Are Games Workshop models "the best"?

[Kodos der Henker]

10 hours ago, CommissarRotke said:

are there other HIPS manufacturers? GW seems to be the only one

For manufacturers

There is GW and Renedra in the UK, Italeri on the continent, Wargames Atlantic in the US (moving there from China), Bandai in Japan, and much more in Asia (China, Korea) than I can name here

For models, most of those that sell HIPS don't have their own factory and produce externally

Mantic Games, Warlord Games, Perry Miniatures, Wargames Atlantic, Bandai, Italeri, Rubicon Models, Victrix Unlimited, Shieldwolf Ministures, Gripping Beast, North Star, Great Escape Games, Atomic Mass Games Wyrd Games, and for sure some more I missed here, make their own Wargaming/TableTop HIPS models

Edited September 29, 2021 by Kodos der Henker

[zilberfrid]

They are about the fourth company I look at for new minis.

Some new designs are great and have great detail as well as some customizability (still have an Ironclad in my wishlist(. Many others lack customisability so they have to compete directly to resin and 3d prints.

They are on par for detail with good STL sculptors (and you can get a decent resin printer for the price of Teclis, with good resin for the price of Greatswords).

They absolutely lose on price to those though, and selection is comparatively limited. 30 euros for a 75mm resin model may seem expensive, but that's not much more than GW heroes that are smaller. STLs+resin costs are cheaper and can be scaled to always be compatible to your army.

Older sets are outcompeted entirely by Renedra sets like Warlord's Landsknechts, Oathmark, Frostgrave etc. These provide better sculpts, better detail, haven't grown to ridiculous scales ( which helps compatibility between sets), heads that are not just young caucasian for female sculpts, and are half to a third of the price. I often prefer painting these to painting GW.

If the trend towards less customisability for a higher price continues, I don't see myself buying them anymore, except a starter set or ebay stuff every now and again.

Things I still consider to be worth it:

- Necromunda gangs.

- Some starter sets if you like the models.

- Some infantry with good designs like Skitarii rangers, Kharadron Arkanauts, Tsaangors and Battle Sisters.

- Some Blood Bowl sets like Ogres, Black Orcs and Snotlings.

- Kharadron Ironclad

The problem is that they get less and less compatible with my preferred 25mm grid, and getting these without increasing their size can get awkward.

[SunStorm]

On the whole I'd say yes GW is the gold standard, especially for plastic. For resin it's a bit more complicated. FW have been very hit and miss recently.

Other companies do some amazing resin sculpts that are close to and in some rare cases exceeding FW/GW quality. Ones I've tried and been impressed by recently include: CreatureCaster, ArtelW and Rotten Factory. 

 

I don't have a 3d printer myself, but the couple I've tried buying online that someone else printed off have been pretty poor and so I'd always look to a company, even small, that casts their own rather than prints.

 

 

[zilberfrid]

9 minutes ago, SunStorm said:

On the whole I'd say yes GW is the gold standard, especially for plastic. For resin it's a bit more complicated. FW have been very hit and miss recently.

Other companies do some amazing resin sculpts that are close to and in some rare cases exceeding FW/GW quality. Ones I've tried and been impressed by recently include: CreatureCaster, ArtelW and Rotten Factory. 

 

I don't have a 3d printer myself, but the couple I've tried buying online that someone else printed off have been pretty poor and so I'd always look to a company, even small, that casts their own rather than prints.

Commercial 3d printing has issues with how many you can make in a day.

I can set my printer for max detail and print 10 models in 20 hours, but that's not something which is very viable commercially.

Atlantis also has good looking models, I have their female dwarf unit and love them.

[Planar]

Before getting into the 3D printing rabbit hole my answer to your question was an emphatic YES.

After seeing what truly lies out there created by amazing artists and waiting to be discovered there is not even a question. GW is no longer making the best models.

My only "but" to this debate is when longevity and utility of the models enters the equation. Resin being brittle can pose problems in the long run.

But if we are speaking strictly about sculpt aesthetics, execution, level of detail and artistic value, i.e if we are discussing display pieces, there imho GW is in deep trouble in the years to come.

[Beliman]

2 hours ago, Planar said:

Before getting into the 3D printing rabbit hole my answer to your question was an emphatic YES.

After seeing what truly lies out there created by amazing artists and waiting to be discovered there is not even a question. GW is no longer making the best models.

My only "but" to this debate is when longevity and utility of the models enters the equation. Resin being brittle can pose problems in the long run.

But if we are speaking strictly about sculpt aesthetics, execution, level of detail and artistic value, i.e if we are discussing display pieces, there imho GW is in deep trouble in the years to come.

Not sure if we can compare "sculpting"  to "sculpted miniatures for a tabletop game". Even with scenic bases, they are totally diferent. 

[Scurvydog]

18 hours ago, thundering said:

 

I think this also actually highlights what GW does well, although far less apples to apples. Sure from only a model perspective, anyone entirely not in the know, might point to the right one saying that looks more detailed, and why is the left one standing on a strange brown penny.

The difference here is context, GW has a game and a universe, the left guy IS an arch regent, a mad create spreading his delusion to his subejcts. You can read the book, watch the artwork, for some armies/factions play games, watch animations etc. The guy to the right is "generic proxy vampire guy".

I went down this road myself with a mostly proxy army at one point, but ended up just disliking it in the end. Difficult to get new stuff when I wanted, always having to clear matters with TO's/event coordinators if I wanted to bring that army and at some level a disconnect with the rest of the setting.

The value proposition here is the entire context this model represents, on top of it being a cool model. Honestly in this case I prefer the actual arch regent, the more extreme proportions both catch paint well and also helps it pop more in a game table, which I often find to be a problem with more "realistic" 3rd party models, they quickly just blend together in a gaming situation.

I will be the first to admire anyone showing off their awesome demon prince from creature caster, the regular demon prince for sure does not hold up well anymore, but at the same time it just looks that bit out of place, even if painted to match the rest of the force. 

In the end I can only speak for myself that I have just about stopped my 3rd party days, as I am growing more attached to the AoS lore in addition to collecting an army like a "collector", I want the real deal, even if they are not the prettiest (Seraphon old school reporting in). I would never dream of not allowing anyone else to play with what they wanted and I dislike the "fear" of TO's or "That Guy" refusing to allow play with cool 3rd party armies, just because a GW unit is using bows but that proxy unit got crossbows.

That said I am impressed of what is shown from some companies like Lost Kingdoms when I see how they just about monthly it seems like, release 3d printing files for entirely new forces. I just do not have easy access to anyone or any nearby company with a reasonable price to print this stuff even if I wanted to, and if it comes from the UK forget about it

[Fairbanks]

My measure of “good model” comes down to “Can I use plastic cement, or do I have to use superglue?”

I hate superglue.

[zilberfrid]

1 hour ago, Beliman said:

Not sure if we can compare "sculpting"  to "sculpted miniatures for a tabletop game". Even with scenic bases, they are totally diferent. 

I'd say Kratakros and the Triumph of st Catharine are sculptures that have rules in a tabletop game, instead of miniatures per se. Other things like Glutus and the Lumineth shrine thread the line between sculptures and miniatures.

And I don't mind that. I don't like the general look of Ossiarch, but have thought about purchasing Kratakros as a nice self contained diorama. I ultimately didn't, because making sure I could use the individual models seperately for roleplaying seemed too big of a hassle.

I should spend a bit more time 3d printing, after dialling everything in, I've been impressed with everything my cheap as chips printer gave me and I have some beautiful designs by small creators.

[Scurvydog]

30 minutes ago, Fairbanks said:

My measure of “good model” comes down to “Can I use plastic cement, or do I have to use superglue?”

I hate superglue.

If there ever was a reason for it, despite my general aversion to super glue, resin and so on, I can not fault any Seraphon player when these are the options

 

[Beliman]

32 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

I'd say Kratakros and the Triumph of st Catharine are sculptures that have rules in a tabletop game, instead of miniatures per se. Other things like Glutus and the Lumineth shrine thread the line between sculptures and miniatures.

I get what you are saying but they are tooled to be made in plastic, that makes them really diferent form a sculpture.

[zilberfrid]

5 minutes ago, Beliman said:

I get what you are saying but they are tooled to be made in plastic, that makes them really diferent form a sculpture.

Ah yes, they have a different construction method.

I don't really see how this matters on the table, though admittedly resin models are not as sturdy as plastic models.

[Kodos der Henker]

2 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

though admittedly resin models are not as sturdy as plastic models.

no, models made for gaming are more sturdy than models made for display, material does not matter as plastic can break as easily if it is designed too fragile

[Popisdead]

They have the best plastic range for wargaming (in a retail outlet) which is their aim.

 

And then they also have bullgors, ... sigh...

[zilberfrid]

21 minutes ago, Kodos der Henker said:

no, models made for gaming are more sturdy than models made for display, material does not matter as plastic can break as easily if it is designed too fragile

Material absolutely matters. Compare '90's GW (lighter grey) plastic with their current day plastic. Current designs would bend in their old plastic. Similarely, there are harder or more supple resins that bend or break at different loads.

Now apart from that designs can be sturdy or fragile.

If I would cast the stockiest of dwarves in jello, it wouldn't hold up, but neither would a 0.1 mm bridge trying to hold up 2grammes of miniature even in a very sturdy modern plastic.

[Beliman]

3 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

Ah yes, they have a different construction method.

I don't really see how this matters on the table, though admittedly resin models are not as sturdy as plastic models.

I wasn't talking about that.
I was talking more about the diferent design process that you are going to use based on the final product. Extreme example: a realistic sculpt for a videogame animation is going to be really diferent from a sculpt designed to be tooled and mass-produced for a wargame/company that have a unqiue and clear style.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Beliman

[amysrevenge]

For large-scale production, nobody comes close for me.

For small batch, "artisanal" products, there are places that have individual models or small lines of models that meet or exceed what GW can do. Creature Caster has been mentioned here, I also have several Mierce Mininatures models that are fantastic, and here and there I've picked up some pinterest-based 3D printed models that turned out phenomenally well,

But even then, in terms of the whole experience, GW is hard to match.  By "whole experience" I mean starting from a sprue or bag of parts, through to a tabletop-ready painted model.

• For starters, I am so over washing resin.
• As far as assembly instructions go, nobody I've seen is within light years of GW for clarity.
• As far as ease of assembly, modern GW CAD-sculpted models are industry leading.  This is actually a strike against as far as customizability/conversion goes, but that's almost a different issue.
• The plastic they use is a good substrate for paint - I've had some resins almost seem to repel the type of primer I like to use haha.  Even after a good soapy wash.

Anyway, it's subjective.  The models I buy are mostly GW ones, but I also dip a lot into small-scale alternates.

[Kodos der Henker]

3 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Similarely, there are harder or more supple resins that bend or break at different loads.

if the model breaks because of the load, it is bad design and the designer did not account for the material

same as GW's latest Skelettons break more easily than their older ones (and the grey of the plastic has nothing to do with the material but just how much pigments are used to colour it, PS is a clear plastic)

[zilberfrid]

4 minutes ago, Beliman said:

I wasn't talking about that.
I was talking more about the diferent design process that you are going to use based on the final product. A realistic sculpt for an videogame animation is going to be really diferent from an sculpt designed to  be tooled for a serial production for a wargame/company that have a unqiue and clear style.

Similar stuff exists to be 3d printed. Somethink like this:

Nice and hollow animated armour.

There are creators that have much more lifelike models, but these are absolutely made to become objects in real life.

[zilberfrid]

4 minutes ago, Kodos der Henker said:

if the model breaks because of the load, it is bad design and the designer did not account for the material

same as GW's latest Skelettons break more easily than their older ones (and the grey of the plastic has nothing to do with the material but just how much pigments are used to colour it, PS is a clear plastic)

The colour is merely an indication. Current GW plastic is darker AND better than '90's plastic.

It's also harder than current Renedra of exactly the same colour.

If the model breaks because of the load, the designer didn't account for that load in this material, absolutely correct. But current GW plastics allow for a higher load in the same parts compared to older plastic. This gave designers more freedom, but they also didn't design to the same parameters as the designers of metal dwarves did.

[Mattrulesok]

21 hours ago, Dankboss said:

As an artist myself, I think the appealing thing about GW miniatures, is that they are technically impressive and detailed, while also being manageable from a hobby perspective. There's plenty of models that have overwhelming, impressive detail that GW doesn't do, and in a vacuum makes GW seem like childsplay, but in this context that's not the point. GW is a perfect balance of form and function, which is why I would say they are the best toy soldiers company.

I think this is where i land, most modern plastic GW sculpts are fantastic, they are easy to assemble, easy to kitbash (although that is getting harder) and they have a great slightly cartoony quality that makes them really easy to paint and to read from a distance.  I look at some 3d sculpts and i just can't imagine painting all the obnoxious details in them.

 

The other big problem i have is I often see wonderful 3d sculpts that can proxy as a GW army, but the line will have about 12 sculpts in total meaning you will have to double up on sculpts to build a complete 2k or proxy in other companies miniatures that arent the exact same aesthetic.

[Greybeard86]

6 hours ago, Scurvydog said:

The value proposition here is the entire context this model represents, on top of it being a cool model. Honestly in this case I prefer the actual arch regent, the more extreme proportions both catch paint well and also helps it pop more in a game table, which I often find to be a problem with more "realistic" 3rd party models, they quickly just blend together in a gaming situation.

That is exactly what GW (and many other companies in gaming and other contexts) want. Because by tying us in via the lore, they don't rely so much on model quality and value (those eye watering prices...). Which is a double etched sword: we as consumers want good lore, it makes it more fun! But it is like having a charismatic salesman, the lore, it can uptalk the product. This is objectively bad for the consumer (lowers competition, and so on).

Are there better mass produced fantasy models out there? I am not sure. Are there better models produced by smaller companies (files for printing and so on)? From a technical level, absolutely, no doubt.

 

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, zilberfrid said:

Similar stuff exists to be 3d printed. Somethink like this:

Nice and hollow animated armour.

There are creators that have much more lifelike models, but these are absolutely made to become objects in real life.

But this are far away from a render (see @Planar post).

Take as example something like a 3D sculpt that was made to be printed:

Really nice model, but look at their detail and composition. And compare it's details, design and the whole sculpt to something like (for videogames):

Of course it can be printed. But the point is that it's not designed to be printed (maybe you will lose some of this details, maybe it will fall off, etc...).

And now compare it to something like this (a bit exagerated but still wroks to make my point):

What I'm saying is that the 3D sculps can be over the top, but that doesn't mean that they are suited to be mass produced, 3D printed, or even played.

GW is really far away in tooling (push-fit models that even a 9 years boy can build with the same detail of top sculpt!), and their design is really iconic (even if it has not the same detail as some 3D  sculpts) and have a really good coherence between all their game-line. 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Beliman

[Nos]

Thanks for starting this. I have a lot to say on GW design philosophy.

If you want to make an army, or a big collection of 40+ models, I think they're still the best, yex. Not just in respect to "quality" but also coherency and composition. A few regiments, a hero or two and a centrepiece of some description, I think they do that better than anyone. The more recent diorama sculpts like Katakross or the Triumph of St Katherine are GW at the top of their game. Bottom line is, if you want variety in an army, most other lines just can't touch GW for quantity of choice to quality ratio.

I think the Warcry range and Shadespire are strong ranges, but I would say there are multiple skirmish games which are as good or better.  Some of the Underworlds stuff actually betray the strengths of the armies they belong to, ie that they are armies. The Ironjaws, Idoneth and Ossiarch warbands for example look very peculiar. 

Individual figures, I think GW are comfortably middle of the pack. As someone who primarily paints, my observation is that the best miniature painters tend to favour other manufacturers for single or focussed pieces. There are exceptions of course. But by and large those with the most skill to execute are choosing a different canvas for theit skill and expression than a GW miniature which I think says a lot.

My increasing feel with GW is that their designers do not trust or place enough interest in "line" or silhouette. Yes art is subjective, but undeniably most of the most celebrated, popular or attractive figures in any form of art have a defined and fairly simple shape.

GW do an excellent job of line and dynamism but then they as often as not demolish it under gubbinz and bits. I sometimes think all miniature design at GW requires authorisation by someone with a fetish for bags, purses, pouches and pointless jewellery. I painted this Rockgut the other week which is a gorgeous homage to the original Stone Troll, one of the first minis I ever bought.

Except for that f**king shoulder rock. Yes, I know why its there, there's narrative or whatever. But part of storytelling is economy. Not everything that can be there, should be. GW models are often three paragraphs when a sentence is better. Compare that with this from Knightmare miniatures:

They're both lovely models, it's not a competition. But the above mini demonstrates that the shoulder rock not only adds nothing, but actually subtracts from the sculpt. It draws attention away from the face and pose and anatomy , which are excellent. They are excellent on the Knightmare Troll too, the difference is, the Knightmare sculpt expresses itself without any impediment. There is nothing eise there. I would say the latter Troll is like a sort of Platonic Form. As a concept, it is more self confident, and clear, and as a consequence, despite its proportions seeming more fantastical, closer to seeming "real".

What these two also demonstrate is how much character comes from the head/face. For models concerned with more "realistic" proportions that's much harder to establish in a smaller space than a model not bound by that requirement. The charisma has to come from much more of the overall body. And if you're going to obscure that body in pointless fashion accessories, you're reducing the chance of creating character further. By way of example of how to do "realistic proportions" correctly, I would suggest Black Scorpion:

The weight of clothes, weapons and armour are really apparent here. Note the guy with the sword in the air is visibly affected by its heft. Its stuff like that which sells the illusion of realism. Like.. real stuff. Physics. The character of these as humans is sold through proportion but also through how their context responds to and imposes on their humanity. They look more real than pretty much anything GW have ever done because of artistic choice. Not because of high fidelity brocades or whatever. 

The Dominion set of Kruelboyz are some of the best GW sculpts in an age preciskey because they're uncluttered. They have excellent proportions, a central aesthetic and silhouette- shield, ropey muscles, spikes- and everything is in service to that. Their poses- hunched, bent- add to the overall feel of menace undercut by a very faint pathos.

Which is why I really dislike the little grots and the big monsters and the Underworlds warband- they make sense thematically for the KB, but artistically they're obnoxious and cluttered in opposition to the tensile menace of the gutrippaz and hobgrots. They might look OK next to each other because of the narrative we've been given as to why that is, but they're in fundamental disagreement in respect to how they actually compliment each other visually . The Rockguts on the otherhand, or Rippaz Snarlfangs, look perfectly at home with the Dominion Kruleboyz, because they share similar visual notes. The mirebrute is *supposed* to look like it goes with the Kruelboyz, but it misses all the most important elements that actually make them work and looks like a weird pastiche as a result. The Skareshields work in combination with the otherwise stringy, quite pathetic form of the Kruelboyz. Blowing one up to the size of a car and sticking it on something with the build of a Sumo Wrestler misses the point entirely. 

Basically- GW design serves lore and narrative first. Which is fine, of course. When those two come together, as with much of the Gloomspite range, it's wonderful and original and timeless. Sylvaneth, DOK, Idoneth and Slaanesh  are my personal exemplars of GW producing miniatures which stand on their own but are enhanced by knowledge of their lore. They do elves really well, basically (Slannesh is basically elves on acid). Drukhari, Ad Mech and Genestealer Cult over in 40k.

But elsewhere the bombast of said lore often obscures pure aesthetic in other areas. In which case, a lot of the models feel trapped in their own logic. I find that with most of the Bloodbowl stuff for example.  But the best example is Kragnos. Bad miniature, dumb face, dosent fit anywhere. He's not a good giant, or centaur, or anything really. 

The above are the areas which mainly interest me and on which I gauge my enjoyment with a mini. But as a side note, the notion of quality in terms of I guess detail, fidelity etc- GW are easily beat by a lot of the competition. This awesome hippo dude (edit, just seen the udders! So Hippo Gal, I guess) thing came from a boardgane, but it makes that Troll look like Duplo. And it cost like a quarter of the price.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Nos

[Skreech Verminking]

6 hours ago, Scurvydog said:

If there ever was a reason for it, despite my general aversion to super glue, resin and so on, I can not fault any Seraphon player when these are the options

 

Same thought here.

have you seen the skavenlike miniatures some firms are currently working on?

they are amazing!

(I don’t know if I’m allowed to show any picture or send the website so I’ll just keep my tongue under surveillance)