Are Games Workshop models "the best"?

[zilberfrid]

4 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

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)

From the Altar Quest boardgane, quite hastily painted when I needed it for d&d

[Sartxac]

We are in the beginnings of 3d miniatures. Please do this topic again in 5-10 years and look the miniatures of the greece company: Parabellium Miniatures.

In order of appareance: mega-gargant proxy, mancrushers proxy and grave guard proxyes. The prices in Spain are 30EUR for the mega gargant proxy, 46 EUR for the mancrushers proxy and 24 EUR for 20 grave guard proxy. Otherwhise you can use this miniatures for other tapletops like Saga or Kings of War.

Answering the question of this topic, yes, in my opinion, currently, GW make the best miniatures but I think that the lore is created after the designa of sculption and consists of a little lines of text(in general).

Edited September 30, 2021 by Sartxac

[Greybeard86]

18 hours ago, Scurvydog said:

 

I mean look at this, the scupt above is on par with anything anything GW has ever released for troopers.

Coherence of sizes and styles, like others have said, is a big factor. Then, the lore: it is not some random piece of plastic, it is a saurus knight or whatever. This is a big factor and something that GW did very well, creating an appealing background that gives value to the plastic / resin, beyond what it would be worth otherwise.

And, while not free (writers), it certainly isn't as expensive as the physical side of the business.

I do not begrudge the lore, but I certainly believe that it is being used as both a barrier to competition and (asd a consequence) lower value (older sculpts kept too long, high prices), which isn't good for us.

[RuneBrush]

15 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

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.

As a random aside - after washing, if you give your resin models a coat of clear sealer (I use Plastikote), this cuts through any release agent and also inhibits any hydrophobic properties of the resin itself.  You can then undercoat like normal.

[Marcvs]

2 hours ago, Sartxac said:

We are in the beginnings of 3d miniatures. Please do this topic again in 5-10 years and look the miniatures of the greece company: Parabellium Miniatures.

 

 

Is this the company that makes the Conquest game?

[peasant]

Are the BEST good looking miniatures? Surely not. But they have Great background. You can use those miniatures to play with literally hundreds of ppl around the globe. And gw being honest know how to design kits. So in my opinion they only are bested in aesthetics (subjective) and cost

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

Since the price point of GW kits is one of the main areas of criticism, I think it's worth noting that, while 3d printing is probably cheaper than buying GW in the long run, the barriers to entry between this two options are quite different.

A full 2000 point GW army will be around 500-600 dollarydoos for just the models. From what I understand, you can get a decent resin printer and enough resin to print two armies for around half that. But having a 3d printing setup also requires a computer that can interface with the printer and run 3d modelling software to get the models ready to print, as well as an area to actually set up the printer itself. Not to mention a certain desire to (or at least willingness to put up with) tinker around with computer stuff.

I can honestly say that, even though there are lots of very nice 3d printable sculpts, this barrier to entry is prohibitive to me as someone living in a small apartment with a young child. I can set up a small painting and model building area near a window and that's basically enough to start building commercially available model kits. I definitely could not make room for a 3d printing and curing area. The only computer I have at home currently is a tablet I use as an internet machine. So having to also get a PC or laptop to interface with a 3d printer would probably render the whole endeavour no longer cost effective, either.

I like the options that 3d printing is giving to customers, and I believe it will only become more important to the tabletop hobby as time goes on, but it's not unambiguously better and cheaper than buying commercially available kits at this point.

[Marcvs]

20 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I can honestly say that, even though there are lots of very nice 3d printable sculpts, this barrier to entry is prohibitive to me as someone living in a small apartment with a young child. I can set up a small painting and model building area near a window and that's basically enough to start building commercially available model kits. I definitely could not make room for a 3d printing and curing area. The only computer I have at home currently is a tablet I use as an internet machine.

I very much agree with these obstacles, they are the same which keep me from even considering a 3d printer. However, at least in my area, there's quite a few options on Etsy for small companies which sell 3d printed models having bought commercial licences. You have to buy some samples first to see which one has the quality you look for, but the savings, especially for single foot heroes, are still in the range of 30 to 80% and I just love the variety of models I can pick from.

[Greybeard86]

34 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I like the options that 3d printing is giving to customers, and I believe it will only become more important to the tabletop hobby as time goes on, but it's not unambiguously better and cheaper than buying commercially available kits at this point.

There is something crazy revolutionizing about 3d printing, and I do not believe it is only the ability to mess around with minis at home.

It is the fact that it makes production technologies available to a wider population. Quite frankly, 3d printing is horrifically more costly than GW's mass production systems, it is not in the same galaxy. The fact that you can get 3d printed things for cheaper (even printed by others) is just indicative of the vast margins GW enjoys (much higher than many other industries).

So, I am not sure everyone will have a 3d printer home, but I do believe that printing services will be more prevalent. This is quite certainly already predating on GW sales, as I see people using alternative sculpts and pieces for many of GW's main system. Obviously for things like bretonnia, but it goes beyond that.

GW is attempting to push back on this tightening restrictions around alternative sculpts, but it is a losing battle, IMO. When you can get THIS, why would you buy THIS? And the lore is equally well represented by both models (better by the less derpy one, I'd say).

I welcome this competition. GW has a massive advantage over cotage industries. Lower prices, increase quality, become more consumer friendly. All good things for us.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Greybeard86
English

[Planar]

4 hours ago, Sartxac said:

We are in the beginnings of 3d miniatures. Please do this topic again in 5-10 years and look the miniatures of the greece company: Parabellium Miniatures.

@Sartxac these are amazing! I live in Greece but never heard of "Parabellium Miniatures" before. Will check them out.

[zilberfrid]

1 hour ago, Greybeard86 said:

There is something crazy revolutionizing about 3d printing, and I do not believe it is only the ability to mess around with minis at home.

It is the fact that it makes production technologies available to a wider population. Quite frankly, 3d printing is horrifically more costly than GW's mass production systems, it is not in the same galaxy. The fact that you can get 3d printed things for cheaper (even printed by others) is just indicative of the vast margins GW enjoys (much higher than many other industries).

So, I am not sure everyone will have a 3d printer home, but I do believe that printing services will be more prevalent. This is quite certainly already predating on GW sales, as I see people using alternative sculpts and pieces for many of GW's main system. Obviously for things like bretonnia, but it goes beyond that.

GW is attempting to push back on this tightening restrictions around alternative sculpts, but it is a losing battle, IMO. When you can get THIS, why would you buy THIS? And the lore is equally well represented by both models (better by the less derpy one, I'd say).

I welcome this competition. GW has a massive advantage over cotage industries. Lower prices, increase quality, become more consumer friendly. All good things for us.

Shipping, boxing and storing models is not negligable, and a bottle of resin has the potential to become quite a few different things while a sprue will be that sprue (and then will probably get horribly mangled into something else if it gets to me).

[Sarouan]

21 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Shipping, boxing and storing models is not negligable, and a bottle of resin has the potential to become quite a few different things while a sprue will be that sprue (and then will probably get horribly mangled into something else if it gets to me).

Totally this. I do like the wide variety brought by 3D printing, but saying it's automatically cheaper for the customer who doesn't have the time nor the space to use a 3D printer himself, it's far from being true.

For those investing in one and having both the time and space, yes it's interesting...but really if you print a lot of miniatures. If it's just to print a dozen miniatures from time to time...it's absolutely overkill to invest in a 3D printer just for that.

Also, it's good to remember that if you want details that can indeed rivalize with professionnal miniature producers, it's not with a cheap 3D printer and resin that you will have something worth competing. Quality is still expensive.

We're still far from the huge revolution that will throw down GW's domination, honestly.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Sarouan

[zilberfrid]

9 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

Totally this. I do like the wide variety brought by 3D printing, but saying it's automatically cheaper for the customer who doesn't have the time nor the space to use a 3D printer himself, it's far from being true.

For those investing in one and having both the time and space, yes it's interesting...but really if you print a lot of miniatures. If it's just to print a dozen miniatures from time to time...it's absolutely overkill to invest in a 3D printer just for that.

Also, it's good to remember that if you want details that can indeed rivalize with professionnal miniature producers, it's not with a cheap 3D printer and resin that you will have something worth competing. Quality is still expensive.

We're still far from the huge revolution that will throw down GW's domination, honestly.

A cheap printer can absolutely match injection molded quality. A Photon Mono is enough, and it's a $99 printer. Resin is about $40 for a liter and various bits for cleaning and curing total up to $25. A liter would be about 100 28mm models (technically 200, but allowing a very generous margin for cleaning and dialling in the printer). GW infantry averages about $3 per model (more for new ones, less for the most ancient), so 100 infantry costs about half to 2/3 of what it would cost at GW.

Now you can also print heroes and monsters, where GW's margins are considerably higher. Heroes are about $25 on average, so you'd have recouped your cost after the second build plate (you'd need 7).

I use mine to print a model every now and again, and am perfectly fine with that. Not only are these cheaper than what I would pay in plastic even from a company like Reaper, but things are never out of stock.

[Greybeard86]

38 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Shipping, boxing and storing models is not negligable, and a bottle of resin has the potential to become quite a few different things while a sprue will be that sprue (and then will probably get horribly mangled into something else if it gets to me).

And that's great, but GW churns sprues for much less. An industrial process, despite the costs associated with it, is still far less costly than a 3d printer.

PS -  I do not disagree with the overall sentiment of the post, though.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Greybeard86

[Planar]

1 hour ago, zilberfrid said:

A cheap printer can absolutely match injection molded quality.

This! Seeing is believing.

[Marcvs]

2 hours ago, Sarouan said:

Totally this. I do like the wide variety brought by 3D printing, but saying it's automatically cheaper for the customer who doesn't have the time nor the space to use a 3D printer himself, it's far from being true.

Not automatically, but in some cases very easily so. As I said in a previous post, I don't own a 3d printer (no time, no space, no energy), but I can still go on etsy and buy a cool dwarf hero for 1/7 of the GW price of a warden king or runelord -or 1/3 if you include shipping and you buy only that one miniature. Sure it's the best possible comparison (foot heroes being the most overpriced) but it's a straight saving and immediately accessible to anyone who has a shop available.

troops are a different matter buy you can still buy 30 foot dwarves from oathmark for the price of a 10-dwarf box from GW and be happy

[Lord Krungharr]

Generally speaking from what I've seen GW DOES make the best models available on injected plastic sprues.  But there are soooo many other models for certain units that are made of cast resin or 3D printed resin that beat the ****** out of some of GW's sculpts.

[Sarouan]

7 hours ago, Planar said:

This! Seeing is believing.

Oh I did see. I also saw the small stripes left by the 3D print. A cheap printer is cheap for a good reason.

But I do agree you can have nice centerpieces for a fair price as well ! If you don't care looking too close to it or working a lot.

To me, 3D printing is especially convenient for terrain and unique models. Yeah, making an army is....hmmm...close to GW prices, actually.

I'm totally not trying right now, I swear. 😝

[Sartxac]

On 9/30/2021 at 9:41 AM, Marcvs said:

Is this the company that makes the Conquest game?

Yes. Para Bellum are making good miniatures, specially in infantry and their cheap mega gargant of 50 EUR and same height of the gargants of GW (but a miniature more mono pose)

Edited October 1, 2021 by Sartxac

[Sleboda]

On 9/28/2021 at 9:06 AM, EccentricCircle said:

I think that a lot of the newer sculpts are actually too detailed, and overworked. I kind of prefer a "less is more" approach ...

 ... it also has to work as an enjoyable model kit to build, and as a functional gaming piece. This is the point at which I feel GW are actually lagging behind their rivals, and for me, the drive for artistic excellence is actually hampering the other aspects of the model's intended purpose.

I appreciate the post you've made. I don't agree with all of it, but that's too be expected when talking about art. I did want to comment on this section above that I do agree with.

I've been collecting and painting GW models since about 1985. For me, the "golden era" was filled with lead models (so easy to convert, felt great in the hand, didn't fly off the table when you turn on a fan), blister packs, and monopose single-part models. The Marauder Chaos Dwarfs and their Undead range are still some of my favorite models. Ah, glorious ranks of identical skeletons with scythes! Perfection.

It's undeniable that the quality of the actual sculpts and castings are light years ahead of those times, but I agree with you to an extent that we've entered a bit of form over function era. These are, primarily, gaming pieces. Yes, of course people get them just to build and paint as well. Heck, I myself have numerous models I'll never use in a game. But GW would not be the success they are today if they were just a model company and not also a game maker.

Modern GW models such as Katakros are marvels, but also very much leave the game behind, so to speak. It's just my opinion, but when a gaming model needs sub assemblies just to get the paint in certain places, and when the base is so decorative that you find yourself wondering how it moved all the same bits of scenery up the battlefield as it advanced, I think it's safe to say the model is overdesigned for what its purpose is. Again, my opinion.

This is also true for non-centerpiece kits that you might need 40 of in your army. If I'm painting 40 troopers, I really don't want each one to have 5 pouches, 7 skulls, 14 gems (I'm looking at you, Eldar), and a zillion other fiddly bits, even if they do look awesome. Frankly, if a kit gives me the option to leave some parts of and still look complete and be functional within its rules, I'm leaving them off.

 

Now, to the main topic.

I'm willing to bet that that there are models out there with as much quality, or even more, than GW stuff. I just see comparisons like that as not particularly relevant. Fun to talk about? Sure. Maybe. Just not a "fair" fight to have. GW is limited by what they are. They can't really take a chance on one off cool things. That need to sell a ton of every single thing they make, and, importantly, it almost all has to tie to a set of rules. That's a huge limit compared to a small model maker who can just make the single most coolest awesomest thing ever, and then sell a file or a casting out of his garage with no overhead to speak of and no requirement to make it "fit" into anything. That freedom is huge.

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons games like Underworlds and Warcry (and maybe the new Kill Team) are such great moves for GW. They still do have to sell a boat load of each kit, but the 3-10 models in them can let them experiment with new styles and designs without committing to a full range of similar kits for armies. Think of Molog's mushroom and stalagmite, for example. You don't need to commit to an army of similar designs, so there is much more room for taking risks there.

 

So yeah, I'm saying that there probably are excellent 'others' out there, but I am not sure it's the right question. The "little guy" in any endeavor will always have the ability to one-up the giant on a one off passion project. That doesn't make the little guy's stuff better than the giant's. It makes one thing (or a few) he did better because he had the luxury of having almost no constraints on his creation. The gorilla simply can't shift downward to match him. Think, as a comparison, of the army painter vs. the guy who spends a year painting his golden demon entry. Of course the demon guy will be better, but we wouldn't just outright say he's better at painting than the army guy. The two are not playing the same game, so to speak.

It might be better, in my opinion, to ask if there are any other similar manufacturers doing what GW does, as a whole, better.

[zilberfrid]

@Sleboda you are correct, I don't know of a singular company that does both better centerpieces and better infantry.

But I don't think GW does keeps to a style enough to do this well either.

Look at Freeguild. Good centrepiece in the General on Griffin and some good models in the Greatswords. Now compare the size of Karl Franz with the greatswords. KF is almost as tall as a Stormcast, while Greatswords are some 30mm Guards and Crossbows are more of a contrast, smaller and much cruder.

This holds true for much of the range. Seraphon have things that don't look like the same manufacturer than others, similar with orruks, beastmen, ogors and even Stormcast, which have become much better in Sacrosanct and the new ones.

If GW doesn't keep a size or style for their own factions, you can pick and choose other manufacturers as well.

For infantry, a line like soiaf, Oathmark or Frostgrave far surpasses GW for price per model, while also surpassing older sculpts in quality and giving options for the game they were made for.

For infantry heroes, Frostgrave Wizards 1and 2 beat everything GW makes in options, price per model and diversity, while also keeping the same scale as infantry.

For cavalry, Oathmark, kings of war etc again.

Alternatively, a tool like Desktop Hero 3d lets you pre buy assets you can then build into as many STLs as you want.

For centerpieces, we do need to step out, but that's okay, because many centerpieces of GW's are styled differently as well.

Creature caster, some Kingdom Death, even Reaper, Wizkids can provide this, and the world is yours with STLs.

I don't play Warhammer, so I don't care about compatibility to that system. It's also not what the thread is about. The thread is more about "if you disregard the rules and lore, are GW models the best in the industry?".

Disregarding the price and disregarding 3d printing, I say "sometimes". Necromunda gangs, Admech and some centerpieces are really good.

If I do consider price but not printing, the list mainly consists of a few good infantry sets like Skitarii rangers, Escher gang, Tsaangors, and Arkanauts.

If we keep printing but not price in mind, or if you're doing skirmish size, the same infantry sets stay for their detail, while some of the big stuff is a hassle to print in multiple build plates.

For an price conscious avid printer printing an entire army where purchase and prep of STLs are dwarfed by printing them multiple times, nothing remains.

I prefer working in plastic, so I regularely buy sets, but I also want something special or something hard to get a hold of every now and again, so then I print. I also sometimes print just bodies, and add arms and heads from different sets to it. I did get rid of all my Freeguild infantry, because they suck at being size compatible to lines of humans I like better, and they suck at being size compatible to themselves.

[EntMan]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

and when the base is so decorative that you find yourself wondering how it moved all the same bits of scenery up the battlefield as it advances

This is a great point. As figures for playing the game rather than display models I've always preferred the models with plainer bases.

I used to play back in the late 80s/early 90s and "baseing" was not what me and my buddies did much of. I'm used to plain black bases. I know for many it destroys the emersion, but for me a grass base in a desert or flagstones in woodland are equally jarring and in a way more incongruous than plain black.

I even struggle a bit with my Warden King and it's in his rules that he lugs that massive rock slab round with him.

 

Edited October 2, 2021 by EntMan

[Sleboda]

On 10/2/2021 at 3:36 AM, EntMan said:

I used to play back in the late 80s/early 90s and "baseing" was not what me and my buddies did much of. I'm used to plain black bases. I know for many it destroys the emersion, but for me a grass base in a desert or flagstones in woodland are equally jarring and in a way more incongruous than plain black.

I promise I won't get this thread derailed, but yes, decorative bases on gaming models really do detract from the game play experience, in my opinion. I, too, was playing back in the old days. Bases were (and still would be if I were king) Woodland Scenics fine ballast, goblin green, drybrush bilious green, edge drybrush with a touch of white added to the bilious, rim goblin green, job's done. Bases were/are a tool for holding up and moving models, not actual parts of the models themselves.

In current AoS, I see the same "crime against immersion" with those absolutely insanely distracting 12 inch objective disks. It just feels to me like folks who use them don't really value the creative work that goes into making a table with terrain, placing lovingly painted models on that terrain, and the feelings of their opponents.

That's enough on that, I suppose. Yes, those crazy Katakros-style bases are out of hand. I would really, really, really like GW to design those kits with an optional assembly that has zero base decoration.

 

(Also, get off my lawn, you kids.)

 

 

Edited October 3, 2021 by Sleboda
Typo

[Beliman]

12 hours ago, Sartxac said:

Yes. Para Bellum are making good miniatures, specially in infantry and their cheap mega gargant of 50 EUR and same height of the gargants of GW (but a miniature more mono pose)

Imho, the best feature of Conquest is their rules. Modelwise are a bit meh.

[Neverchosen]

I mean this thread has shown that there is a range of interesting opinions and great insights on the subjective nature of art.

However, Games Workshop objectively put both Giambologna and Michelangelo to shame with this masterpiece:

Edited October 2, 2021 by Neverchosen