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.

 nullBolt wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
There is a fantastic game lurking somewhere in 40k. Actually, there are many potentially excellent games to be had with the current model range and background.

1) a 10-20 model, 2d6 based skirmish game. Think war machine without warcasters. High complexity, low model count.

Someone actually did that over on Lead Adventure by converting the Infinity ruleset. It's really god damn good.

Massacre of the Chaplains

That's a really great battle report! Based on my very limited understanding of Infinity, it's not the ideal rules engine for a 40k skirmish game. My understanding is that cover and line of sight is critical, and very few models shrug off damage.

I see infinity as being a really great engine for a Necromunda reboot, but true 40k skirmish should be more space opera, more fantasy with lasers.

OTOH, I can see a lot of fun in having a more claustrophobic and tight infinity style game between a Biel Tan strike force and a Platoon of IG Stormtroopers...

 Talys wrote:

@keezus - keep in mind that out of all of GW's competitors, probably PP and FFG are the only companies that have made any serious profit. When you look at Mantic, for instance, they're like, 3% or smaller than the size of GW. And many people in the WMH world are unhappy with creep over there as the game matures, the rate of new players/ne faction purchases slow, and PP tries to get more money out of its playerbase.

This is the thing though; why do GW fans give a gak how much money they make, as long as they make enough? Mantic might be 3% the size of GW financially, but through adroit use of crowdfunding and choosing manufacturing methods suited to their size they've managed to publish more games than GW has in years. If GW was taken private again and began taking decisions that reduced their profit as an absolute number in exchange for supporting the kind of broad game base and solid rules that keeps vets interested and ensures the network effect remains strong, thus ensuring the long-term stability of the company, would you say that was a bad thing?

It's worthy of discussion, I think, how to get someone to spend more on your game as it ages. Another faction sounds great, 'til you see GW veterans with 6+ armies and WMH veterans with 4+ armies. At some point, people have bought all the factions that they're interested in, and companies like GW and PP would prefer their fans NOT try other companies' games, as it's hard to get someone back once the fall in love with something else.

And that's the problem GW have - the only value they understand is cash. They see the (minimal)effort and time they would have to expend keeping the rules tight and providing new scenarios etc to keep those 6+ army vets interested as a waste of money, because it's not going to get said vet to buy their 7th army, but what they seem incapable of grasping is that 6-Army-Guy is probably down at their local club/store every time it meets with 4-Army-Guy and 9-Army-Girl playing the game, playing other people, providing visible proof to anyone who walks in that 40K(and once, Fantasy) is an active game worth getting in to, and will likely extol the virtues of the game, the fluff, the models to anyone who asks. 6-Army-Guy might never buy his 7th army, but if every club and store has a 6-Army-Guy and his mates then the chances that lots and lots of no-Army-Guys will end up buying GW product rather than from a competitor is much higher.

Further, if GW don't wants their fans to try other companies games, they're morons, because their actions over the last decade or so seem calculated to do exactly that.

Yodhrin: Exalted.

GW has completely ignored the benefits of mutli-army guys and gals being free ambassadors to the hobby. These are the guys and gals with the huge converted armies, painstakingly painted providing the "spectacle" that draws in new customers. When GW pushes these guys away - first of all, it takes a tremendous amount of force to alienate the multi-army guys. They love the hobby, and have lots of time and money invested... However, pile on enough abuse, and they will leave - AND they WILL find other hobbies and become enthusiastic ambassadors for GW's competitors.

Sure they don't spend as much as they used to, but they still spend... pushing them out of the hobby reduces their GW spending to 0.

Talk about short sighted.

 Talys wrote:
I'm only stating my observations in terms of modelling. YMMV, but definitely, my observations over 2+ decades is that the GW crowd is more adamant about painted armies and culturally rewards awesomely painted spectacles more.

In any case it is factual that malifaux and WMH are not played on large tables. The games aren't made for it, and if you long to play on a 8x12, don't bother. Likewise, if your perfect game is on a 4x4, or you want to get to tour game on transit or a bike, 2000pt 40k will probably suck.

In my decade+ of experience, it doesn't matter what game people play. Ambitious and creative types will make incredible spectacles. 40k has the largest player base, so statistically you'll have more of those types. On the flipside, you'll have way more gray-plastic-carry-models-in-egg-carton folks. I've seen more games of 40k that looked like garbage than I've seen games of Malifaux. So again, don't try to pass off your anecdotes as fact.

If you're willing to look, you'll see plenty of fantastic tables and models for many other games. At Nova alone, there was a huge Malifaux table of a rickety bayou brewery. It had a nasty swamp on the bottom and a network of bridges, walkways and such above floor level ending at the distillery at the top, well over a foot off the ground. I've seen a WMH Convergence themed table with working gears underneath the surface you could see through clear plastic. There were great tables for LotR and Hobbit, recreations of sets from the films with all the scale that encompasses a "small" table area. There's far more detail and spectacle in that 3'x3' area than an 8'x12' with paper, cardboard, and buckets haphazardly placed around empty bases and half-assembled gray plastic.

And if you're a size queen, the massive to-scale(?) Star Destroyer at Nova is bigger than most 40k tables.

The hobby is what you make of it. Creativity is not the exclusive purview of people who purchase GW products.

 Yodhrin wrote:

This is the thing though; why do GW fans give a gak how much money they make, as long as they make enough? Mantic might be 3% the size of GW financially, but through adroit use of crowdfunding and choosing manufacturing methods suited to their size they've managed to publish more games than GW has in years. If GW was taken private again and began taking decisions that reduced their profit as an absolute number in exchange for supporting the kind of broad game base and solid rules that keeps vets interested and ensures the network effect remains strong, thus ensuring the long-term stability of the company, would you say that was a bad thing?

No, I don't really care about GW's profitability (or Mantic's) at the end of the day, as they're both "big enough" to look at, IMO. But making a lot of money affects release cadence and affects material investments. I like that I can rely on GW and PP to release stuff essentially new stuff every week, and that they have a long pipeline in terms of product and books planned out. This isn't possible if you're doing everything in kickstarter.

I also want my company to invest in new technology -- for instance, I wish PP (and heck, every other competitor...) would invest in CAD, tooling and injection molding equipment like GW's, so that they could produce plastics as crisp as GW. That matters to me.

 Yodhrin wrote:

It's worthy of discussion, I think, how to get someone to spend more on your game as it ages. Another faction sounds great, 'til you see GW veterans with 6+ armies and WMH veterans with 4+ armies. At some point, people have bought all the factions that they're interested in, and companies like GW and PP would prefer their fans NOT try other companies' games, as it's hard to get someone back once the fall in love with something else.

And that's the problem GW have - the only value they understand is cash. They see the (minimal)effort and time they would have to expend keeping the rules tight and providing new scenarios etc to keep those 6+ army vets interested as a waste of money, because it's not going to get said vet to buy their 7th army, but what they seem incapable of grasping is that 6-Army-Guy is probably down at their local club/store every time it meets with 4-Army-Guy and 9-Army-Girl playing the game, playing other people, providing visible proof to anyone who walks in that 40K(and once, Fantasy) is an active game worth getting in to, and will likely extol the virtues of the game, the fluff, the models to anyone who asks. 6-Army-Guy might never buy his 7th army, but if every club and store has a 6-Army-Guy and his mates then the chances that lots and lots of no-Army-Guys will end up buying GW product rather than from a competitor is much higher.

Further, if GW don't wants their fans to try other companies games, they're morons, because their actions over the last decade or so seem calculated to do exactly that.

You're not getting my point, though. It's not enough to have a great, stable game to have a guy with 6 armies (and interested in no other factions) to keep buying stuff FOR THIRTY YEARS. For a long time, Talisman was my favorite board game. Guess what? I don't play it anymore, because eventually, the expansions were just too samey. The reason 40k makes GW the kind of money it does is because GW, more than any other company, has identified the attributes of desirability for people who want to keep spending money on 40k, and given them a reason to keep spending money on 40k. It was vehicles for a while, then flyers, then centerpiece models. Newer, higher resolution plastic multipart kits, et cetera.

Therefore, in my opinion, 40k has turned into a great game for people who want to essentially keep on buying product to play a wargame (either because they really like to build new models, or they get bored quickly), and a terrible game for people who want to make a finite investment, and just enjoy the damned game. That's not to say that you need to spend an infinite amount of money, but no matter what you buy, there will always be something around the corner that changes things up so that you must make some adjustment to stay relevant. If that's not your thing, 40k is not the right game for you, IMO.

It's not that GW takes away your books and you can't play with old rules. The fact is, most people play with the newest, current rules and models, and finding a group that's happy to be stuck in the past, and finding new people to fill shoes when players inevitably leave is not easy.

Also, there are people who are highly invested in many games and happy playing a wide variety of wargames. I'm not that type: whatever wargame is my MAIN wargame, I'll spend a ton of time in, and the other games, I'll paint minis for and maybe occasionally play, but the ratio, whether it's a GW game or another game, will be 95% vs 5%. I don't want many games to obsess over; I want ONE game to spend most of my hobby time over, so it's important that the one game comes up with lots of new stuff all the time. It's no different than computer games -- if I find a game I really like, I'll play it to the exclusion of all others until I get bored with it, and in the case of a successful game, like the Diablo franchise, or a couple of MMORPGs I've played, that cycle can be *years* of exclusively playing one PC game. I do not mind giving that PC game more of my money, in order to give me more content; and I'd rather it change it up reasonably frequently, than stay the same for too long.

But on the flip side of it too. If 40k ever gets to the point where it doesn't amuse me anymore, I'll shelve it all, and it will probably be a *long* time, if ever, before I return to it. That could happen, for instance, if GW doesn't come up with a fresh idea to keep me amused after centerpiece models (which, at most, have a run of a few more years). I'm not really interested in building an army of Thunderhawks, even if they are plastic, so size only goes so far If there's another wargame that catches me as much as 40k then, I'll happily wander that way. If not, I'll happily do something else with my life!

@Talys.
I agree that the game needs to be developed and the product range expanded to keep the interest and sales volumes increasing.

However the complete lack of game development at GW , beyond writing rules retrospectively to shift new product.Has left sales volumes diminishing at quite an alarming rate.

If we look at games where the focus is on game play as well as developing the minature range.The growth of the interest and product range is much steadier and much more positive than found in GW s 40k.

So I agree that great game development with out product range support is not enough.
Equally, product range development with out any significant game development support is not good enough either!

I hope you are aware that lots of people believe a wargame is more to do with what you can do in game than what minatures you have collected?
And it is these customers GW have driven away...

-

 Bottle wrote:
I wonder when GW changed from making the rules first and then designing a miniature to go with it - to the other way round of making miniatures and then making up some rules to go with them.

In 3rd edition 40k they were definitely still making rules first. White Dwarf would post "concept" miniatures the game designers had put together from time to time.

Anyone got an idea when the shift occurred?

After 5th edition.

It was things like the Mycetic Spore Pod and female Farseer that GW particularly attacked in their case versus Chapter House. These were units for which rules existed but not models, and third parties produced modes to fill that gap.

Once GW understood that making a 2D picture plus rules of a Mycetic Spore did not prevent another company from making a Mycetic Spore model, they withdrew the Mycetic Spore from the rules, until they had a model ready, then they issued rules to fit the model.

In other words, this policy has been in use for about two to three years, following the Chapter House case.

Warhammer 1st ed was written for the existing minis, indeed I believe the brief was to write a game that had rules for all existing citadel minis. So from one perspective that has always been that way.

@Lanrak - yes, indeed.

First of all, I wholeheartedly agree that game and models need to both evolve in order to keep players' interest. I'd argue that 40k has evolved - just not in the direction that a lot of people, perhaps the majority of wargamers, would like. The question I posed is whether there are game changes that are possible within the context of 3 decades that doesn't involve drastic model changes that makes the game practically unrecognizable.

I don't think it's a legitimate solution to say, make a good game and people will keep buying factions, because after a decade or two, those people will have bought every daction of primary interest to them, and it's easier to sell up than across (ie a new model rather than a new faction). Let's face it, if 40k hadn't changed since 5e except for minor improvements as much as I liked 5e, I'd be doing something else.

Secondly, I'm not at all blind to both newcomers and veterans who are disgruntled with GW's rules. Just because they work for me doesn't mean they are fun for a lot of other people. By chance, GW evolved the game and their models in a way that is desirable to me, so I just post the reasons that it works for me. Of course people in a different context where the game is now just to frustrating will be unhappy, and perhaps move on. I do believe it's possible to keep me very happy while concurrently satisfying some people in a different gaming and hobby environment.

At the end of the day, I'm just saying... It's not easy figurig out ways to retain people who essentially have bought everything you make that they like, knowing that if you don't come out with new stuff you'll lose them, while attracting people who are more interested in the game that you used to make.


As much as players rail against power creep, they reward publishers for it, by spending their money. People get excited by new, shiny, more powerful. They don't buy things that are new, shiny, but weak.

And like I keep saying, just because I'm content with 7e, it's not like GW can't do better on the rules front.

Sorry so many edits, cell phone typos

I know that at least since 3rd edition 40k, there have been handfuls of units missing models, allowing converters to step in. The 3rd Edition BBB lists included rules for things like Wave Serpents and Landraiders, which didn't have models for years.

Other units (or options) like Beasts of Nurgle, SM Scouts with Autocannon, Wildrider Chief, and Leman Russ Vanquisher had rules through third edition but no models. Fourth edition famously introduced drop pods as in game models, with no actual kit for many years. Fifth edition was in many ways the high water mark for this, as units like Thunderwolves, Mycetic Spores, Jetbike Seer Councils, and even the Vendetta all were popular without models.

 keezus wrote:
Yodhrin: Exalted.

GW has completely ignored the benefits of mutli-army guys and gals being free ambassadors to the hobby. These are the guys and gals with the huge converted armies, painstakingly painted providing the "spectacle" that draws in new customers. When GW pushes these guys away - first of all, it takes a tremendous amount of force to alienate the multi-army guys. They love the hobby, and have lots of time and money invested... However, pile on enough abuse, and they will leave - AND they WILL find other hobbies and become enthusiastic ambassadors for GW's competitors.

Sure they don't spend as much as they used to, but they still spend... pushing them out of the hobby reduces their GW spending to 0.

Talk about short sighted.

You say that as though those multi-army guys and gals might start hanging around web forums, talking about what a great game Kings of War is.....

The Auld Grump - and how well those old Warhammer armies fit into Kings of War.... (Not that I know anybody like that....)

Whats with the plastic mania?

Why would other companies than GW shift to plastic its not a panacea and for many companies it would create more problems than it could solve just to appeal to some "plastic elitists"

And for GW the plastic shift is debatable if it was a good thing.

@PsychoticStorm - I'm building some Forge World Outriders right now, and it reminds me of how much better GW plastic bikes are for fit. In fact, EVERY TIME I build a FW kit, I'm reminded of how much cleaner post-2009 plastic is to FW resin.

Here are a comparison of a couple of bits (resin is from Outrider, plastic is from Calth):



1. On the top image, notice how the circles are imperfect. The photo is taken at 20MP with a 100mm at Macro, so you can zoon and see very clearly how much superior the circles are on the plastic.

2. On the second image, to the left, you can see how because the rubber mold has been worn out some, the resolution is sucky. I'm sure that Outrider Backpack #1 looks fantastic; Backpack #100 looks like the one I got. There's no way around it: resin is not as consistent as plastic.

3. On the second image to the right, you can see how resin has a hard time keeping perfectly straight lines. You see this on FW tanks all the time: the amount of work, in terms of greenstuff, putty, and all that, just to get all the pieces to be square is huge. On plastic models, *they just fit*. But even on small models, straight lines are perfectly straight on plastic, and often, unfixable without extraordinary effort on resin.

4. On the legs, well, just look how much better the plastic version is to the resin. At the hip, the crispness isn't comparable. For the feet, the feet are just pain better in every way.

At the end of the day, *consistency* is one the biggest things for me. If I'm making 9 drop pods or 10 razorbacks, or 100 space marines, I don't want to run into a different problem in each of them. With resin, every model is an adventure, whereas with plastic, they're all identically good or bad. Oh, and plastic cement is a nice tool to be able to use

I don't think you'll find anyone that will say that plastic isn't the best medium for large vehicles and very large models, and that's clearly the direction 40k is headed in (just look at the number of large models on bestselling 2015 -- only 6 out of 28 so far are 32mm base or smaller), so yeah, plastic is a big thing in that format.

Some people just don't care, because it's just a game piece anyhow. But if you're spending 10-100 hours a model, getting it to be just the way you want it, damn straight, I want the canvas before I start to be as perfect as possible, with as little repair as possible.

So, what you're saying is FW hand casting and quality control is worse than an automated process?

I know you think you're making an argument for plastic over resin, but FW aren't known for being the most consistent.

@Az - yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying, which should be obvious, but PsychoticStorm was asking what the big hard-on for plastic is, so, as I'm currently working on a resin/plastic mini, I took some photos to show

Yeah, tungsten carbide tooled molds for plastic that began with a CAD design and ends with a perfect fit and laser-straigth lines is something of value to me.

Since FW/GW are about the only company that makes equivalent models in resin and plastic, it's hard to compare apples to apples with other companies, but I take your point: there are better resin casts, for sure. Still, I much, much prefer the big models in plastic. A Castigator takes 10x longer to prep than an IK. And a Sicaran weighs WAY more than a Land Raider. Plus, practical aspects of being able to airbrush in pieces more easily for plastic models (because they'll just magically fit together afterwards; you can't do this if you need GS everywhere).

First of all you established GW is atrocious in non plastics production, this is known, but it does not mean everybody else doing metal or resin is that bad, on the contrary companies that care about their quality offer better and crisper detail than GW plastics in metal or resin.

CAD design is something most modern companies do, its not limited to plastic manufacturing and of course it produces crispier and more constant sculpts.

Plastic has issues with many things such as organic shapes and the need to sell more than a wargame usually can, this is the reason why 40k has ended in this condition and why the updates in models is so limited.

KDM is a nice demonstration on why plastic is bad on organic shapes, one can compare the models in plastic and resin and see the parts increase as well as the loss of detail.

Plastic is great for vehicles, though.

Should all companies move to plastic? I believe no most companies are not helped by that move and I am debating how much the move has helped really GW or put them at a disadvantage.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:


KDM is a nice demonstration on why plastic is bad on organic shapes, one can compare the models in plastic and resin and see the parts increase as well as the loss of detail.

And yet KDM is generally regarded by alot of folks as an example of just how good plastics can get when given TLC instead of just dumped haphazardly from 3d model to a sprue (like Robotech). I'm not a KDM backer (the 70's porn meets 80's fantasy/horror movie look doesn't appeal to me personally) but the technical aspects of the minis and sprues impress me.

 Talys wrote:
I also want my company to invest in new technology -- for instance, I wish PP (and heck, every other competitor...) would invest in CAD, tooling and injection molding equipment like GW's, so that they could produce plastics as crisp as GW. That matters to me.

This is happening. Slowly with PP, as some new kits are injection molded... Stormclad springs to mind. Wyrd has discontinued support of its metal line and has gone to entirely CAD plastics. Corvus Belli is entirely CAD designed, though still in metal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
With resin, every model is an adventure, whereas with plastic, they're all identically good or bad.

I have to disagree... With plastic, you get a different bad. Fixing warped hulls is a particularly annoying task. This doesn't occur so much with the small kits, but it is very noticeable on the larger vehicle kits. The terrain kits in particular are very hard to unwarp. I have the ruined tower they put out a few years back and it was so badly warped I had to abandon 1/2 the wall sections and build it in a reduced state.

How is the circles on the top (as in the direction pointing up once assembled) row of the plastic one not the absolute worst part of any of those pieces and proof the resin is better?

Their circles might not be perfectly round but they also don't cut into the model at a bad angle due to the limitations on the casting method.

@jonolikespie - There are several different backpacks with calth, and the one with smaller holes doesn't have what you're describing (at least to that degree). But to me, a circle should be always be a perfect circle, a square should always be a perfect square, and a line should always be perfectly straight. It annoys me to no end when a two lines intended to be straight aren't, and I'll blow 5 hours fixing it.

Incidentally the reason the holes can line up that way on the resin model isn't technology or technique -- it's that the backpack is cast by itself and is cast on a funny angle, which allows all the holes to work out. The piece is tossed into a bag and hung on a wall. On the plastic model, the backpack is on a sprue with 100 other parts, and the entire sprue can only be so high vertically, because it must be packed with 6 other sprues into the box. As an example, on a character model that's $40, you will see that avoided, because the sprue is just for the one model, and may occupy a clampack all by itself (no height restriction).

While I was happy with metal minis in my youth that had all sorts of imperfections, it's 2015 now, and I want laser straight perfection as my starting canvas if possible

I mean, look, I'm actually not in love with PLASTIC as much as I am with the precise instruments used to make the plastic molds. If "they" (meaning any company) made steel molds to cast resin models and they were flawless replicas of each other with perfectly machined edges and pieces, I'd be more than happy with that (and I would put my money where my mouth is and pay the premium for it too, whether from GW/FW or other companies).

It's worth mentioning that FW generates as much sales as a lot of other companies, and most of those sales are in a relatively small number of really popular kits. The problem with that is that it's hit and miss: if you get a model at the beginning of the mold's life cycle, it's gorgeous. If you get one at the end, it's a piece of poo. It's a bigger problem with FW than some of the competitors, just because they move more models and, I'm sure, try to stretch out those molds.

It also has happened with me with Secret Weapon Miniatures, on their more popular bases. I've been miffed with some really awful casts, which Justin at SWM attributed to molds being at the end of their life (and since they couldn't quickly replace them, they gave me a full refund, so props to SWM for customer service).

@keezus - I agree that if plastic is warped, it's a lot of work to fix. That's horrible. However, looking at post 2009 GW kits made in the UK (some of the Chinese terrain kits are a great example of poor fit, perfectly reproduced), the fit is generally awesome, and the number of warped pieces I've seen is zero. Whether it's a Voidraven, Imperial Knight, Nagash, or Treeman, the pieces just fit awesomely, much better than models of that size made out of resin from GW or any other company that I can think of. Also, much better than the 2002 era models, like land raiders.

Why are we discussing the relative merits of different manufacturing processes for game counters?

When the customers ,(and GW staff), are walking away from the 40k product in droves due to high prices and poor investment in game play?

The only discussion on why GW moved to plastic production should be about how they originally wanted to reduce the start up cost for new players.[i]

Which was why they originally moved more lines to plastic production.Then completely destroyed the reason to move to plastic production , with decisions based on corporate short sighted greed and apathy.

I am sure the remaining customers are 'collectors' who obsess about the quality of the look and sound of 40k.As there is not a lot other than that to get enthusiastic about 40k anymore.

BUT if more people actually enjoyed playing with the 40k range of minatures, sales volumes would be higher , and prices lower, and generate actual growth.

IF I was the lead game developer on a game, I would be driven to improve the rules if ONLY ONE THIRD of customers actually played the game I was in charge of.
Rather than use it as an excuse not to bother with the rules at all!

 warboss wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:


KDM is a nice demonstration on why plastic is bad on organic shapes, one can compare the models in plastic and resin and see the parts increase as well as the loss of detail.

And yet KDM is generally regarded by alot of folks as an example of just how good plastics can get when given TLC instead of just dumped haphazardly from 3d model to a sprue (like Robotech). I'm not a KDM backer (the 70's porn meets 80's fantasy/horror movie look doesn't appeal to me personally) but the technical aspects of the minis and sprues impress me.

Yes, it is regarded by myself how good one can be with plastics too, their sprews illustrate the fundamental issues plastic production and how to overcome them.

The problem is the solution, increasing parts count solves the problem but makes kits more complicated, not an issue with KDM whose target audience is ready for it (it is really not targeted for the bardgame audience) but for a wargame the less parts count the better, sure you will get the hardcore modelers complaining but for the wider player base the less is better, especially if the model count for an army is huge.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

The problem is the solution, increasing parts count solves the problem but makes kits more complicated, not an issue with KDM whose target audience is ready for it (it is really not targeted for the bardgame audience) but for a wargame the less parts count the better, sure you will get the hardcore modelers complaining but for the wider player base the less is better, especially if the model count for an army is huge.

I disagree with this. There is data to support that too -- GW's top seller list is ALL of models and kits that are high parts count. I don't know of very many people who stick with 40k who would prefer snapfit (for instance, Cultists or snapfit Space Marines) to multipart. I don't even know of any Dark Angels players who seek out snapfit bolter marines from Dark Vengeance after they get 1-2 starter boxes, even though that's the cheapest, easiest and fastest way to get DA marines -- and they look great, to boot.

Personally, the only way I would be happy with snapfit models for a wargame with a lot of models is if there was literally a catalogue of hundreds of poses to choose from, as I like my models in squads to be "similar, but not the same".

 Talys wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

The problem is the solution, increasing parts count solves the problem but makes kits more complicated, not an issue with KDM whose target audience is ready for it (it is really not targeted for the bardgame audience) but for a wargame the less parts count the better, sure you will get the hardcore modelers complaining but for the wider player base the less is better, especially if the model count for an army is huge.

I disagree with this. There is data to support that too -- GW's top seller list is ALL of models and kits that are high parts count. I don't know of very many people who stick with 40k who would prefer snapfit (for instance, Cultists or snapfit Space Marines) to multipart. I don't even know of any Dark Angels players who seek out snapfit bolter marines from Dark Vengeance after they get 1-2 starter boxes, even though that's the cheapest, easiest and fastest way to get DA marines -- and they look great, to boot.

Personally, the only way I would be happy with snapfit models for a wargame with a lot of models is if there was literally a catalogue of hundreds of poses to choose from, as I like my models in squads to be "similar, but not the same".

Ah, but is it the parts count that's selling the models or the OP rules attached to whatever formation the models are a part of? Chicken > Egg?

If I were a DA player, I would absolutely be buying 50+ snapfit DV Tacticals, along wtih 10 Termies and making the difference with Devs / Assault / Veterans.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If I were a DA player, I would absolutely be buying 50+ snapfit DV Tacticals, along wtih 10 Termies and making the difference with Devs / Assault / Veterans.

If you want them, I have about 30 or 40 DA snapfits (brand new on the spree) that you can have really cheap . Got them for a song, but will never paint them.

I'm not a DA player, and I have so many multipart SM to build...

This is exactly why I will never use the snapfits I have a lifetime supply of SM multipart to build, hehe. But one day, I will find an aspiring DA player that they'll be perfect for. Actually, the left shoulder pad is detached, so it is easy to make them for any faction (though the right shoulder pad is connected to the arm and has a double arrow that is DA tactical iconography).

 Talys wrote:
This is exactly why I will never use the snapfits I have a lifetime supply of SM multipart to build, hehe. But one day, I will find an aspiring DA player that they'll be perfect for. Actually, the left shoulder pad is detached, so it is easy to make them for any faction (though the right shoulder pad is connected to the arm and has a double arrow that is DA tactical iconography).

the DA snapfits are great, the problem I had was integrating any other models into the squad. If I could use the basic bolters and plasma, but add say Missile Launchers or Lascannons without them looking out of place, I'd be very tempted to blitz paint a DA force for knock around play.