Are Games Workshop models "the best"?

[EccentricCircle]

So this has been being discussed on and off in other threads, and I think it deserves its own topic. (Especially as its currently being chatted about in the NDA thread, and I can't really be bothered to keep reading that one at this point!)

So, obviously this has the potential to be a slightly controversial topic, where people are going to have radically different opinions. I'm about to argue that this is really, really subjective... so basically everyone should try to think before they type when replying. You can love GW to bits and still dislike their artistic direction, or hate their guts but acknowledge that they make nice toys. So this doesn't need to become an argument.

So it is often said that Games Workshop make the best toy soldiers around. Generally this is said by GW, but a lot of people seem to believe it, and it has more than a little basis in fact. Others have been asking "so who else is as good" and a lot of the responses can point to other companies which do a better job than games workshop in one or two areas, but maybe not all of them at once?

The current batch of warhammer models are really impressive, both on an artistic level, and a technical one. They have a lot of very small, crisp detail which just wouldn't have been possible even a few years ago. The poses are more dynamic than ever before, and the shift to digital sculpting has clearly allowed them to push the medium. However, there are numerous independent (or just smaller) sculptors who are doing equally impressive things (artistically speaking) as part of stl download packages and other computer aided design projects.

I'm not a 3d printing expert, so I don't know whether even the best, most detailed STL can actually match what GW can do with injection moulded models when printed on a home set up. I'd be interested to hear someone's thoughts. In a digital space though, a lot of that stuff is stunning, and shows a level of creativity and risk taking which GW maybe doesn't always match.

Art is massively subjective, though. One person's best thing ever is going to be another's garbage. I'm pretty sure I'm on record here as saying that while I appreciate what GW are doing with their art, its not always to my taste. I think that a lot of the newer sculpts are actually too detailed, and overworked. I kind of prefer a "less is more" approach, and like the classic themes better than some of GW's Newer, more experimental ranges. That doesn't mean that they are bad though, just not my kind of thing.

However, a toy soldier isn't just a sculpture. It has to stand up as a piece of art, especially when it serves as a basis for painting competitions, hobby projects and the most creative of conversions. However, 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 have models which are so thin and spindly that i've broken them while trying to build and paint them. The end result is a great display piece, but not something I would want to put on the table and game with. A lot of people on here complain about transporting and storing their models, so clearly this isn't just me being curmudgeonly. Its a downside to the dynamic models which a lot of us struggle with.

They are also increasingly complex to build and paint. The instructions are often challenging to follow. Often the models are impossible to paint well except in sub assembly, and at the end of it you have a basic monopose model which could have been cast in three pieces if they'd wanted to, instead of ten. Newer kits lack a lot of the customisability and interchangeability of their predecessors, and while that makes them nicer models to look at, it detracts from the fun of building them, at least for me. This is also going to be very subjective. I'm sure some folks really love their models to be a really complicated 3d jigsaw puzzle, and if so then that's great. I find it frustrating though.

Then we come to painting. The quality of GW's art is generally seen as being a fixed value. We all look at the box art, and the golden demon winners and judge a model by that standard, even if we could never match that standard ourselves. However, warhammer models aren't just for golden demon winners, they are supposed to be built and painted by everyone who wants to participate in the hobby from little kids on up. I'd wager that the majority of people who paint a given sculpt never come close to being able to make it look like the box art, and adding ever more fiddly details just moves the goal posts further away, and makes trying to improve one's skill level frustrating.

I know this is personal and anecdotal, but I've spent months banging my head against a wall trying to paint some of the new warcry models. They are sculpts which I love, and when I bought them I thought they were some of the best GW had made. However, I've really soured on them, as I've realised that I have no hope of making them look as good as I'd like them to (at least without another ten years of practice and skill development I guess). The other week I needed to paint up some old 90s metal goblins, and a crew of Reaper minis for Stargrave. I expected them to take forever, just like the warcry figs, but actually shot through them and realised that I was enjoying painting for the first time in months. I hadn't previously realised just how much I hadn't been enjoying the process before.

I think I'll be sticking with reaper and osprey models for a while, and reminding myself why I like this hobby before I try to go back to the Games Workshop figures.

So what do you think? What criteria are most important when you assess the quality of a model? Is it all about the art in its "purest" form painted by professionals? Is accessibility and usability an important factor too?

Do you love hyper-detailed models?

No one is right or wrong, but by discussing this, we can find out what the zeitgeist is in our bit of the hobby and maybe re-examine what we like and don't like about these models!

 

[GrogTheGrognard]

For me what is most important about the model depends on what the purpose/background of the model is.

 

For example if we are talking about a dwarven battleline unit I want my dwarfs to be almost uniform in their looks with minor variants for the champion, standard bearer, and musician. My thoughts are that these dwarves are in a unit working together and dwarves would be almost lockstep in their uniformity so they should look solid, little to no difference between the models, and be able to rank together easily without fighting the models into place. In that case I'm not looking for a hyper-detailed model for each because that would be time consuming and somewhat counter intuitive for what I want those dwarves to be. A solid wall of dwarven steel ready to fight. That's why for battleline units I prefer Oathmark units (dwarven heavy infantry are amazing for this) if possible because they have reasonably detailed models that can be made to look very much the same.

 

On the other hand if we're talking about a standalone model like a Lord of Change I want that model to be hyper-detailed because that model is supposed to stand out from the chaff that surrounds it and be a centerpiece of the army. As such I prefer a company like Creature Caster for their beautiful sculpts that while as expensive as the same GW models offer a new look and have such amazing detail in resin that I can't recommend them highly enough (The Queen of Malifica is a model that literally got me into play DoT). Such a model needs to be able to command attention while looking at it in my opinion because that's what such a creature would do on the battlefield. You don't ignore a Lady of Change when she's coming up to unleash magical destruction upon you. You sit up and take notice of the doom that approaches (even if sometimes the dice make her more of a bottle rocket than a massive explosion).

 

Now when it comes to painting I switch between modes. Sometimes I just want to sit back and start slapping on some paint which is when I try to focus more on my battleline units because I don't feel bad if they turn out less than perfect because having 20 dwarfs next to one another makes it difficult to pick out flaws small or large. This is usually when I'm more painting as a side activity and talking with my mates around the wargaming table and let's me do some work while also enjoying their company. Other times I'm trying to be a perfectionist which is when I focus on those centerpiece models to get them juuuust right and even if I don't make it as good as I'd like I'm content that I put in some effort and they look decent.

 

That all being said I do agree that GW has gone a bit overboard with the gubbins, gizmos, and dynamic poses every character seems to have now. Sometimes I prefer the less is more approach especially with foot heroes and battleline. If everybody has these crazy experimental looks I feel it lessens the majesty and mystery that more centerpiece models should have. If every chaos warlord looks as freakishly awesome as Archaon it lessens Archaon's impact to me. To quote The Incredibles "If everyone is Super then no-one will be." You need the basic to make the elite stand out.

Edited September 28, 2021 by GrogTheGrognard

[Sarouan]

37 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:

So what do you think? What criteria are most important when you assess the quality of a model? Is it all about the art in its "purest" form painted by professionals? Is accessibility and usability an important factor too?

Since we're talking about miniatures, I believe one of the factors being actually important is the material used to make the miniature.

Reason why I keep sticking with GW's miniatures is because of their plastic kits. Even though they changed through the years, their material is still very enjoyable to build and tinker with to make conversions. Easy to cut, easy to glue, flexible enough to bend and not break instantly (well...if it's not too thin), durable to survive a fall and also easy to cover with paints.

Sure, some 3D renders look awesome, but the main gripe with 3D printing is that it varies wildly with the resin used. And when you use something that has the same properties than GW's plastic...it's quickly becoming expensive.

[Skreech Verminking]

Fames workshop can truly bring out some of the best miniatures, yet with many of the old ranges not having seen an update in years, (see 51% of the skaven range, and more)

tgere have been many newer u

coming firms, able to print miniatures, either in a better shape or just as equally good as some of the newer gw models, for a less money.

So depending what route gw is tempting to go, I could see them to either gain more players or loose a good amount of them.

 

[Gaz Taylor]

I do think GW make the best models in the world and that’s for the following reasons…

1) They generally look amazing (subjective I know).

2) They are amazing to assemble when looking at their plastic kits (which is most of their models).

There are some amazing stuff from other manufactures and what you can do with 3D printing is amazing as well, but it’s not quite at the same level as the GW stuff. They aren’t far off, which I think is great because it means GW need to keep upping their game. I’ve assembled models from when GW first started and I’ve assembled kits from other manufacturers (shudder at Privateer Press).

Just a note - I really do think 3D printing is amazing and if I had the time I would be looking at it (I would have so many Warmaster or Epic armies!!!). But it’s not going to effect GW too much at the moment because of the expense and time you need to invest in it. Bit like comparing a brewery to somebody who brews their own beer.

[RuneBrush]

Think this could be a really interesting topic.  Like you say, art is pretty subjective so it's always interesting to see what miniatures make other people excited and why!

The appeal of GW miniatures for me is multifold in truth.  A big portion of the reason I stick to Citadel is I know what I'm going to get - I understand how the plastic behaves, what I need to do in order to hide joins, tidy mold lines and so on.  I've quite often found when I've gone to other manufacturers, there's part of me that's been disappointed in some way - the sculpt isn't quite as crisp as I'd like, the model looks amazing but is fragile and in some cases the plastic is that weird soft rubbery stuff that you can't sand/file.

From the perspective of "world best", it varies.  I don't think you can beat some third party manufacturers for one off pieces like busts.  The quality is superb and often need very little effort to tidy up - they are expensive though, you can happily sink £30~40 for a 55mm Scale75 bust.  For a coherent plastic army, I do think GW constantly performs at the front of the pack.  There's a lot of cross over between painters and sculptors that other manufactures don't have, which means models are enjoyable to paint as well as looking good.  Now I do feel that other manufacturers are starting to catch up, but they're not there for things like ease of assembly and army wide aesthetics.  

Ask me again in 5 years on the 3d printing question.  Although there's some stunning sculpts being created and printers are constantly improving, I think there is also a huge amount of dross out there.  I'm also not sure that the quality is quite there at the scale we want either.

[Orbei]

GW's newer sculpts are largely very good. I just recently started IDK and the plastic sprues were a joy to put together. They have become very innovative in the way they model things dynamically, such as with Kroak, Eltharion, and the Eidolon with his massive water cape. All of these models are gorgeous and look like scenes from a picture come to life. I really love them.

With that said, I think it's sort of shameful and sad that these amazing new models are being sold beside (and for the same price) as some of the old ones. My favorite two old fantasy factions are lizardmen and skaven, and I considered then when getting into AoS. Looking at the skinks and saurus they sell for Seraphon... Wow. Atrocious by today's standards and completely out of place on the table next to the updated models. It's embarrassing when you compare them to equivalents offered by One Page Rules or Lost Kingdom. I was sorely tempted to start a Seraphon army with the modern GW kits supplemented by 3rs parties, but then I can't play them at a GW store. I already have that problem with my Eldar, since GW refuses to update the line.

I am puzzled at how some of these tiny companies are able to release entire factions each month that look incredible and on par with GW standards, yet GW has kept from updating many kits for decades. If everything they sold was up to their current standards perhaps they could be in the running for "best models".

Now, are GW's current models the best? That's hard to say. I like plastic much more than resin or metal, which I see as a massive competitive advantage. I think there are more attractive 'proxy' versions of many if their modern sculpts available from 3rd parties. Creature caster greater demons are a good example. The GW ones look fairly derpy by comparison IMHO. GW's other big edge is the scope of their ranges. Maybe their individual sculpts aren't the best but you'd need to point at different competitors for attractive alternatives in each range.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

I don't think the fact that GW models are generally high quality needs defense. We can all see that their models look good. They are in many way still the industry leader for 28mm minis, I would say. It definitely seems to me that in the fantasy miniature space, at that scale, they produce some of the best quality models and have very recognizable art direction (I won't speak about sci-fi, because I am not that invested in that). The fact that all their new stuff is fully plastic is also huge plus.

There are several areas where GW stuff is not "the best", though. Their newer kits all look pretty great and you will be hard pressed to find comparable quality from other companies. But the same is not true for older kits, such as the empire, dwarf and elf ranges. Many of those models still have that old school, pre digital sculpting look that other companies can easily do, too, and likely cheaper.

In general, cost is one of the big drawbacks of GW stuff. Their prices are really pretty outrageous for what you get. This is the most apparent when you compare GW tank kits with scale model tanks. This is one space where GW stuff is actually pretty bad. Their tanks don't have as good detail as scale models and are usually way more expensive.

It's also worth noting that GW has definitely not always been the industry leader in quality throughout it's history. I remember a time roughtly around 2008 or so where I would usually be looking at models from other companies first before GW (Rackham Confrontation models, for example), at least for single character models.

 

I think I would be buying fewer GW kits if I experienced the gripes other people have with them more strongly. I personally don't mind monopose models in most cases, because most of my old, non-monopose models actually have really awkward and silly poses looking back. I don't mind weird digitally-assisted sprue layouts, because I only have to build a model once and then never think about that again. I also don't particularly find that I need to paint in sub-assemblies to get good results, other than painting the occasional horse and rider separately or leaving a shield off. I am not saying those are not real drawbacks of GW's current offerings, but they don't get into the way of my enjoyment very much, personally.

 

[yukishiro1]

They're not the best, they're the most consistent, reliable, "know what you are getting" manufacturer that produces a complete line. They (mostly) all fit with one another, they're scaled similarly, the level of quality is roughly equal in the modern era, etc. You know you're going to get a coherent army.

There are plenty of other sculptors out there who produce individual models on a par or better than GW's. But none of them produce whole coherent ranges on a par or better than GW. This is GW's big strength - they have their own complete ecosystem of models. It's an easy one-stop shop where you know that pretty much everything you'll get will fit with everything else and it'll all be an 8/10 or better. You can find 9/10 or 10/10 stuff elsewhere that compares favorably to individual products in the GW shop, but you won't find another shop full of 9/10 and 10/10 equivalents to each thing that's in the GW shop, so most people aren't going to consider it a good use of their time to go elsewhere. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by yukishiro1

[thundering]

Recognizing that there's no truly objective way to evaluate subjective tastes, I will state that it is my opinion that GW miniatures are far from the best. In an effort to lean into branding and IP protection, GW miniatures are very pigeonholed in their designs. Whereas a company like Reaper puts out miniatures that could fulfill a variety of uses (D&D, Wargaming, general hobbying, etc), GW miniatures are strictly for AoS/40k. The kits haven't been customizable for almost a decade at this point. If you were to compare Free Company Militia to a modern GW release they'd appear to be from a completely different organization both in terms of aesthetics and overall function/design belief. 

When I look at a miniature studio I can't help but look through the lens of what the underlying value prop is, and below I've just sort of rattled off a few along with my cursory thoughts.

For a company like Reaper, the value prop of their Bones line is very clear: Cheap, no assembly (or very little assembly) and durable. Which necessitates sacrificing fidelity/sculpt quality. 

For a company like North Star, the value prop is: Cheap, highly customizable, with a wide variety of options that can be used in skirmish games as well as full-scale wargaming. They're also hard-plastic and can be kit-bashed with other companies also using hard-plasitc. The trade-off is again you're not getting high fidelity in the sculpts, and if you were to use them for individual characters, they probably won't compete with other studio's offerings.

For a company like Raging Heroes, the value prop is: Expensive, extremely detailed/intricate designs, and sculpts that can be used across a wide range of tabletop activities (D&D, wargaming characters, etc). The trade-off is you're not getting customization, and you're not getting plastic sculpts. You're dealing with resin, or metal, which for many is a deal-breaker.

When I look at GW, I see miniatures that are: Expensive, not particularly customizable, not particularly flexible in their usage, not particularly convenient to assemble. There's almost an absence of "value" in what GW brings to the table from a miniatures perspective. The reality is that the price of an AoS or 40k army at retail price from GW is going to fall somewhere north of $500 USD, and now you're competing with very different types of entertainment valuations or hobby valuations. For $500, you can get anything from an Xbox or Playstation to a high-resolution resin 3d printer. 

On the subject of creativity and pushing the envelope, I believe that the truly talented up-and-coming sculptors are the ones in the 3dprinting space, which is undergoing a renaissance at the moment. The quality, detail, and look of the sculpts coming out of these independent studios is unbelievable. When I see studios like Archvillain Games putting out monthly releases that continue to push the boundaries of miniature design, I have an impossible time looking at GW's releases, and price points. The cost in electricity and resin to produce a high-resolution 32mm or 40mm model is pennies on the dollar versus Games Workshop, and even factoring in the upfront costs, I believe that buying a 3dprinter and the supporting materials (resin, mixing cups, etc) is substantially cheaper than buying an AoS or 40k army.

To close off, I've attached a picture of the GW Abhorrent Archregent next to the upcoming Archvillain Games vampire release to show a sort of apples-to-apples comparison of "the best" as I perceive it.

[Timf]

GW models are generally top notch, and the latest models are technically very impressive. They are generally very well engineered. Because of their popularity GW models tend to be seen as the 'default standard' which I think is hard on smaller, newer manufacturers. I recently put together some Conquest minis, and while they were good, the building experience was inferior compared to that of Gw's, what with the engineering and clear instructions they generally offer.

I have the Song of Ice and Fire starter set, and I think those single piece minis are excellent.

I don't like GW's trend in making minis taller, bigger, thinner and easier to break. So I won't be going down the Lumineth route.

The 3d printing STLs I've seen are far inferior to GWs level of detail, but that is a medium that's constantly developing and improving.

[NinthMusketeer]

Obviously there are specific models that can be better or worse, but as a general rule of thumb? Yeah, GW makes the best minis. Aesthetics can be debated, price is a thing, models have varying levels of age, but it all comes down to one word:

Plastic.

The archregent example above is a great demonstrator for this; the thickness of the wings is something resin cannot overcome. Resin weighs more and can snap, thin details we (justifiably) complain about on GW models aren't even possible in the first place. It's a harder material to work with for converting, and the properties of any given resin can be radically different from company to company. Plastic has a practicality that resin is currently unable to match.

[angrycontra]

While Gw (like any other miniature maker out there) has its ugly models, overall I think Gw is unmatched. Often times I see someone linking some super high detailed 3d print / resin model to show how gw is bad in comparison but more often than not I have opposite reaction to it. Out of all the miniature makers I've seen, Gw has the best overall style for their models. Sure they have some awful ones here and there and I still think stormcast would look 100 times better if they looked more like dark souls knights than the weird golden golems they currently are, but when I look all the various tit demons people have made as keeper of secrets stand ins, the Gw keeper is unmatched in its elegance and style (and all of this without the usual "slaanesh likes sex"-stuff) and no amount of extra pointless wrinkles, gems or other useless details are going to change that. There are some great 3d print stuff out there though, some of which can challenge GW but I think overall consistency of quality is something GW has. Ultimately though, it is unfair comparison. Gw is gargantuan company, other model companies out there deal with peanuts compared to GW and GW can put as much money as they want to make the products look as good as possible. Not to mention, GW has huge catalogue of models. Sure if we were to take every model GW has in its stores, rate it and compare the average quality of model to some smaller company, that smaller company could win the comparison, but that is only because of the old and/or ugly models that GW has dragging its score down. And even more ultimately, this is all just my opinion. Some people like having super high detailed models that have realistic arms, legs and other body proportions (not to mention tit demons) while others (such as myself) prefer simpler but more stylish, efficient and IMO more fun to paint models that GW often does.

[Higolx]

I think its also important to talk what the minatures represent as much as what the miniatures are made of or how they are made.

A lot of people (myself included) like GW minis because of the warhammer background. We like the lore, we like the factions, we like interacting with it.

Sure if you like mini painting and dont mind it not being warhammer you might find better things elsewhere BUT if you like warhammer GW is the place to go. Sure you might get more detailed minis that are more generic so they fit into other things like d&d etc but that can also be a weak point too. If you like warhammer miniatures because they are from warhammer a better but more generic/not warhammer mini might not interest you

[Kodos der Henker]

GW makes the best HIPS models out there, their Resin models are ok at best as well as their Metal models
A problem here is that the competitors are not far behind in HIPS, so models released by GW 6 years ago are behind those released up to 3 years ago from competitors

hence the old Empire models are pretty dated by now and other companies have better quality in similar style by now, which is a problem for factions that have some older models as essentials in their line, as those models are not the best HIPS models out there but still very expensive

Design is a tricky thing as a lot depends on personal taste but there are some problems in the GW lineup for years now
as they switched to digital sculpting, we see a lot of similar poses, Monster models from the same timeframe have the very same basic pose just with different details (going so far that the 40k Imperial Knight and the new Sylvaneth Treeman had the same leg pose, or that everyone comes with a tactical rock)
also some of the basic body forms are wrong, wich make them look wired but without let them look as fantasy/aliens either and only gets clear of looking at similar models from others (or why some renders from other artists look that much better)

another point is that GW walked away from gaming miniatures to display models, the mono-pose stuff looks fine as ling as there are not many of the same unit on the table, like if you by each unit only once, it looks awesome. But an army to play usually does not have that and looks boring very fast
as most others make the HIPS models for gaming, not for display there they use Resin there is a different target audience

one problem though is the material, things made in HIPS need to be different sculpted than for Resin than for Metal than for 3D printed Resin than for PLA
this is specially tricky on some of the renders as not all models work with everything and there can be a very good sculpt but if the designer never printed them on his own and can give advice on which printer and what settings to use, pure luck if it works the first time

 

Yes, the newest models are the best HIPS models on the market, but not all of them age well and the competition is not far behind (specially with some products being 10-20 years old), so as longs as GW has no new fantasy humans made, others are better
as soon as another material is an option, it gets tricky

and than there is the pricing, with others making 1€/model HIPS boxes that are on similar quality level or offer something GW does not, even if GW is a little bit better their price point is much higher

Edited September 28, 2021 by Kodos der Henker

[Dankboss]

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.

[thundering]

2 hours ago, Timf said:

The 3d printing STLs I've seen are far inferior to GWs level of detail, but that is a medium that's constantly developing and improving.

I definitely disagree with this. I think the 3d-printing studios turn out sculpts/products that exceed GW in almost every way save for the medium being resin rather than hard plastic. Although at least in that sense you're getting a substantial price reduction in exchange for the material change. 

[CommissarRotke]

great thread idea! I've been feeling bad about not painting lately because a lot of the Stormcast range is overly detailed & feels like it requires a level of painting skill I don't have--especially with the Sacrosanct chamber (which I started with) and even for the new Thunderstrike kits too. I find myself wishing certain small bits/details were not included on the model or were separate pieces you could choose to leave out (looking @ you random sword covering the Imperatant's armor). I know they won't be as hard to paint as my anxiety is telling me, but models becoming more detailed 100% is what gives me that painting anxiety.

edit: I don't mind monopose-y models as much now, especially looking at some of the awkward arms my old Guardsmen have! 

are there other HIPS manufacturers? GW seems to be the only one, maybe Privateer Press but they have more metal than anything. I do think GW is the most consistent, and even if other companies/3D printing have kits that rival GW, the plastic really shines above resin and metal in terms of both assembly and painting.

Edited September 28, 2021 by CommissarRotke

[GrogTheGrognard]

7 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

great thread idea! I've been feeling bad about not painting lately because a lot of the Stormcast range is overly detailed & feels like it requires a level of painting skill I don't have--especially with the Sacrosanct chamber (which I started with) and even for the new Thunderstrike kits too. I find myself wishing certain small bits/details were not included on the model or were separate pieces you could choose to leave out (looking @ you random sword covering the Imperatant's armor). I know they won't be as hard to paint as my anxiety is telling me, but models becoming more detailed 100% is what gives me that painting anxiety.

edit: I don't mind monopose-y models as much now, especially looking at some of the awkward arms my old Guardsmen have! 

are there other HIPS manufacturers? GW seems to be the only one, maybe Privateer Press but they have more metal than anything. I do think GW is the most consistent, and even if other companies/3D printing have kits that rival GW, the plastic really shines above resin and metal in terms of both assembly and painting.

Northstar Military Figures has a wide range of models from many different lines. Some are metal, resin, or plastic. I haven't gone through them all, but the Oathmark ones at least have some hard plastic options like the dwarven heavy infantry I mentioned before. Wargames Atlantic is also one I've heard about but they seem much more limited in what hard plastic options they have and aren't as good as GW miniatures, but are significantly cheaper. You can get a box of 30 guys for around £26. Which is pretty nice especially if you want test models to try out paint schemes on without feeling like you need to be perfect.

[Sarouan]

Hm. This chat about difference in prices makes me think about my own criteria. I'd be lying it has no influence on me, but it's not a major factor as well IMHO. For example, I'm looking at some 3D printed Lost Kingdom Miniatures in a very detailed "durable but flexible" resin from a professionnal that is 50 € for 20 infantry miniatures...I can easily find more expensive with GW, sure, but it's not the cheapest I can find as well. If "cheap" is my only criteria, I'd be buying PVC in hundreds.

What I think is the best for me is fairly detailed miniatures with an appealing visual and coherent with my existing collection, that is enjoyable to build / work on (plastic HIPS is, for me, one of the best for that), all for a "reasonnable" price.

Accessibility is also linked to this factor, especially when I'm ordering online. Since I'm in EU, former companies based in UK have fallen out of the "best" category to me because of the tax increase for import and...well, longer time to come at home. Sure, GW is a UK based company but I can still buy at my local shop with no price increase (since GW cover all import taxes "for free" in EU), so they didn't move much so far. Shifting a bit down recently because of the distribution troubles, though.

I think the title of this thread should be more about "What are your criterias defining the best models for you ?"

[TheGrimKnight]

1 hour ago, GrogTheGrognard said:

Northstar Military Figures has a wide range of models from many different lines. Some are metal, resin, or plastic. I haven't gone through them all, but the Oathmark ones at least have some hard plastic options like the dwarven heavy infantry I mentioned before. Wargames Atlantic is also one I've heard about but they seem much more limited in what hard plastic options they have and aren't as good as GW miniatures, but are significantly cheaper. You can get a box of 30 guys for around £26. Which is pretty nice especially if you want test models to try out paint schemes on without feeling like you need to be perfect.

I have a couple different sets from Northstar, I have the oathmark human infantry, human cavalry, light elf infantry, dwarf heavy infantry and the frostgrave knights. They are all great kits in hard plasic. I have a love for bretonnia so the human kits were perfect for my "bretonnia" army. The quality is really good, the price is also amazing, 30 figures for 35 usd is great. it's got pretty great customization potential as well. The detail on the dwarf heavy infantry is great. 

Personally I like the oathmark kits over games workshops comparable stuff.  though I've never been a fan of games workshops human infantry models (old bretonnian men at arms. current freeguild everything) 

[Nacnudllah]

There are a lot of nice minis out there, but none I've bought have come especially close in terms of consistent high quality with the possible exception of Wyrd Miniatures (Malifaux).  Their stuff is very similar quality to GW in terms of design, build quality, materials, mould lines, etc.  The only issue I have with their minis is that they tend to be fiddly to put together, but it's because they are more proportional, so they have skinny little arms and legs.

I really like (most of) the sculpts for Song of Ice and Fire Minis, but they are monopose, so I'm not sure they're really in the same ballpark.

The new line of D&D minis (also monopose) have been looking great too.

I bought some Perry Miniatures Austrians for Turnip28 and they seem pretty good (great value too!), but they also have more defects than I usually see in GW kits.

[dirkdragonslayer]

I would say yes, but with a huge asterisk. The miniature space is getting so big that it's hard to qualify, especially with different people liking different things (Detail, theming, price, customizability, etc). Definitely the premium brand in terms of plastic quality and accessibility.

• Some companies do amazing work in other mediums. I think GW is the best in terms of multipart hard plastic, but there are some companies that do amazing things in metal. Corvus Belli does great in metal (though I have other gripes), privateer is OK. Some like Wargames Atlantic do good Imperial Guard, and meh everything else.
• With the advancements in 3D modeling and printing there are some extremely impressive sculpts out there. There are some amazing models for entire armies out there (like one I saw of a full Cities of Sigmar roster based on FF5, with Chocobo outriders and everything). It can be prohibitively expensive and labor intensive though. A good resin printer is expensive and takes a lot of trial and error to tune. Then you need the time for it to print every model, minimizing errors. Buying 3D prints can work in small batches for heroes, but large batches I have looked at tend to be just about as expensive as the real kit.
• North Star Miniatures I really like. They aren't as good as any mentioned previously, but they are downright decent and extremely customizable in their plastic kits. While not good for wargames, their Frostgrave line is perfect for Skirmish games or RPGs because they are so cheap, customizable, and decently made (about on par with GW older plastics, like Freeguild Swordsmen or Stabbas). Just massive amount of options, and quantity can be quality at times. If I was a GM for Pathfinder or D&D I would probably own a hundred of them between the different themed kits just for NPC purposes. Their Sci-Fi Stargrave miniatures suck though, they just don't know how to sculpt guns and the helmets look... off.

Edited September 29, 2021 by dirkdragonslayer
spelling errors...

[Talas]

I say yes, because frankly, most if not all of the models I've adquired from other companies or 3D printing just don't have the same quality in my opinion.

[MitGas]

Well, GW does have a certain style in their minis (from proportions to overall way of sculpting) that so far almost nobody replicated…. So if you like that, then yes, they are the best. If you want less „stylized“ stuff, then there surely are others out there you might prefer. I really like GW‘s style as the minis are very sharp and crisp looking. I do appreciate how much fine-tuning is put into their releases and how the aesthetic is running through all of their new releases. At times I‘d like them to venture into new territories (e.g. truly horrific chaos spawns) but I‘m very happy with the way things are and wouldn‘t want them to change their overall style too much.