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.

 -Loki- wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.

The above poster was correct that you wouldn't want to put those scale models on the table, onstantly shifting around and balancing on terrain. Wargaming models and scale models are entirely different types of model. Wargaming models need to be more robust because they're used more often.

However, the claim that GW make the 'best' plastic wargaming products hasn't been true for a few years. Other companies have gotten in on their ranges being HIPS and several, as pointed out already, surpass GW's models. The fact that GW keep saying they make the best wargaming miniatures in the world means very little. A local bakery says they make the best pies in the world, but I'm sure no one takes them seriously when they say it.

Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.

Is that not all terribly subjective though?

There are companies who make simpler kits than GW. There's companies that make far more detailed kits than GW. GW themselves seem to be aiming for a middle ground.

I recently built Magnus The Red, and was expecting a bit of a headache. What I found was a doddle for such a large and impressive kit. No dodgy joints which require support when drying, and only a little bit of time spent trying to figure out precisely how the horns say in their sockets (once you've figured it out, they sit in there quite nicely!).

For a beginner, it's challenging without having any obvious 'oh sod it' points. For an experienced gamer like myself, it's a solid, satisfying build.

My Rubricae? Managed to vary the Sorceror's leading them by using leftover gubbins from the Exalted Sorceror box.

Now that's stuff I value and appreciate in my kits. So I naturally consider GW right up there. Others have different parameters to judge by.

However, best or not, I think people would struggle to say GW's kits are objectively terrible.

morgoth wrote:
Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.

Wargaming or not? That's the issue here. There are obviously better model kits not meant for wargaming out of the likes of Bandai or Tamiya. That said, they are not as soft in their plastic choices and are not necessarily sufficiently robust for regular transport. To straight up answer your question, I think almost all HG Gundams top GW's current plastic process and all the MG (especially the Ver.Ka kits) definitely do. I'd add to that list the many, many scale tank kits where the tracks are all individual links that fit together and all the road wheels and drive wheel actually work. GW is just only now showing signs of using the plastic injection technology that makes those kinds of kits possible. Bandai and Tamiya have been doing it for 15 years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
However, best or not, I think people would struggle to say GW's kits are objectively terrible.

GW's kits are good. Not terrible. They just don't stack up in the larger model building sphere. They'd be middle of the road simple kits for kids in that sphere.

That said, for wargaming, things are about as far as I'd want them in a plastic kit. Yes, GW could make harder plastic stuff or do more engineering for posability like they are with the redemptor dreadnought. I don't think they should do either of those things. I think they should concentrate on their full product experience of:

collect - build - paint - play

and not make model kits that are not good for the last stage. Or simply take too much time in the build stage that a given customer might find them to be a barrier to get to paint and play.

The best thing about the newer Dark Imperium/First Strike plastics is that the go together easily without the seems going through difficult places. Compare this to the Stormcast Eternal easy to build stuff where they put the seem line right through the shoulder pads. If GW continues to put that amount of thought into their easy to build stuff, I'll keep buying it. I'll also buy a smattering for their full kits as well. Though given their pricing policy of new releases getting jacked up to cause an overall 3% price increase, I'll concentrate on existing kits.

morgoth wrote:


Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.

Take you're pick from Kingdom Death to Dreamforge really. And that's just the start.

The Dreamforge APC by far and away technically surpasses any armoured vehicle that GW has done lately. Tis a thing of beauty with a highly detailed interior, moving parts and the Eisenkern troopers actually fit in it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And if that sells well, we might see fully fledged Epic make a return (ideally with the Space Marine rules set, which I for one hold in extremely high esteem)

Off-topic, but at Warhammer Fest, Tony Cottrell described adding Ork and Eldar titans to Adeptus titanicus, and the Space Marine game (and the next 20-odd years of the Epic game system) as a distraction from the core idea of giant gothic robots fighting each other in the Horus Heresy. Don't hold your breath.

 zedmeister wrote:

morgoth wrote:


Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.

Take you're pick from Kingdom Death to Dreamforge really. And that's just the start.

The Dreamforge APC by far and away technically surpasses any armoured vehicle that GW has done lately. Tis a thing of beauty with a highly detailed interior, moving parts and the Eisenkern troopers actually fit in it.

I don't own any KDM miniatures myself (yet, backed the latest KS) but I've seen numerous complaints about dodgy joints, fragile parts, and tons of gap filling required on KDM miniatures. Compared to the latest GW kits which go together like a dream I can't see KDM coming anywhere close, which isn't that weird considering the resources for and experience of mould engineering GW has. If you want to argue aesthetics that's another matter of course, I certainly think both companies have amazing art direction.

As for Dreamforge, their minis do look great. Moving parts is something I wouldn't want in a gaming miniature though, adds time to assembly, makes it more fragile and doesn't serve any purpose in-game. Same for things like individual track links etc, they have no place on a gaming mini.

Would love to hear more examples though!

 Mymearan wrote:

I don't own any KDM miniatures myself (yet, backed the latest KS) but I've seen numerous complaints about dodgy joints, fragile parts, and tons of gap filling required on KDM miniatures. Compared to the latest GW kits which go together like a dream I can't see KDM coming anywhere close, which isn't that weird considering the resources for and experience of mould engineering GW has. If you want to argue aesthetics that's another matter of course, I certainly think both companies have amazing art direction.

As for Dreamforge, their minis do look great. Moving parts is something I wouldn't want in a gaming miniature though, adds time to assembly, makes it more fragile and doesn't serve any purpose in-game. Same for things like individual track links etc, they have no place on a gaming mini.

Would love to hear more examples though!

Fair enough. I don't have a lot of the Kingdom Death plastics, but the few I do have, have been a dream to put together. None of the large kits, mind.

As for the APC, I can't comment on preferences as they are just that, but they are glorious kits meant for gaming. For other examples, Plastic Soldier Company seem to generally get very positive comments on their kits.

After years of decline, GW has made more revenue and profit.
That's great for a company which was led by an absolute amateur (Kirby) for years.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And if that sells well, we might see fully fledged Epic make a return (ideally with the Space Marine rules set, which I for one hold in extremely high esteem)

Off-topic, but at Warhammer Fest, Tony Cottrell described adding Ork and Eldar titans to Adeptus titanicus, and the Space Marine game (and the next 20-odd years of the Epic game system) as a distraction from the core idea of giant gothic robots fighting each other in the Horus Heresy. Don't hold your breath.

Well, it's a distraction at the moment.

But Adeptus Titanicus has a similar issue to X-Wing....there's just not a great deal of variety to be had, unless you introduce new factions.

So whilst I fully support the decision to just keep it simple at the outset, I think we will see more and more in time. Especially if the game sells anywhere near as well as Blood Bowl!

 zedmeister wrote:

morgoth wrote:


Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.

Take you're pick from Kingdom Death to Dreamforge really. And that's just the start.

The Dreamforge APC by far and away technically surpasses any armoured vehicle that GW has done lately. Tis a thing of beauty with a highly detailed interior, moving parts and the Eisenkern troopers actually fit in it.

And that is my point right there.

To me, Dreamforge kits are mostly ugly, low detail and part of a very limited range selling alternate cheap models to 40k players.

If you want to compare a single kit, the new Eldrad is a million times better than that APC in terms of design and detail.

morgoth wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.

The above poster was correct that you wouldn't want to put those scale models on the table, onstantly shifting around and balancing on terrain. Wargaming models and scale models are entirely different types of model. Wargaming models need to be more robust because they're used more often.

However, the claim that GW make the 'best' plastic wargaming products hasn't been true for a few years. Other companies have gotten in on their ranges being HIPS and several, as pointed out already, surpass GW's models. The fact that GW keep saying they make the best wargaming miniatures in the world means very little. A local bakery says they make the best pies in the world, but I'm sure no one takes them seriously when they say it.

Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.

Better than the Imperial Knight. Better than any GW APC. Better than GW's Chaos Spawn.

I'm not going into aesthetics at all. Some people will like the look of the Imperial Knight (ad does look badass) over the Dreamforge Leviathan. But they're technically better kits (for example, the Leviathan is pose able) designed for tabletop use. Some people will prefer the Chaos Spawn over the Insidious Madnesses. Those people are utterly insane. But the kits are more detailed with more technical accomplishment than the aforementioned GW kits.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Difference here is that people do really believe it when GW say that.

Yes, of course.

Like any place you find a large group of people, some will like (X), some won't.

Some might like...(Y)....or even (Z)!!!

 -Loki- wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.

The above poster was correct that you wouldn't want to put those scale models on the table, onstantly shifting around and balancing on terrain. Wargaming models and scale models are entirely different types of model. Wargaming models need to be more robust because they're used more often.

However, the claim that GW make the 'best' plastic wargaming products hasn't been true for a few years. Other companies have gotten in on their ranges being HIPS and several, as pointed out already, surpass GW's models. The fact that GW keep saying they make the best wargaming miniatures in the world means very little. A local bakery says they make the best pies in the world, but I'm sure no one takes them seriously when they say it.

Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.

Better than the Imperial Knight. Better than any GW APC. Better than GW's Chaos Spawn.

I'm not going into aesthetics at all. Some people will like the look of the Imperial Knight (ad does look badass) over the Dreamforge Leviathan. But they're technically better kits (for example, the Leviathan is pose able) designed for tabletop use. Some people will prefer the Chaos Spawn over the Insidious Madnesses. Those people are utterly insane. But the kits are more detailed with more technical accomplishment than the aforementioned GW kits.

What's technically advanced about the Malifaux model? They're great sculpts (certainly better than any Chaos Spawn GW has put out) but don't look very advanced, especially after looking at photos of the models and the very obvious join lines all over. I'll give you the Leviathan, even though I think it's butt-ugly it does have poseability which I wish the plastic knight had. The APC is great as well, but that's two Dreamforge kit, and Dreamforge seems to be inactive and not putting out any new product. What other companies are there that clearly surpass GWs plastics?

edit: Actually, I remember Mirror's Edge talking about their advanced sliding mold technology. The less said about their sculpts, the better, IMO, but I'm pretty sure technically that's something GW doesn't do.

morgoth wrote:
To me, Dreamforge kits are mostly ugly, low detail and part of a very limited range selling alternate cheap models to 40k players.

If you want to compare a single kit, the new Eldrad is a million times better than that APC in terms of design and detail.

All subjective. I think it looks excellent and crammed with detail. Though, of course, that's my subjective view as well. Same again for the plastic Farseer - design and detail of it are subjective. In terms of technical implementation, the Farseer is a pretty standard that a lot of other manufacturers such as Perry Miniatures (Renedra) produce easily.

As for the APC, being a cheap model that can be used in 40k as an alternative model doesn't invalidate the technical superiority of the kit. Same for the Knight V the Dreamforge Leviathan. Personally, I prefer the visual look of the Knight over the Leviathan. However, the Leviathan is, technically, a far superior Kit to the Knight

 -Loki- wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.

The above poster was correct that you wouldn't want to put those scale models on the table, onstantly shifting around and balancing on terrain. Wargaming models and scale models are entirely different types of model. Wargaming models need to be more robust because they're used more often.

However, the claim that GW make the 'best' plastic wargaming products hasn't been true for a few years. Other companies have gotten in on their ranges being HIPS and several, as pointed out already, surpass GW's models. The fact that GW keep saying they make the best wargaming miniatures in the world means very little. A local bakery says they make the best pies in the world, but I'm sure no one takes them seriously when they say it.

Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.

Better than the Imperial Knight. Better than any GW APC. Better than GW's Chaos Spawn.

I'm not going into aesthetics at all. Some people will like the look of the Imperial Knight (ad does look badass) over the Dreamforge Leviathan. But they're technically better kits (for example, the Leviathan is pose able) designed for tabletop use. Some people will prefer the Chaos Spawn over the Insidious Madnesses. Those people are utterly insane. But the kits are more detailed with more technical accomplishment than the aforementioned GW kits.

See, pose-able is definitely an objective metric, one I don't give a gak about.

The rest of your assessment is subjective.

I haven't assembled a Leviathan but I can tell you the latest stuff I've assembled from GW was really really nice.

What I can tell you is that to me, the Leviathan has absolutely no detail whatsoever and looks like a cheap 3D model made by a beginner who overuses large curved areas.
I.e. what you get when fans add models within mods of a professionally designed game.

Process-wise, all of the detail seems totally blunted, with zero sharpness, and doesn't look like quality plastic to me.

So basically you called for a comparison you had no intention of honouring because you, probably well in advance, knew you could call out on the basis of subjective criteria?

How disengenuous.

Basically, any plastic model kit that can be assembled without notably extensive clean up or remedial action such as gap filling can be considered objectively as good as GW, as how precisely the kit is manufatured is essentially the only objective measure. Then again, GW still sell the Rhino and Land Raider, so they don't necessarily do all that well in that comparison either!

Everything else, pretty much, is subjective, and, as you've so amply demonstrated on so many occasions, can be argued to fit with the agenda the individual is trying to push.

 zedmeister wrote:

morgoth wrote:


Please just link one model, not made by GW, which you think tops GW's current plastic process.

Take you're pick from Kingdom Death to Dreamforge really. And that's just the start.

The Dreamforge APC by far and away technically surpasses any armoured vehicle that GW has done lately. Tis a thing of beauty with a highly detailed interior, moving parts and the Eisenkern troopers actually fit in it.

Sorry, having put together a number of Kingdom Death and a couple Malifaux (both Wargames Factory) GW is superior for three reasons:
1. No warpage. KD pieces don't line up and require clamping to hold together for relatively small figures. GW pieces go together with minimal gaps.
2. No fiddly bits. Sorry, after struggling with the Future White Speaker to put her hand together because the thumb was a separate bit, KD doesn't come close. GW has small bits, but nothing on the scale KD inflicts upon you where you need tweezers to put stuff together.
3. Instructions. We're dependent on a fan site to figure out how stuff goes together for KD. If you're figure isn't on there, sucks to be you.

 silent25 wrote:

3. Instructions. We're dependent on a fan site to figure out how stuff goes together for KD. If you're figure isn't on there, sucks to be you.

Something of an unexpected benefit of the move to digital sculpting, that.

RoninXiC wrote:
Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.

OK, now play the two of them on the tabletop for 3 games a week over a year. I guarantee that the Tamiya tank will be far more beat up and busted than the GW Land Raider. That Land Raider is a fething brick.

Heck, if you want to do a quick test of durability, just drop both from 42" bar height tabletop onto a concrete floor. The Land Raider might lose a sponson, but the Tamiya will be be ruined.

I actually useda 1/48 Armoured Car for Bolt Action for years. The MG once broke but that happened to lots of my figures as well.
They're not as fragile as you think they are. The plastic is the same and only very, VERY few parts are flimsical.

One could also leave some of the more vulnerable parts off as a concession to using them as wargaming models and the core of the model would still have a greater resolution of detail than your average GW kit.

Plus, as you say, there's possibly more people out there using scale models in historical games than there are people using GW models in GW games without, one assumes, significant issue.

1/35 Takom Tiger 2 with full interior. Found it for 50$ or less.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nogimZGaSKM

There is not a single GW miniature that comes even close to this amount of detail.

Basically to hold the position that nothing in the plastic model world is as good as GW's stuff requires some combination of ignorance of the larger plastic model world, or the willingness to shift goal posts.

This pops up every now and again. I don't know why it can't just be that GW is good. Some people need the thing they like to be the best I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
One could also leave some of the more vulnerable parts off as a concession to using them as wargaming models and the core of the model would still have a greater resolution of detail than your average GW kit.

Plus, as you say, there's possibly more people out there using scale models in historical games than there are people using GW models in GW games without, one assumes, significant issue.

I've done a lot of gaming with gundam models and they are both stronger and weaker than GW models in different ways. People pose them and play with them like they are action figures, so they're stronger than GW in that way, but because people appraoch them like they are action figures, they tend to break them more. Some of my friends that I game gundam fights with tend to repose their mobile suits multiple times in a given 90 minute game. Where in a game of 40k, they might turn their turret every now and again.

So more instances of broken stuff than 40k, but way, way more in game handling to get it to that point.

 zedmeister wrote:

morgoth wrote:
To me, Dreamforge kits are mostly ugly, low detail and part of a very limited range selling alternate cheap models to 40k players.

If you want to compare a single kit, the new Eldrad is a million times better than that APC in terms of design and detail.

All subjective. I think it looks excellent and crammed with detail. Though, of course, that's my subjective view as well. Same again for the plastic Farseer - design and detail of it are subjective. In terms of technical implementation, the Farseer is a pretty standard that a lot of other manufacturers such as Perry Miniatures (Renedra) produce easily.

As for the APC, being a cheap model that can be used in 40k as an alternative model doesn't invalidate the technical superiority of the kit. Same for the Knight V the Dreamforge Leviathan. Personally, I prefer the visual look of the Knight over the Leviathan. However, the Leviathan is, technically, a far superior Kit to the Knight

And the detail that Dreamforge crams in actually serves a purpose - as opposed to MOOOAAAR SKULLLLLZZZ!!!1!

And, for a fair comparison - go with the Taurox vs. the Keilerkopf.... Dear gods, the Taurox is a silly vehicle....

The Auld Grump - mind you, the Keilerkopf is also a good deal more expensive, these days... but it is so much the better model....

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
Almost any random scale model (tanks, planes etc) is so much more detailed and intricate than anything GW has ever produced. Just put a 1/35 ww2 tank from for example tamiya next to a land raider.. poor land raider.

OK, now play the two of them on the tabletop for 3 games a week over a year. I guarantee that the Tamiya tank will be far more beat up and busted than the GW Land Raider. That Land Raider is a fething brick.

Heck, if you want to do a quick test of durability, just drop both from 42" bar height tabletop onto a concrete floor. The Land Raider might lose a sponson, but the Tamiya will be be ruined.

When the demand is "can you throw it on the floor, eh?? Can you?" then some serious justification is afoot

Not really. Accidents happen when transporting and gaming - stuff can be knocked off, dropped etc.

GW's models are typically quite robust (either light enough to mostly bounce, or chunky enough to survive).

So that is a consideration for some.

But what if I play in a lava lake? GW minis fail as hard as all the others.

-> GW minis are mediocre.

Again, I disagree.

Some manufacturers pack on more detail. Some make more intricate kits. Some make lower detail, lower priced kits (Mantic).

But GW do their kits. Bits of detail here and there so even a relatively new painter can get good results - but enough blank open space, particularly on tanks, to allow for the high end painter to do mental freehand.

The models are robust enough to stand up to regular gaming (dice bouncing off, perhaps being dropped), and the kits able to be assembled with relative ease and minimal gap filling etc.

This isn't a design deficiency. This is a design decision - the kits are accessible in terms of complexity, whilst still be satisfying to build.

Display Historical tank kits have more detail because they are designed functional vehicles.

Wargame Toys of vehicles imagined 38000 years in the future have no such functionally.

The radio frame on the former wouldn't last 5 minutes in a wargame so why should the later have to have the same detailing?

This is a silly comparison particularly in a thread on the financial reporting of GW. Their kits whatever the detail sell and well enough for a decent profit so I would proffer that they are sufficiently detailed for both gaming and business purposes.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Again, I disagree.

Some manufacturers pack on more detail. Some make more intricate kits. Some make lower detail, lower priced kits (Mantic).

But GW do their kits. Bits of detail here and there so even a relatively new painter can get good results - but enough blank open space, particularly on tanks, to allow for the high end painter to do mental freehand.

The models are robust enough to stand up to regular gaming (dice bouncing off, perhaps being dropped), and the kits able to be assembled with relative ease and minimal gap filling etc.

This isn't a design deficiency. This is a design decision - the kits are accessible in terms of complexity, whilst still be satisfying to build.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't actually saying the kits are mediocre, it was a continuation of the facetious commentary on robustness - they can't stand up to immersion in lava, therefore garbo.

Look I like GW kits, but yeah I don't see "you can throw them atta wall and probably only have to glue back on a sponson" as being a special selling point. Then again I don't even let other people touch my models unless I've known them for years and can be sure they're not clumsy, inconsiderate oafs, so the idea that dropping models is something so commonplace it requires special consideration is completely alien: "robust enough for tabletop" for me has always meant it can stand up to regular handling and occasionally being balanced on terrain at a wierd angle, not that it has to be tough enough to stand up to the kind of punishment you'd see in a ludicrous informerical where they drive cars over things and hit them with sledgehammers or whatever

Most scale model kits in the types of pricerange that would be appealing to a wargamer easily pass that test, and as folk have said you can simply leave off a few fragile details and have a model that is both suitable for gaming(unless you're the sort of person who used to use Dreadnought-inna-sock as a blackjack or the like) and more detailed than GW kits.

You won't find many who object to the idea that GW kits, by and large, achieve what they set out to achieve which as you say is to provide a "balance" between complexity/detail and simplicity/ease of assembly aimed at the beginner-to-intermediate modeller, but that wasn't the contention some folk were making, they were claiming that GW's plastic kits are objectively, technologically the best, and that's simply farcical. They've made great strides since switching to CAD in terms of parts breakdown(though a lot of stuff does suffer from looking a bit, for want of a better term, "plastic" - but that's an inveitable consequence of using software that lets you "polish" a project free of any imperfection at every stage), but as other have mentioned they don't even seem to be using slide-core tooled molds yet, and it's demonstrably true that there are more detailed kits available.