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.

I was wondering how the newer mantic models compare to GW's models? I know that in the past GW appeared to be a fair bit better but the gap had been closing.

Have been painting some mantic ghouls and found that the detail isn't quiet as good as my GW ogres, however wasn't sure whether this was just due to the scales incolved (the ogres being bigger and easier to make more detailed), and don't have any recent GW smaller infantry to compare against.

I would not say the gap is anything like closing. If anything, it is getting wider (because GW models are getting better faster than Mantic models). Mantic's zombies and ghouls are pretty nice and everything else is sort of tolerable to ugh. (I prefer Mantic's ghouls to GWs but that is not really a matter of model quality so much as design preference.) Otherwise, newer GW sculpts are miles and miles better than newer Kings of War sculpts. Some newer KoW sculpts are IMO worse than older ones; for example, the older Elf Lord riding a dragon looks better to me than the newer one. I guess the newest KoW army is now Empire of Dust and I think they are very so-so.

Of course the price of Mantic models sort of evens the score haha.

Contrasting opinion: GW models are getting worse, and have been for a while now. The AoS ones in particular feature a lot of lazy shortcuts from inexperienced CAD sculptors - because all the experienced ones left for greener pastures - , they suffer from glaring defects in posing, anatomy, and basic design, and have had the small details dialed up to 11 and beyond, so that they are overwhelmingly intricate and difficult to paint for the majority of potential gamers, and even the top level painters struggle to turn out something that isn't too busy in spite of their attempts to tone it down with paint.

Mantic have been getting better incrementally, and in some areas have certainly gone past GW, let alone closed the gap.

Mean time, other manufacturers have shot past GW at a rate of knots, but they tend to have the prices to match.

This is all i have to say:



Seriously, wtf is this dude doing? A Rain Dance? Going to fight Kobra Kai? Contrast with:



Is there less detail? Yes. Do you need to have as much detail as the Wulfen? No, not really.

Yeah, GW's "complicated and huge" is not the same thing as "good".

I think Mantic is improving, but I'll admit that I prefer simpler models for mass battle games.

As far as the visual design goes, the Wulfen are terrible. Even as a design brief - "make us some Space Marines that are lycanthropes in mid-transformation" - the idea is simpy awful. But the execution is extremely impressive. I very much doubt that Mantic has the capacity to produce anything like that level of complexity. Now turning to the Ensalved Guardian: while not as frankly dumb as the Wulfen, the design is still very bad - it looks like the designer wanted at first to make fantasy Egyptians but then changed his mind halfway through, or maybe he just realized he didn't have any real idea of how to draw the, except a (very) vague recollection of Tomb Kings or Stargate. The execution unfortunately adds very little. The details are shallow and confused, everything just sort of runs into everything else. The paintjob is not helping but even unpainted these models are pretty crude.

The main advantage Mantic has is you can get a full army from them at about 1/4 the cost of similar army from GW.

I find that most KoW models are tolerable to good. The new Empire of Dust models I don't like much, but then again maybe it's just the paintjob that doesn't do them justice. Twig Elves are so-so, but most of the others are actually pretty good. Dwarves are simple but nicely done, Ogres I prefer much more than GW's, Basilean soldiers, while they had a few problems, are nice, Orcs are pretty good too. GW always had a problem with proportions in my opinion, and too much detail on most models.

And then of course, enters the price tag. With the money you would need to get a single GW army, you get 4 KoW armies plus paints. And you also get to use all those hundreds of Night Goblins you had amassed for so long.

PS. I had never seen that Wolfen model before. Thank god I stopped 40k way before coming up against one of those on the field. I would have laughed myself to conceding the game.

 Manchu wrote:
I would not say the gap is anything like closing. If anything, it is getting wider (because GW models are getting better faster than Mantic models). Mantic's zombies and ghouls are pretty nice and everything else is sort of tolerable to ugh. (I prefer Mantic's ghouls to GWs but that is not really a matter of model quality so much as design preference.) Otherwise, newer GW sculpts are miles and miles better than newer Kings of War sculpts. Some newer KoW sculpts are IMO worse than older ones; for example, the older Elf Lord riding a dragon looks better to me than the newer one. I guess the newest KoW army is now Empire of Dust and I think they are very so-so.

Of course the price of Mantic models sort of evens the score haha.

I really have to disagree with this - not that Mantic is getting better, but rather that GW is - I pretty much hate the direction that GW has been going, not being a fan of the over the top poses and masses of detail that do not actually help the model.

For me, it is not just that Mantic is getting better, it is that GW is getting worse.

The Auld Grump

The amount of detail on recent GW kits is truly a marvel. I can definitely understand how that can be intimidating, hobby-wise. I can also understand, design-wise, why someone might think it's too "busy" or otherwise distracting. But whether Gamer XYZ likes how a model looks or not is distinct from the technical skill necessary to design, create, and manufacture that model. On this score, Mantic is decades behind GW and - simply put - shows pretty much no signs of catching up, looking at their most recent releases.

The upside is, whether you like or dislike their hackneyed design concepts and flawed executions, Mantic models are not only cheaper to buy in the quantities required for mass battles gaming but, yes, also easier to get table ready. So, as far as design goes, that is one area where Mantic excels GW. The bigger issue, since we're talking about a game, is that Mantic sells a much better rule set and has no issues with players who want to spend (or have already spent) small fortunes to use GW models playing it.

I find that the official paint jobs on the Mantic stuff really detracts from the models a lot of the time.

I also agree with Manchu that for the role you will be using most of Mantic's models in, they are far more suited to a quick paint job and ranking up than GW's stuff.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I find that the official paint jobs on the Mantic stuff really detracts from the models a lot of the time.

Spot on there. It's to the point where I always look for pics of the models unpainted.

 Manchu wrote:
The amount of detail on recent GW kits is truly a marvel. I can definitely understand how that can be intimidating, hobby-wise. I can also understand, design-wise, why someone might think it's too "busy" or otherwise distracting. But whether Gamer XYZ likes how a model looks or not is distinct from the technical skill necessary to design, create, and manufacture that model. On this score, Mantic is decades behind GW and - simply put - shows pretty much no signs of catching up, looking at their most recent releases.

The upside is, whether you like or dislike their hackneyed design concepts and flawed executions, Mantic models are not only cheaper to buy in the quantities required for mass battles gaming but, yes, also easier to get table ready. So, as far as design goes, that is one area where Mantic excels GW. The bigger issue, since we're talking about a game, is that Mantic sells a much better rule set and has no issues with players who want to spend (or have already spent) small fortunes to use GW models playing it.

You've completely ignored the fact that, 'subjectively' over done detail aside, all of the new AoS models from GW are hackneyed design concepts with flawed executions, far more so than anything recent from Mantic. There's nothing to marvel at about them, save for "Who exactly green lit these for sale?"

 Grimmor wrote:
This is all i have to say:

Spoiler:

Seriously, wtf is this dude doing? A Rain Dance? Going to fight Kobra Kai? Contrast with:

Spoiler:

Is there less detail? Yes. Do you need to have as much detail as the Wulfen? No, not really.

Man those are both really horrible, just in different ways.

Mantic has some nice character models in metal and some very few good plastic options like the zombies and the marauder trikes.

Mantic is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better at making rules than GW though

 NTRabbit wrote:
all of the new AoS models from GW are hackneyed design concepts

Completely false. GW actually brings new ideas to the table once in a while. It's no coincidence that Mantic has never done that, as far as model designs go.

 Illumini wrote:
Mantic is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better at making rules than GW though

Also file this under "no coincidence" - KoW is written by the same guy who designed GW's best rule set.

 Manchu wrote:

 NTRabbit wrote:
all of the new AoS models from GW are hackneyed design concepts

Completely false. GW actually brings new ideas to the table once in a while. It's no coincidence that Mantic has never done that, as far as model designs go.

 Illumini wrote:
Mantic is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better at making rules than GW though

Also file this under "no coincidence" - KoW is written by the same guy who designed GW's best rule set.

Not completely false at all. Liefeld-esque stormcast, stormcast that can't aim or fire their bows, khorne guys with squarebutts, dracoliths that fail basic anatomy, a tree person riding a beetle that is two clearly different concepts from two different proposals jammed together with no account made for matching up their movement.

Botched execution.

All of the new stuff sculpted so far are proxies for their already long in production sci-fi lines. It's not anything new being brought to the table, it's stretching the same stuff to new lines.

If I had to guess, I'd say you might not like AoS.

But let's take a less biased approach. For example, Mantic's Forest Shamblers - there isn't a single new idea to be found in these boring sculpts. I think most gamers would be hard pressed to identify the models because they are so definitively generic. Contrast them to GW's recent Sylvaneth releases. Yes, GW really piled on the detail. I get that you may not like all those gubbins. But even if you sort of blur your vision, you can immediately see just from the profile of the sculpts that there is a brand identity here. These various tree monsters would not be confused with anything else on the market - and they clearly match with the rest of the Sylvaneth product line, tying it together visually. Now, you can say that Mantic's goal is to make super generic miniatures. Okay well mission accomplished - but how is that an advantage? You can use it with various armies, I suppose, and it won't look amiss ... or rather, your armies already look so jumbled that how could anything really look amiss? Now, I'm not just picking on the Forest Shamblers; the exact same argument could be applied to the entire Empire of Dust range, vis-a-vis the sadly discontinued Tomb Kings range. So much of the KoW line looks very clearly like a "poor man's GW" - not a surprise, given that is precisely what it is designed to be! And it succeeds on those lines, at least when it comes to cost and ease of getting ready for play.

Here's another really clear example of Mantic's paucity of its own ideas. Take a look at this sweet new design:It's kind of a visual pun and that's so clever, I've certainly never seen anyone else do tha - oh wait:

Do yourself a favor OP and buy neither, spend all your precious dollars on Mierce instead

hasdrubalsbrother wrote:
I was wondering how the newer mantic models compare to GW's models? I know that in the past GW appeared to be a fair bit better but the gap had been closing.

Have been painting some mantic ghouls and found that the detail isn't quiet as good as my GW ogres, however wasn't sure whether this was just due to the scales incolved (the ogres being bigger and easier to make more detailed), and don't have any recent GW smaller infantry to compare against.

GW currently make the best detailed plastics, so you observation was correct.

 Manchu wrote:
The amount of detail on recent GW kits is truly a marvel. I can definitely understand how that can be intimidating, hobby-wise. I can also understand, design-wise, why someone might think it's too "busy" or otherwise distracting. But whether Gamer XYZ likes how a model looks or not is distinct from the technical skill necessary to design, create, and manufacture that model. On this score, Mantic is decades behind GW and - simply put - shows pretty much no signs of catching up, looking at their most recent releases.

The upside is, whether you like or dislike their hackneyed design concepts and flawed executions, Mantic models are not only cheaper to buy in the quantities required for mass battles gaming but, yes, also easier to get table ready. So, as far as design goes, that is one area where Mantic excels GW. The bigger issue, since we're talking about a game, is that Mantic sells a much better rule set and has no issues with players who want to spend (or have already spent) small fortunes to use GW models playing it.

Actually, the detail on many (not all) GW models just make me think that they are way too fond of the copy/paste function on their CAD program - it is not that the artists are capable of more detail - it is that the modeling software makes it all too easy to just gob it on, and then call it 'art'. They are no longer sculpting, they are copying and pasting until the figure is hidden under too many layers of gribblies.

The software and machinery is indeed decades ahead of Mantic - but I will take the Mantic ghouls over the GW ghouls. (The skeletons are not a fair comparison - the GW skellies that I have most recently seen were themselves decades behind the curve. So Mantic skellies being better is not to be unexpected.)

However, when I compare the High Elves from Island of Blood to the Mantic elf models... there the GW models fairly shine. Likewise the GW dwarf minis from a few years ago - but I greatly prefer the Mantic models to the current GW dwarfs. Likewise, I like the restic Mantic ogres better than the GW HIP ogres.

As for the AoS demon thing with skull zits... bah. The thing is garbage.

Detail does not equal art. In GW's case, I often think that the detail is to cover up how rushed the sculptors are - they do not have the time to do the job that I am certain that they can do. (Heck, I go to Forge World and look at what they have, often from the same sculptors, and I am amazed.)

Like a cook adding too much spice to cover that the meat is a lower quality.

The Auld Grump

I completely agree. GWs AoS monsters lok great, but i cant stand their infantry models, mostly because their 40k aesthetic has "leaked" into them.

 NTRabbit wrote:

Not completely false at all. Liefeld-esque stormcast, stormcast that can't aim or fire their bows, khorne guys with squarebutts, dracoliths that fail basic anatomy, a tree person riding a beetle that is two clearly different concepts from two different proposals jammed together with no account made for matching up their movement.

Yes... because Dracoliths (A fantasy creature.) are existing animals with a preset anatomy. Seriously.... \
Alarielle riding the beetle ain't two different concepts. It's not like they just tugged two different models and smashed the together.
Your logic is flawed there.

Looking at the comparison images it's quite clear GW is superior. True some GW models have silly ideas behind them but their quality is clearly miles higher than that Egyptian Mantic blob that was shown.

 Manchu wrote:

 Illumini wrote:
Mantic is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better at making rules than GW though

Also file this under "no coincidence" - KoW is written by the same guy who designed GW's best rule set.

There's two parts to having a solid, balanced game: creating the system and having balanced army lists that fit that system. Whilst 80-90% of the KoW2 system is Alessio's work, the balance in the army lists is nothing to do with him (and his two attempts at it with previous releases had glaring issues).

The current GW design asthetic (since somewhere around the End Times era) comes across to me as "overwrought eyesore". Just because you have the technical capability to add more lines to a mold, doesn't make it a good artistic choice to make every miniature look like some poor bastard was dipped in honey and rolled down a hill of gaudy bling.

I don't buy miniatures as technology proofs of concept, I buy what looks good to me. And baby, that ain't modern GW "bad 80's airbrush van art rendered in 3D" miniatures.

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:

Yes... because Dracoliths (A fantasy creature.) are existing animals with a preset anatomy. Seriously.... \
Alarielle riding the beetle ain't two different concepts. It's not like they just tugged two different models and smashed the together.
Your logic is flawed there.

Looking at the comparison images it's quite clear GW is superior. True some GW models have silly ideas behind them but their quality is clearly miles higher than that Egyptian Mantic blob that was shown.

Sorry, but Alarielle riding the beetle geniunely does look like two dfferent models smashed together, and the tell is in all the hanging bits - they're going in different directions on both models, which means they were designed separately and stuck together after completion, or the CAD sculptor failed miserably in synching two sculpts supposedly made at the same time.

And as for the Darcoliths, I know they're fantasy creatures, but even fantasy creature sculpts use real world references for what we expect to see in a type of animal - and the front legs bend the wrong way. No getting around it.

 Psychopomp wrote:
I don't buy miniatures as technology proofs of concept, I buy what looks good to me.

So in other words, like most posters ITT, your primary consideration is entirely subjective. That's perfectly legitimate when the question is deciding which miniatures to buy for oneself. It doesn't mean anything when comparing two companies' lines generally. FWIW, the majority of Mantic's miniatures look pretty rough to me - and I'm not even talking about the real dogs. You want to pick on Wulfen, fine; then explain Mantic's werewolves with a straight face. But look I fully intend to get some of those werewolves - not because I am under any delusion that they are anything close to the product of skill or talent. I want them because they are cheap and perfectly suited to what I will use them for (namely, KoW).

 NTRabbit wrote:

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:

Yes... because Dracoliths (A fantasy creature.) are existing animals with a preset anatomy. Seriously.... \
Alarielle riding the beetle ain't two different concepts. It's not like they just tugged two different models and smashed the together.
Your logic is flawed there.

Looking at the comparison images it's quite clear GW is superior. True some GW models have silly ideas behind them but their quality is clearly miles higher than that Egyptian Mantic blob that was shown.

Sorry, but Alarielle riding the beetle geniunely does look like two dfferent models smashed together, and the tell is in all the hanging bits - they're going in different directions on both models, which means they were designed separately and stuck together after completion, or the CAD sculptor failed miserably in synching two sculpts supposedly made at the same time.

And as for the Darcoliths, I know they're fantasy creatures, but even fantasy creature sculpts use real world references for what we expect to see in a type of animal - and the front legs bend the wrong way. No getting around it.

I had a look at the Alarielle on the GW website to see what you meant, and as far as I could see all the hanging bits hang straight down.

The bits on the bug do, the bits on the whatever Alarielle is flow to the right of camera, or her left.

 Manchu wrote:

 Psychopomp wrote:
I don't buy miniatures as technology proofs of concept, I buy what looks good to me.

So in other words, like most posters ITT, your primary consideration is entirely subjective. That's perfectly legitimate when the question is deciding which miniatures to buy for oneself. It doesn't mean anything when comparing two companies' lines generally.

You do realize that the relative merits of two companies' lines will also be subjective, yes?

I mean, unless you'll really buy a miniature because you really like the cleverness by which the mold process got around the issues of overhang in the details, regardless of what the miniature is. In which case, your prioritization would be subjective as well...and probably pretty rare, to boot. Again, technology proof of concept is a bad retort if someone says a company's aesthetic doesn't work for them. How much crap GW can cram onto a 32mm Space Marine is not an objective standard of miniature quality.

 Psychopomp wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Psychopomp wrote:
I don't buy miniatures as technology proofs of concept, I buy what looks good to me.

So in other words, like most posters ITT, your primary consideration is entirely subjective. That's perfectly legitimate when the question is deciding which miniatures to buy for oneself. It doesn't mean anything when comparing two companies' lines generally.

You do realize that the relative merits of two companies' lines will also be subjective, yes?

I mean, unless you'll really buy a miniature because you really like the cleverness by which the mold process got around the issues of overhang in the details, regardless of what the miniature is. In which case, your prioritization would be subjective as well...and probably pretty rare, to boot. Again, technology proof of concept is a bad retort if someone says a company's aesthetic doesn't work for them. How much crap GW can cram onto a 32mm Space Marine is not an objective standard of miniature quality.

For what it is worth, I once bought a Reaper Miniatures two weapon barbarian because I was amazed as all heck that it had been cast as a single piece. The mold line was a work of ingenuity.



Mind you, I acknowledge that is not a normal reason to buy a mini....

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

For what it is worth, I once bought a Reaper Miniatures two weapon barbarian because I was amazed as all heck that it had been cast as a single piece. The mold line was a work of ingenuity.


Mind you, I acknowledge that is not a normal reason to buy a mini....

The Auld Grump

I often find myself looking at the 'flatness' of a mini as well, so you are not alone.