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.

 Peregrine wrote:

SKR.HH wrote:
May I ask why? When painted and in the cabinet I actually don't see the material in itself anymore.

Sure you do. Well-cast resin models will always look better than plastic. Plastic will always look better than finecast (not that you'd ever have a successfully built and painted finecast model). The higher costs of superior materials translate to increased costs. And then there's the willingness to produce the model in the first place. If I have a choice of paying more for superior materials vs. not getting the model at all because the profit margin isn't good enough to put it into production then I'll pay it.

The material itself won't make a better model. A better sculpt will make a better model. Crappy design in good material still results in a crappy model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chikout wrote:
Honestly I will pay more for plastic than any other material. Ease of assembly, avoidance of misscasts air bubbles etc and of course ease of conversion makes plastic a far better material for me. I'm not going to buy Leman Russ, but if they recast it in plastic and charged more, I probably would. It would be easy to fix that problematic leg.

Same here...

SKR.HH wrote:
The material itself won't make a better model. A better sculpt will make a better model. Crappy design in good material still results in a crappy model.

It absolutely will make a better model, if you're using its full potential. Resin can give a higher level of detail than plastic (at least with GW's production methods, high-end historical kits get a lot closer to the level of resin) because of how the casting process works. Finecast models will always be trash, no matter how good the original design is, because the material is so terrible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chikout wrote:
Honestly I will pay more for plastic than any other material. Ease of assembly, avoidance of misscasts air bubbles etc and of course ease of conversion makes plastic a far better material for me. I'm not going to buy Leman Russ, but if they recast it in plastic and charged more, I probably would. It would be easy to fix that problematic leg.

IMO the ease of assembly with plastic is incredibly overstated. It's easy if you're a 10 year old tearing parts off the spure and blobbing them together with a whole bucket of glue. If you're trying to clean up mold lines, fill gaps, etc, and get a high-quality finished product you're going to be spending quite a bit of effort on assembly. This is especially true since many GW kits seem to have very loose tolerances, which makes them easier for the 10 year old to "assemble" even if something is misaligned a bit but leaves obvious gaps that have to be filled. And no matter what you do the final level of detail is going to be lacking. Leman Russ in plastic would not look as good as the resin model.

I have so many resin minis where I had to clean and repair because of that *superior* material that I'll gladly take hard plastic instead even though it might have it's limitation in detailing.

SKR.HH wrote:
I have so many resin minis where I had to clean and repair because of that *superior* material that I'll gladly take hard plastic instead even though it might have it's limitation in detailing.

Similarly, I have so many GW plastic kits that I've had to invest way too much time in cleaning up to an acceptable standard. If I'm going to spend a lot of time and effort on fixing flaws either way at least give me the resin model that looks better once it's finished.

I don't know what you had to do but I must remove some mold lines (which is IMO *tons* easier than with resin) and the connection to the sprue (sorry can't remeber the correct translation for "Angussgrat" ). Occasionally a little bit of liquid greenstuff.

All of this I usually have to do with resin as well.

But with latest GW releases I didn't have to

1. fill bubble holes
2. bend any spears, swords, guns into shape
3. fill any mayor gaps (so no need to work with Green Stuff)
4. pin the model to enhance the connection between two parts
5. Clean excessive resin films
6. Clean of release agent.
7. worry about mould slipage <-- this definitely ruined some minis for me as it was so evident that *I* couldn't salvage it...

SKR.HH wrote:
I don't know what you had to do but I must remove some mold lines (which is IMO *tons* easier than with resin) and the connection to the sprue (sorry can't remeber the correct translation for "Angussgrat" ). Occasionally a little bit of liquid greenstuff.

Mold lines everywhere, often in complex detail areas where removing the mold lines cleanly is a huge pain. Large gaps between parts that require green stuffing (liquid or otherwise) and sanding. Warped parts that don't fit properly and only get more warped if you try to put them in hot water. Go try cleaning up the mold lines on the tracks for a Chimera or LRBT and tell me that plastic kits are "easy to assemble". I've had entire FW resin tank kits that took less cleanup work than those tracks.

Those are older kits. Newer GW plastic stuff is second to none and has insane detail. Obviously still not quite as sharp as resin but looking at the new Genestealer Cult models for example, they're truly astounding technically.

These models are how old? Yes, the Landraider and the Rhinos show their age.

But newer kits are way better. I build the complete GSC from the Overkill box and only had to do some greenstuffing on two or three minis. I build the Ork Bomma and my SM guppy flier and didn't need to do any major clean ups at all.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I think most people's metrics are similar we want more reasonable prices so the game starts growing again, and a balanced rule set that's not destroyed by codex power creep.

Current army deals compared to the early 2000's are a joke it's a token move, rules for recent games have all been bad it's actually painful watching people play lost patrol for example.

Until those things are fixed my money goes to their competition.

Isn't Lost Patrol more like the ONLY recent game with bad rules? Silver Tower, Gorechosen, Calth, Execution Force... all have good rules, if limited in some cases.

Nope, Lost Patrol isn't the only one with questionable/bad rules - at least with my experience with Calth and Stormcloud Attack. Calth has issues with the random factor of its card mechanics & its specialist dice mechanics and Stormcloud Attack is quite unfair without a points system for the various vehicles (and the mechanics have some issues as well). Lost Patrol is the hands-down winner though for being unwinnable as the marine player. The other games are playable, but have enough internal issues that their acceptable play value is short-lived. I'd say the rules are "phoned in" - they are clearly designed to sell on the models, and the rules just give you something to do with the box contents.

The number of missions in the Assassin game is ridiculously low. Just compare with old games like heroquest. There, there was the plan of having a game, with a full story.
Not an excuse to sell models.

 Peregrine wrote:

SKR.HH wrote:
I have so many resin minis where I had to clean and repair because of that *superior* material that I'll gladly take hard plastic instead even though it might have it's limitation in detailing.

Similarly, I have so many GW plastic kits that I've had to invest way too much time in cleaning up to an acceptable standard. If I'm going to spend a lot of time and effort on fixing flaws either way at least give me the resin model that looks better once it's finished.

You must be unlucky with the kits you buy. I remember the old school rhino being an absolute nightmare to put together but in the last five years I have not had a single problem with any kit I have bought from Gw beyond the odd moldline. Gaps tend to be hairline and usually well hidden. They sometimes need a tiny dollop of green stuff.

Ultimately though it is down to personal taste. If you feel that the casting quality of resin is more valuable than the preparation problems then thats fine. For me I have stayed away from companies like corvus belli because of how much difficulty I have had with metal in the past.

SKR.HH wrote:
These models are how old? Yes, the Landraider and the Rhinos show their age.

But newer kits are way better. I build the complete GSC from the Overkill box and only had to do some greenstuffing on two or three minis. I build the Ork Bomma and my SM guppy flier and didn't need to do any major clean ups at all.

I have some CSM Raptors I assembled from the dual raptors/warp talons kit released a few years ago. While it's a pretty good kit, some mold lines in there are certainly worthy of concern.

I have also seen some resin chinese knock-offs of that very same kit, the casting quality looked pretty much the same and the mold lines were less severe. Just sayin'.

 -Loki- wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
The wide range of board games that they've brought out have also been nice to see, giving players new ways to get into or enjoy the hobby, and have normally come at fantastic value. Speaking of value, many of the recent releases and box sets (thinking of kill team in particular) have been exceptionally good value for money.

The 'good' value for money of the new sets like Start Collection is still subjective based on considering those prices in the vacuum of GW only. Once you look at what they get you relative to an actual army, and compared to the competition, they're still terribly expensive. Not to mention it's an illusion to new people - once they've started with these cheaper introductory products, the other products are more expensive than ever.

Very true, but I am thinking less of the "Start Collecting" boxes and more of the board games and expansions. I do agree that, depending on the models, the Start Collecting boxes aren't necessarily very good for actually starting to collect but, even so, the Age of Sigmar ones all have a useable army for AoS and you do save money off buying the units individually - when Battalions and the like starting disappearing, I was worried that GW had done with the concept altogether, so I'm glad to see them back in some form, even if they aren't always the best starting point (though the Battalions and Battleforces weren't always either)

As I say, my reference to value is mostly aimed at the expansions. Take Kill Team for example. For £40 you get two squads of models, the rules for the main game and rules for an expansion (plus dice and other stuff if I recall). Now, you could argue that £40 for twenty plastic men and some paper is expensive, compared to cheaper models companies who provide their rules for free, but the sad truth is that GW will never be one of those companies. For GW, the value in this set, compared against buying the models individually, is very high. Certainly an improvement. I don't own the box set (yet), but I understand there's also a lot of guidance for getting started with your models, with Kill Team and with 40K in general included in the Box Set, which lends itself well to what can be viewed as a gateway into the hobby. It hasn't made GW one of the "budget" wargaming companies out there - and I'm afraid that GW is going to be the biggest and most expensive company out there for the foreseeable future, because it can afford to be - but it is a step in the right direction and does show that GW is prepared to offer quality and value, in its own way, from time to time.

 Mymearan wrote:
Those are older kits. Newer GW plastic stuff is second to none and has insane detail. Obviously still not quite as sharp as resin but looking at the new Genestealer Cult models for example, they're truly astounding technically.

it seems you only have only bought GW stuff yet.
regarding hardplastic models, GW has nice designs (regarding monopose models) but technically they are medicore at best

 kodos wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
Those are older kits. Newer GW plastic stuff is second to none and has insane detail. Obviously still not quite as sharp as resin but looking at the new Genestealer Cult models for example, they're truly astounding technically.

it seems you only have only bought GW stuff yet.
regarding hardplastic models, GW has nice designs (regarding monopose models) but technically they are medicore at best

Care to elaborate? Who is better?

SKR.HH wrote:

it seems you only have only bought GW stuff yet.
regarding hardplastic models, GW has nice designs (regarding monopose models) but technically they are medicore at best

Care to elaborate? Who is better?

in 28mm or 1/56 HIPS, Dreamforge Games, Rubicon Models, Perry Miniatures
Ignoring scale, than they have to face Gunpla and similar products.

looking at the new Mantic or Warlord stuff, they are equal to GW with the difference of monopose+more details vs multipose with less
PrivateerPress does not offer many HIPS kits yet, but what they have match GW in quality
and they also get better with every new kit

SKR.HH wrote:


The material itself won't make a better model. A better sculpt will make a better model. Crappy design in good material still results in a crappy model.

That true but each material has a different strong side. Plastic is better for crisp surfaces with hard edges (see: Gunpla, tanks, and so on) while resin is better for more organic stuff. It also allows for more undercuts or even undercuts at all. GW doesn't use slide moulds so they have to work around that problem (see below for examples) or they have to do that with multiple parts which demands more space on the frame (they do that more for single pose models).

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/Space-Marine-Terminator-Squad : Take the 360° view (with the cyclone missile launcher) and look at the inside knee area. It's not crisp at all where the knee bit meets the ribbed area. The detail is a bit loose, and the same goes for the outside of the boots and leg armour. They need the purity seal and on the right leg this metallic connector to make it work.

You can see the same here: https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/Space-Marine-Tactical-Squad-2015 (chose one of the 360° view thingies) The otherwise crisp kneepads become chunky when they meet other areas (instead of being a well defined plate) because they made the mould in a way that doesn't allow for crisp details in that case.

It's a trade-off between number of parts and type of detail and comes with the material. It also often makes GW hair, while being three dimensional, look kinda stiff and one directional (if it's made in one piece). Then there's stuff like cloth with overlapping folds made in one piece. For plastic you end up with these sine wave like stiff robes while resin and metal make natural or exaggerated folds much easier.

With resin or metal you have other problems but these materials can make better details easier to achieve in 28 or 30mm organic (and even inorganic) miniatures.

 kodos wrote:
in 28mm or 1/56 HIPS, Dreamforge Games, Rubicon Models, Perry Miniatures
Ignoring scale, than they have to face Gunpla and similar products.

looking at the new Mantic or Warlord stuff, they are equal to GW with the difference of monopose+more details vs multipose with less
PrivateerPress does not offer many HIPS kits yet, but what they have match GW in quality
and they also get better with every new kit

Having put together stuff from Kingdom Death from Wargames Factory (which does all of Dreamforge's stuff) and Perry's kits from Rendara, no, no they are not close to GW's plastic quality. The meshing of pieces together and use of cuts is far superior to either of those companies. Also, I have had to deal with warpage on WGF's pieces meaning they are not letting pieces cool in the mold long enough. Putting the Kingdom Death pieces together at the same time as the AoS starter pieces, there was no question which kits were better designed. I still love the KD stuff and pick up the new kits, but they are not close to GW.

Rendara's kits are nice, but simplistic. Again not pushing design at all. At the same level that GW was at back in the early 2000's.

Can't comment on PP's new plastics as all I have seen is more of their PVC crap which is earning a massive amount of loathing locally. No one has picked up the new plastics and I don't want to waste money to find out. They had a massive opportunity to make an impact with the new starters and instead stayed with the same old PVC. As far as I'm concerned their figure quality was leapfrogged by WGF with their plastics.

For companies making stuff for the tabletop, GW is still superior from all I have seen.

I think you are forgetting that Dreamforge and kingdom death are small operations so i forgive the occasional slip up the break up of a model kit (although the no building instruction for kingdom death is a no no)

And when you get 20 valkir Dreamforge for 45$ instead of 5 for 50 with GW then i think that is a good price/quality value.

Mario wrote:

SKR.HH wrote:


The material itself won't make a better model. A better sculpt will make a better model. Crappy design in good material still results in a crappy model.

That true but each material has a different strong side. Plastic is better for crisp surfaces with hard edges (see: Gunpla, tanks, and so on) while resin is better for more organic stuff. It also allows for more undercuts or even undercuts at all. GW doesn't use slide moulds so they have to work around that problem (see below for examples) or they have to do that with multiple parts which demands more space on the frame (they do that more for single pose models).


It's a trade-off between number of parts and type of detail and comes with the material. It also often makes GW hair, while being three dimensional, look kinda stiff and one directional (if it's made in one piece). Then there's stuff like cloth with overlapping folds made in one piece. For plastic you end up with these sine wave like stiff robes while resin and metal make natural or exaggerated folds much easier.

With resin or metal you have other problems but these materials can make better details easier to achieve in 28 or 30mm organic (and even inorganic) miniatures.

True. But therefore I'm quite astounded about the possibilities that are currently provided (not only by GW but others as well) in terms of splitting up a mini on a frame and thus allowing for undercuts on the minis itself and avoiding mould lines in that process.

Thinking back to some of the first minis I had they were split halfways through the body (either horizontally or vertically) and they truly had limitations in their design (and resulted in very bad mould lines as well).

Considering the other things you pointed out I'm not sure whether this is eventually a consequence (or limitation) of the product or a deliberate design decision. For example looking at my GSC I clearly see that the bottom of the robes are not modelled in detail... because you usually can't see them. Fro the layout on the sprues I assume that would have been possible to do some modelling there.

I assume that GW features are often exaggerated by design (like in your example with the knee pads)... which helps average painters like me. And then we are back to aesthetics...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:


And when you get 20 valkir Dreamforge for 45$ instead of 5 for 50 with GW then i think that is a good price/quality value.

And we're back to square one because the inherent value is very subjective (--> you could offer me Mantic Basileans for a nickle and a dime and I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole... but that's a different story). That's why I wanted to concentrate on the technical aspects...

Technical aspects come in second to the initial judgement of aesthetic design. I very much dislike how GW's use of CAD sculpting is focused more on "how much crap can we layer on one guy?" instead of producing elegant sculpts. I don't care how well-made a plastic sprue is, if the models produced are overwrought eyesores like the Age of Sigmar stuff.

There are some exquisitely precise machine-tooled lugnuts out there too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to build an army out of them.

As far as the question in the title goes, yes, I can agree that GW is getting better...but that is an entirely comparative term. From the perspective of playing multiple non-GW wargames these days, GW is still a dumpster fire...but at least the flames are burning lower these days, I guess.

 Psychopomp wrote:

Technical aspects come in second to the initial judgement of aesthetic design. I very much dislike how GW's use of CAD sculpting is focused more on "how much crap can we layer on one guy?" instead of producing elegant sculpts. I don't care how well-made a plastic sprue is, if the models produced are overwrought eyesores like the Age of Sigmar stuff.

There are some exquisitely precise machine-tooled lugnuts out there too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to build an army out of them.

As far as the question in the title goes, yes, I can agree that GW is getting better...but that is an entirely comparative term. From the perspective of playing multiple non-GW wargames these days, GW is still a dumpster fire...but at least the flames are burning lower these days, I guess.

Don't get me wrong. The technical aspect don't come first for me as well. I buy minis I like. But if these are terrible to assemble then I certainly won't buy more. Because my hobby time is in fact limited. Best example (and already pointed out) are the AoW dwarfs. Because they have been such a pain to assemble I didn't buy any other (plastic) kits from AoW anymore.

What I take from this thread is that there are obviously many factors which attribute to the original question and we all seem to have a different weighing of them...

Note to myself: I got to look for a Gundam model (I like) because I would like to check those out based on the Feedback here.

I am happier with the WD content, now.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
I think you are forgetting that Dreamforge and kingdom death are small operations so i forgive the occasional slip up the break up of a model kit (although the no building instruction for kingdom death is a no no)

Not really joining the discussion on this as I think it all ends up being subjective when it comes to material, but I tend to take the opposite approach. Smaller companies, one in which I am employed in, have the ability to put extra attention and effort into each order/piece/widget which is an advantage, whereas a larger operation like GW has a larger capacity for production but economies of scale is a double-edged sword and production issues can slip through the cracks much more easily. Just my experience, take it with a grain of your preferred spice.

 kodos wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
Those are older kits. Newer GW plastic stuff is second to none and has insane detail. Obviously still not quite as sharp as resin but looking at the new Genestealer Cult models for example, they're truly astounding technically.

it seems you only have only bought GW stuff yet.
regarding hardplastic models, GW has nice designs (regarding monopose models) but technically they are medicore at best

I have and have seen plenty of other stuff. Show me better multi-layered and complex pose design that is better cut on a sprue to hide join lines and mould lines, maximise use of sprue space, allowing undercuts, and still being sturdy and easy to assemble, than recent GW kits.

Dreamforge Dames Leviathan > GW knight, Eisenkern Valkir > Space Marines
Malifaux Models or Gundams too

 kodos wrote:
Dreamforge Dames Leviathan > GW knight, Eisenkern Valkir > Space Marines
Malifaux Models or Gundams too

By what measure? the Eisenkern Valkir are certainly cheaper, but I prefer the look of Space Marines. By 3x, at least.

 kronk wrote:
I am happier with the WD content, now.

Oh God yeah, how did I forget to mention this. Weekly WD and Warhammer Visions were both crap. I'm so glad it's back to the monthly version now, and, although it has - sadly - been a while, I think the content is even better than ever. Let's hope they keep it up.

 kronk wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Dreamforge Dames Leviathan > GW knight, Eisenkern Valkir > Space Marines
Malifaux Models or Gundams too

By what measure? the Eisenkern Valkir are certainly cheaper, but I prefer the look of Space Marines. By 3x, at least.

the simple technical measure that were asked by Mymearan.
that you don't like the look does not matter in that case

 kodos wrote:
Dreamforge Dames Leviathan > GW knight, Eisenkern Valkir > Space Marines
Malifaux Models or Gundams too

So do those models do ALL the stuff I listed, and better than GW? You just listed some names but no reason why they're better. And you cherry-picked two specific GW kits that also happen to be a couple of years old...