beyond a parody of itself, but perhaps this is the last evidence of GW's sense of humour?

Years ago a new throne of skulls model came out and someone commented that for it to be really awesome it should have been a hat. There is fun in that if you take a comedic view of GW's game universes.

The truth in what you say is that GW design models for people who want to buy the kind of models that GW want to sell to them. Big, expensive, and covered with skulls. Or in the case of the Chaos Vanguards, small, expensive and covered with skulls.

To be honest, if this works for GW, they will not change it. I happen to think it isn't working. The evidence is the sales figures.

At the same time, I don't think GW need to stop producing hats of skulls. People are buying them. GW just need to produce some alternatives for the other people who don't want hats of skulls. For example, the original idea of Tau, shiney and optimistic. That is why it's a pity that GW have grimdarked them.

Or other new games with a different approach to rules and models.

@Talys: Check your science and geography there homie.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Scale creep is the secret to GW's ability to make their figures more detailed than other people's.

So what's their excuse for not making models as detailed as their competitors?

They are detailed.

Yes and no, they have huge amounts of sculpted surface, but they fall in key areas which is really a problem of plastic as a medium not their, if the plastic could do undercuts and organic form in their parts count then they would do it, they could do things to minimize such problems but they do not.

Poses is not detail, its aesthetic, most GW models have blunt poses, but this is their flaw of been multiposed and inter-compatible, if they did their models monoposed they would could be more dynamic.

I would say GW in their clutter are a Rococo when Baroque would be enough and frankly many of us seek to see them something Gothic, simple strong elegant.

What constitutes detail is indeed an interesting topic, I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Talys wrote:
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.

Beyond the fact that I see no good reason on your bashing on white metal, I know GW was abysmal in their casting quality, but other companies are casting white metal quite well.

In any case all the above you mentioned have been done in the past decade at least by Bandai and since GW has the same technology they could be doing the same, there is virtually no reason why a space marine sprew for example could not be coloured red with weapons black in the same sprew, "no mouldlines" technology exists though its more a design issue, other materials, I am not sure you can resin gives the best detail but is time consuming, metal is the best of both worlds, plastic is cheap mass produced but has the worse detail capture and its impossible to have organic forms and undercuts without a decent increase to parts count, which increases cost.

The only innovation I can see at the moment, or shift on how things happen, is, for me, going to be when 3D printers come to age and give details, print speed and cost that can be at homes, then as it happened with the PDF market, companies will be able to sell printing rights to users or model shops and people will be able to print their own fully assembled, maybe coloured (one colour?) models, as with current era printed books, the traditionally manufactured models will remain a cheaper solution and higher quality solution for most users.

Incidentally, mold lines are avoidable. It would just be a lot more expensive. You'll notice that the mold lines on 2015 sprues are much leas noticeable than the mold lines of 2005 sprues, and that's because of more accurate tooling with multimillion dollar improvements to equipment. But if those two part molds met more precisely than the size of paint pigments, we'd never see them (without a microscope) and paint wouldn't catch on them. There's technology to tool far more precise instruments than what we see on models, but it hasn't tricked down to being cheap enough, yet.

We have a pretty good 3D printer at work for prototyping. It's very cool, but it will be forever and an age, I think, before they will be able to produce parts comparable to cheap model kits.

But that will be "innovative" for the industry, if it happens.

I wasn't bashing white metal any more than I was plastic or resin, though white metal is suboptimal for anything larger than an ogre sized model. Try building a 12" or 18" tall model on a 120mm base out of white metal, or a jet or a tank... make a warlord titan out of white metal, and you wouldn't be able to lift it. But anyhow, I was referring to use of new materials, like for example magnesium or carbon-fiber composite, that would allow for higher resolution than resin, lower thinness than white metal, and more precise fit than HIPS.

It isn't that technology won't allow better models, or that even people are unwilling to pay the price for them (look at warlord titans being FW's top seller). I bemoan that nobody appears to even be *trying* different things; it's all just iteration of techniques that are very old. Not that I don't appreciate it -- I love what's coming out these days. I thin the quality of the models from several companies is brilliant. It's better. It's just not innovative -- in my opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doktor_g wrote:
@Talys: Check your science and geography there homie.

Don't know what that means

I was just blue skying stuff that would be cool. We do it all the time in tech, and once in a while, one of those ideas is feasible, commercially viable, and popular. You imagine things that could be (but aren't quote there yet) and let your imagination run a little bit. Innovation usually comes by accidental discovery or purposeful invention, either of which can be driven by imagination.

If you were talking about my reference to Surface, I meant the original Microsoft table product installed in yachts and hotels, not the tablet. It has the capability of recognizing items placed on it (there are cameras underneath). We almost blew $25,000 on one years ago to try to build it into the ultimate wargaming table. We ended up not doing it because the tables were just too small for any form of 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Yes and no, they have huge amounts of sculpted surface, but they fall in key areas which is really a problem of plastic as a medium not their, if the plastic could do undercuts and organic form in their parts count then they would do it, they could do things to minimize such problems but they do not.

The problem is in 2-part molds, not in the material. It doesn't matter if you fill the mold with polystyrene or gold, when you separate the mold, you have to be able to remove the model. The easiest solution, of course, is to have more parts. I'm not sure what organic forms you think are poorly represented by GW models. There are plenty of great fleshy, muscled models, faces, hands, etc.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

Poses is not detail, its aesthetic, most GW models have blunt poses, but this is their flaw of been multiposed and inter-compatible, if they did their models monoposed they would could be more dynamic.

I would say GW in their clutter are a Rococo when Baroque would be enough and frankly many of us seek to see them something Gothic, simple strong elegant.

What constitutes detail is indeed an interesting topic, I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

Again, GW is just making what their customers (the ones that like them and buy their stuff) will pay for - a mix of monopose characters, and inteinterchangeable, modular multipart kits. Part of it is that the way GW looks at it, players will buy kits and build dozens of really similar models, so the interchangeability is important. It's cool to have one awesomely posed soldier, but having 50 of the same awesomely posed soldier suddenly looks not so awesome. Most GW stuff looks really impressive, even when badly painted if you have enough of it and stand far enough away

To your point about detail, I define it as the technical ability and execution of sculpting higher resolutions per square centimeter. Crispness is also key: for example, of you compare a 2005 sprue to a 2015 sprue from GW, the new sprues are fare crisper in their details. You don't have to like the art for something to be detailed. If someone sculpted a sword that had the English alphabet printed forwards and back 20 times on an inch-wide sword, it might be a ridiculous model that nobody would buy, but it would posses immense detail.

 Talys wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doktor_g wrote:
@Talys: Check your science and geography there homie.

Don't know what that means

I think he meant that tsunamis are a different phenomenon from hurricanes. There are hurricanes in the Pacific (Philippines have just had one) and tsunamis in the Atlantic too (we have evidence of one from the 1600s around the Bristol/Severn estuary area).

Don't sweat it, it's not a biggy

True, metal is bad for huge models, thought for me huge models have little place in my opinion in the "28mm" scale battlefield.

They do in the 15mm and 6mm were metal can accommodate them quite nicely, that said metal is no panacea, but it is also not the daemon GW has made it in the minds of people.

The issue with the wargaming industry is how small it is, technology is coming in after it has been improved from other industries, I am not sure any company including GW has the capital to invest in opening new ways in material application.

As for innovation in Wargames... hmm, I think tabletop miniatures game are a deliberately anachronistic form, and it's one of the things I love about them. The game rules certainly don't have the range that you see in board or general wargames and again, I don't see it as an issue.

The changes we have seen are evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

On the production side, cheap printing has seen an increase in the physical quality of publications. PDF download sites, blogs and vlogs have made it easier for rules designers to share their work.

A lot more people understand algorithm design than 30 or 40 years ago. Whether rulesets are better for it I'll leave up to you... The only thing I'll say is that whatever you like - light, detailed, comprehensive core rules vs exception-driven mechanics, genre emulation vs simulation - there's a ruleset for you. There are some very smart packages out there - nothing revolutionary about X-Wing, but it's taken a bunch of good ideas and run with them to make a very clever game AND business model. Being Star Wars is only part of the package...

Injection plastic tooling is more affordable - it's a shame that Wargames Factory's dream of sub-$10,000 production never really there. GW is still ahead of the pack - I'm less fussed by ever-increasing detail (my Skitarii have suffered... snappage... just from light handling), but the Mirkwood Rangers and Dark Vengeance Chaos guys use the technology to make complicated models simple to build.

Different plastic materials have made plastic models more widely available. Bones material makes big models more robust at a reasonable detail and good price; Trollcast is just lovely. Some of those Alien Assimilation figures would have been a massive blob of glue in metal, or a pile of snapped bits in resin.

CAD and 3D printing (at least for prototyping) are making an impact - for good or for bad depends on who's doing it. Dreamforge plastics are astonishing, and I would personally say they match GW, even exceeding it in terms of the flexibility and utility of their kits. Most Kickstarters are... not so great.

I've seen people at cons running demo games with every model on the table home-designed and printed out by the players - you could see the scan lines, of course, but it's still a very exciting development.

Even pre-painted models have their place - I seem to own enough of them...

Since we're still a long way short of armies of tiny robots running across a battlefield to fight, or tabletops that can reconfigure and recolour themselves... where do you folks see the next innovation? What would you like to see?

'Games Workshop' used to be a real games workshop, look at their product range in the 80s and the atmosphere of the studio as described by those that were there. The name was apt, but that's a long time ago now and they are very much a collectible miniatures company, the games are not well thought out with inconsistent rules and supplements being bolted on all over the place. It's no wonder they are rebranding shops as 'Warhammer', even they recognise the name over the door is increasingly a misleading anachronism.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It's really unfortunate that GW took away all of your old models and rulebooks and now you can only play the new games exactly as written...

GW took away all our opponents using the old rulebooks and now we can only play with our old rulebooks alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
True, metal is bad for huge models, thought for me huge models have little place in my opinion in the "28mm" scale battlefield.

PP has had good success in hybrid kits, part white metal for the fiddly bits and resin for the bulk of the torso. They had some teething problems with the first runs, where quality was not up to par, and the solid resin bodies were too heavy, but they've since gone to hollow bodies for the huge based models and this is no longer an issue.

 Talys wrote:


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.

I'd disagree on that score. Innovation has occurred across the gaming industry in lots of different ways. Some are visible only to manufacturers, and some have flopped so hard we prefer not to remember them. Just to consider:-

-Trollcast is an innovative new way of spincasting with a different form of plastic.
-People have attempted to use ABS instead of HIPS over the last few years. It's failed, but that doesn't make it not 'innovative'.
-Kickstarter is a relatively new and innovative way of financing wargaming startups.
-There's at least one company out there dedicated to making model templates so you can design and print your own models.
-The idea of pre-cut wooden MDF terrain is relatively new, and wasn't really around a decade ago. Now it's everywhere.
-Specially cut foam to carry your models in is in the same bracket. Battlefoam and all the rest didn't really exist a decade ago.

That's literally just off the top of my head. Some of it is so widespread now that we forget how short a period of time it's actually been around for. All the above has come about in the post LOTR introduction era, yet GW has had very little to nothing to do with any of it. And in some cases, it has really missed the boat. Laser cut wood terrain is an easily added capability that could be rolled out to all their stores, and they have the money to design as well as any. It's durable, would be good for getting kids started on terrain construction, and is easily packed/shipped. Yet they haven't bothered.

Isn't the most obvious apples to apples Dreamforge Games? Their Leviathan blows GW out of the Atmosphere. It is bigger and more complex than the night but cheaper.

Look at their infantry boxes. More detailed and cheaper than a box of 20 year old cadians.

@Ketara - Specialty cut foam is cool, I agree Although I don't own any, it's innovative. For that matter, the Citadel zigzag carry cases are innovative too, particularly where it comes to transporting 40k models, which are increasingly difficult to move because of their very large and strange shapes.

The rest of it, though, I wouldn't really categorize under innovation (ie a new idea). Failed attempts at innovation are just that -- you need to succeed, and execute, in order to innovate, because otherwise it's just a pipe dream, and the other stuff is just incremental improvements to extant techniques.

Kickstarter is an innovation from the stand point of raising money for a project, certainly but it's not anything to do with models, obviously. Personally, I don't really care where someone gets their money I just want the finished product.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SickSix wrote:
Isn't the most obvious apples to apples Dreamforge Games? Their Leviathan blows GW out of the Atmosphere. It is bigger and more complex than the night but cheaper.

Look at their infantry boxes. More detailed and cheaper than a box of 20 year old cadians.

Yes, the Leviathan is a great comparable to the Imperial Knight. I won't get into all the reasons that it's not my favorite model or why I think the IK is "better", but I do own one, and it's well-executed. But it also must not be a lot of other peoples' favorite model, because I assure you, the Imperial Knight far, far outsells it.

Comparing Dreamforge infantry to 20 year old Citadel models is unfair. You should compare them to new Citadel models, such as the Scions. Of course, the price is a lot better. The models? I don't think so. But that's just me

The biggest problem of Dreamforge is that it's a one-man design shop (Mark) and he doesn't want to ever grow past that. While I respect that greatly, and what Mark has been able to accomplish is phenomenal, this means that they'll never have a release cadence that's anywhere near what makes me happy, and their collection will never grow to a point where even one faction is "complete" in the way the GW's factions are. They will never, ever be able to do a launch like AdMech, or even Harlequins, where in the course of a month, there are TONS of new models that are added -- there was more released in that one month than DF has made in its company's history. This isn't important to everybody, of course.

 Talys wrote:
@Ketara - Specialty cut foam is cool, I agree Although I don't own any, it's innovative. For that matter, the Citadel zigzag carry cases are innovative too, particularly where it comes to transporting 40k models, which are increasingly difficult to move because of their very large and strange shapes.

The rest of it, though, I wouldn't really categorize under innovation (ie a new idea). Failed attempts at innovation are just that -- you need to succeed, and execute, in order to innovate, because otherwise it's just a pipe dream, and the other stuff is just incremental improvements to extant techniques.

Kickstarter is an innovation from the stand point of raising money for a project, certainly but it's not anything to do with models, obviously. Personally, I don't really care where someone gets their money I just want the finished product.

Kickstarter itself isn't the innovation, it's the usage by the wargaming industry that's been innovative. People who design dish washers or model trains haven't adopted it en masse in the same way. Rather, it's been the mass overt adoption by wargaming companies specifically which has been an innovation in the financial process used to start and fund a wargaming company.]

I thoroughly disagree that an innovation needs to be successful to be an innovation. Nintendo innovated by making a VR device back in the 90's which flopped. A chap came up with the Oculus a short while back, and it has succeeded. That doesn't mean the latter innovated whilst the former did not. Both innovated, it's just the market conditions and technology were suitable for one to fail and the other to succeed.

Also, I'm curious as to why you wouldn't categorise troll cast as an innovation.
It's a new material, and a new spin-cast manufacturing process. I'd say it's an extremely clear cut case of innovation. It's also been a commercial success, which should tick that criteria for you too.

http://trollforged.com/store/trollcast.html

As I said previously, I pulled my previous examples off the top of my head, I could find more if I wanted to. As such, I'm afraid I disagree quite strongly with your prior assertion that there's been no innovation in the wargaming industry, and the apparent implication (forgive me if I'm reading too much into it if incorrect) that we shouldn't judge GW harshly for failing to innovate.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
GW failing in my opinion is they remained in their "heroic" proportions and their idea of detail is throw things up and clutter every surface.

The space marines moved from a sleek sci fi design that has no place in a post apocalyptic world (this is really what was the strength of 40k, merging a world and an aesthetic that are not combineable) to a moving shrine.

Clutter does not equal detail.

For an example of non-blinged detail, I'll offer these examples by Mierce:

http://mierce-miniatures.com/store_mierceminiatures/images_product/mrm_dkl_inf_dis_wcf_501_000_01_large.png
http://mierce-miniatures.com/store_mierceminiatures/images_product/mrm_dkl_fmr_blr_wld_102_000_01_large.png
http://mierce-miniatures.com/store_mierceminiatures/images_product/mrm_dkl_ang_mrc_wld_011_000_01_large.png

There's a lot of detail there, but there's also "empty" space where needed to draw attention to the features or iconography that's supposed to stand out. It's not a confused mess of skullz and purity seals. The demon is cool to me because my eyes are drawn naturally to its monstrous face--I'm not trying to figure where the heck the face is.

 Talys wrote:
You should compare them to new Citadel models, such as the Scions. Of course, the price is a lot better. The models? I don't think so. But that's just me

IMHO, the Tempestus Scions compare even less favourably due to their much higher cost.

Tempestus Scions: MSRP $35/5, $7 each.

Maybe the models are better - this is on aesthetics correct? Are they 3x the cost better?

Innovation in wargames models:

http://www.airfix.com/uk-en/shop/by-brand/quick-build.html



A new series of kits by Airfix. They are moulded from vari-coloured plastic in camouflage patterns (for the military planes) and snap together using a lego style system.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Innovation in wargames models:

http://www.airfix.com/uk-en/shop/by-brand/quick-build.html

[/img]

A new series of kits by Airfix. They are moulded from vari-coloured plastic in camouflage patterns (for the military planes) and snap together using a lego style system.

Cool!

Incoming goalpost move in 5...4....3...2...1

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Innovation in wargames models:

http://www.airfix.com/uk-en/shop/by-brand/quick-build.html

[img]

A new series of kits by Airfix. They are moulded from vari-coloured plastic in camouflage patterns (for the military planes) and snap together using a lego style system.

That's neat. Wished they had those when I was a kid.