PDA

View Full Version : Anybody else not liking where GW is heading stylistically?



duffybear1988
24-11-2012, 16:49
I have been spending a lot of time thinking about why I just don't feel the compulsion to buy GW products that I used to. In the end I decided that it mostly comes down to the look of many of the new sculpts that they are producing.

Take the new chaos marine daemon engines for example - they just look goofy.
And then there are the new warriors of chaos slaanesh cavalry and war altar thing - they look goofy.
The new hobbit stuff - all looks really childish and naff.

The only thing I have actually liked this year is the new 40k starter, and even that could do with some improvements.

I actually liked the character of the 2nd edition 40k figures (that some call childish), but the stuff that's coming out now just feels really bland and uninspired, like they can't really be bothered.

Also I can't justify spending a fortune on units that I hate the look of because they are powerful, and converting can be just as expensive these days.

Anyone else feel the same?

Lord Cedric
24-11-2012, 17:14
I actually feel just the opposite. Though you have listed primarily 40k models, so I cannot comment on them as I don't play 40k, but the Fantasy models are just getting better in my honest opinion. The details and poses, for the most part, are done very well. It has actually made a reverse affect on me.. meaning I've been buying up many new armies in the past couple years that I normally wouldn't have because I thought, then, that the sculpts were too cartoon-ish fantasy which turned me off as I like the gritty dark look. Now, in regards to the Hurricanum, War Alter, and the Slannesh-mobile et-al, although it looks a bit wonderous-fantasy, it doesnt look cartoony to me (which is why I'll never play World of Warcraft again... yuck!), just overexaggerated but still look nice imo.

But I know that not everyone likes this direction and can respect that, as it's not to everyone's taste.

- Lord Cedric

soviet
24-11-2012, 17:15
You understand that GW didn't design the look of the Hobbit figures, right? They're just making models of what's in the film. I agree a lot of the Hobbit stuff looks off, but that's because the stuff in the film looks off. It's got nothing to do with GW's 'new stylistic direction'.

In any event, no, I liked the chaos altar and other WoC releases. In 40k I'm a CSM player and it's fair to say I wasn't as excited by the new releases as I wanted to be, but I don't think the new stuff was bad. The daemon engines are OK, usable but not massively inspiring. But the raptors and the DV stuff are ace.

shelfunit.
24-11-2012, 17:57
Hit and miss, currently more miss than hit. Going from 6th ed, I loved the 6th Ed Empire, but did (do) not like the 6th ed and onwards orcs - too shaved gorilla for me, and the goblins are almost as bad. 7th Ed empire are laughably poor models (greatswords excepted). Initially I liked the 6th ed skaven, but grew to dislike them, but the 7th ed skaven are (IMO) the best models GW produce. The lizardmen have improved with each re-release. 7th Ed chaos (all forms) have improved (with a very few exceptions - minos I am trying to avoid looking at you). Elves of all descriptions have improved from 5th ed, although DEs are in desperate need of de-FC'ing. Undead had major failings throughout 5th-6th ed, but have improved in 7th/8th. The TK basic skellies are still terribad, and the zombies are almost the worst sculpts availible for zombies these days. As always with GW though, the main problem isn't the sculpting, but that's another post for the pricing thread.

Etienne de Beaugard
24-11-2012, 18:13
The switch to CAD sculpting for a lot of the plastic sets has produced sets that seem, at least to my eye, more angular. That may be some of the change you are detecting. Personally, I haven't been as wild about GW styling for quite some time, but that was a change in my tastes, rather than a change in the quality of GWs work. GW still does good work overall.

Cosmic_Mastermind
24-11-2012, 18:42
What can i say? It's the Warhammer style and overall it hasn't changed all that much for many years. I don't really collect miniatures or play the games but I'm starting to warm to the style of Infinity Miniatures; I wouldn't say they are better than GW's products but I prefer the slightly more realistic proportions and animate poses.

Caiphas Cain
24-11-2012, 19:02
I dislike the large plastic kits. Other than tanks of course. Huge computer designed models always end up looking like Happy Meal toys to me. Smaller computer designed models are fine though, it's when they get blown up they look odd. It must be something with the large smooth surfaces. They just look unnatural.

Triple King
24-11-2012, 19:39
I think it obviously down to personal taste, but in my opinion it varies from range to range. For example the recent Vampire stuff is fantastic, but the CSM stuff was a bit disappointing.

Zeebeest
24-11-2012, 19:48
The one thing i really hate is that converting is nearly impossible unless you can resculp a lot.
I'm ferly good at it but stil its annoying the always have to make characters in large pieces.
Ok it's easiers to assemmble and draws more poeple through convenience but i am one for unique models.
And now even forge world is sharing in the spoils so even there you can't get the 'wow where did you get that' effect any more.
I sadly look back at the days when you could by head, arms, legs,... and other small pieces on their own.
Now its just lots of junk from plastic kits everybody has.
Learn to sculp boys and girls!!! Its the only road to the wow effect...

Zeebeest
24-11-2012, 19:50
Oh and the real good looking models aren't from any particular range or army. It depends on who sculpted them.
I advise you to look at all the models Juan Diaz has made for GW.
Look it up, and you'll agree.

Maidel
24-11-2012, 19:51
Their sculpts appear to be as hit and miss as ever (generally more hits than misses).

The hobbit stuff is entirely out of their control, they will be accurate sculpts as they can make based on the film. If say if you don't like the style of the miniatures, then avoid the film, it's likely to be disappointing for you.

The rest is entirely subjective. The demon engines look fantastic, appart from the **** of the dragon, no idea where you find them 'goofy'.

Some of the fantasy range is as good as its ever been. The skaven are finally as good as the original metal clan rats, it's taken it's time! The new war alter is, Erm, interesting. As are the booby slaanesh riders.

I can't see a particular 'style' that they can be heading towards, the hobbit, skaven, marines etc all could be made by different companies, they don't share anything.

Hendarion
24-11-2012, 21:00
Well... If I compare the MK2 Eldar Striking Scorpions to the MK3 ones, I clearly adore the latter ones much more. The MK2 ones were "goofy" instead.

Maidel
24-11-2012, 21:38
Can someone define 'goofy' looking. From my perspective the mk 1 scorpions suffered from 'single piece' syndrome, meaning they were flat in one plain so they could be easily cast. The mk II scorpions were very 'over posed' in leaping and taunting poses and finally the mk III ones are quite ridgid by comparison but look more stoic.

But it's all personal opinion.

Hendarion
24-11-2012, 21:40
MK2 weren't just overposed, they were goovy overall. Weird shapes, especially the helmet.

Maidel
24-11-2012, 21:44
MK2 weren't just overposed, they were goovy overall. Weird shapes, especially the helmet.

I'm still waiting for someone to define goofy in a model.

Goofy is buck teeth, screwy eyes, sticky out ears. That's goofy. But that's not what those scorpions look like. The new hobbit goblins are goofy ;)

lbecks
24-11-2012, 23:35
I tend to like the crazy, wacky things they do with their style. Some of the execution is lacking, but I like that they're trying unexpected things.

Volt
25-11-2012, 00:49
I have recently gone through some of the older catalogues from the 90's and boy talk about goofy looking figures! And by goofy, I mean childish, very, yes I know its Fantasy, but un-realistic looking (mostly in the weapons, what with the large blades). Don't know what goofy means? Look at the 90s Vampire/Undead range. Those skeleton standard bearers, wow (mister red armor, Im looking at you).

6th edition (especially the metal heroes and special units) went for a more realistic grim look which is my favorite. They seem to have gone a little back to the goofyness slightly (large kits, basically all the new empire releases, minus the characters), but not too bad.

And at the same time the new Vampire counts seem to have a 6th edition look to them (Graveguard, Black knights [love those figures], Vargheists).

ehlijen
25-11-2012, 01:42
I actually think GW is getting less blocky and angular. The deamon engines and the dreadknight for example have a lot more rounded armour plates than anything previous of similar purpose (defiler, dreadnaught). Even the stormtalon is the least blocky marine vehicle in...ever?

Now for some races that's fine. Eldar have always had smoother curves and the Tau were always meant to bridge the gap between smooth eldar frames with blocky imperial gear stuck on. But the imperial factions (and thus their chaos offshoots) have always had an iconic blockyness to much of their stuff. The rhino had not a smooth curve to be found. The Russ is pretty much all angled plates. Yes, body army was rounded to fit around a human, but it still tried to be simple compared and straightforward in design to say eldar aspect armour.

In that regard I think the helldrake is better than the *fiends. It looks more like a deamon engine and less like a deamonic animal in armour. The latter isn't neccessarily bad, I just don't like it as much; I feel GW might be starting to abandon a style that has drawn me (and probably others) to those factions.

Avatar_exADV
25-11-2012, 04:29
I play orks, and of course 40K orks have much more freedom to "ork up" any damn model they want to. There's still a few old, bad models in the range (big gunz, buggies, I'm looking at you guys), but anything they've produced recently is much better-looking. The new killa kan and deff dread models were fantastically better than the old derp-cans they were replacing. And the ork flier kit is a joy of orkish engineerin'.

The new Necron stuff is well-done too. They basically re-imagined the entire faction - kept some of the old aesthetic (we're still talking about robot skeletons, nah?) but extended into something new, and fortunately NOT just "Tomb Kings in spess"...

Chaos... I can see how some people wouldn't like the new models, as they're a departure from the old aesthetic. But the old aesthetic could easily be summed up as "marines with spikes on", no? People were happy to criticize it at the time. And if you look at the new Chosen models, the Warp Talons, and the Fiends and Heldrake, they clearly are rocking a baroque-rococo aesthetic that standard Marines don't do. Not to everyone's tastes, surely, but still good-looking models.

Scaryscarymushroom
25-11-2012, 04:54
Anyone else feel the same?

I am also not really liking where GW is heading stylistically.

158333

There are other things too. All the ones that have funny pictures to go with them. Mostly 40k stuff.

Fantasy for the most part seems to be improving, but the War Shrine is a bit :wtf: (although it's much better than many of the silly 40k kits in the past two years or so).

ctsteel
25-11-2012, 05:22
I have found the releases of recent times to have a style that feels, for lack of a better analogy "World of Warcraft" to me. It has this slight cartoony feel to it that doesn't really sit with me. The first model that I recall thinking strongly this way was the plastic 40K daemon prince - his arms/head etc all had this WoW monster cartoonish quality that put me off it (I have the older metal one and think it looks nice). It could be a side effect of the plastic/finecast transition, but it could also be that the newer sculptors have some other influences on them from this sort of source, plus the GW marketing types may have identified this style as a way of appealing to the generation of gamers/kids that are used to this cartoonishness - I see a lot more over-stylised cartoons nowadays too where human anatomy is secondary to style.

Scaryscarymushroom
25-11-2012, 05:47
I have found the releases of recent times to have a style that feels, for lack of a better analogy "World of Warcraft" to me. It has this slight cartoony feel to it that doesn't really sit with me. The first model that I recall thinking strongly this way was the plastic 40K daemon prince - his arms/head etc all had this WoW monster cartoonish quality that put me off it (I have the older metal one and think it looks nice). It could be a side effect of the plastic/finecast transition, but it could also be that the newer sculptors have some other influences on them from this sort of source, plus the GW marketing types may have identified this style as a way of appealing to the generation of gamers/kids that are used to this cartoonishness - I see a lot more over-stylised cartoons nowadays too where human anatomy is secondary to style.

If I were trying to start a flame war I might call this "selling out."

;)

lbecks
25-11-2012, 06:05
I have found the releases of recent times to have a style that feels, for lack of a better analogy "World of Warcraft" to me. It has this slight cartoony feel to it that doesn't really sit with me. The first model that I recall thinking strongly this way was the plastic 40K daemon prince - his arms/head etc all had this WoW monster cartoonish quality that put me off it (I have the older metal one and think it looks nice). It could be a side effect of the plastic/finecast transition, but it could also be that the newer sculptors have some other influences on them from this sort of source, plus the GW marketing types may have identified this style as a way of appealing to the generation of gamers/kids that are used to this cartoonishness - I see a lot more over-stylised cartoons nowadays too where human anatomy is secondary to style.

I agree there's a certain WoW quality to certain to current GW releases, but GW has never had a good track record with anatomy. Morley was terrible with anatomy and Aly and Trish still have elements in their current models of not really taking anatomy seriously. I think French sculptors really put anatomy on notice when companies like Rackham started putting muscles in correct places.

Hendarion
25-11-2012, 08:39
40k always has been cartoon-style. If you don't believe, check 2nd Edition pictures, especially Orks and Chaos.

nedius
25-11-2012, 11:22
For me, I first really noticed a change in design ethos with the lizard men stegadon.

It went from vaguely realsitic with a toonish leaning (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ts1HdLGjywM/R48U6lVd68I/AAAAAAAAAmQ/02kHVBTmQAc/s400/Stegadon.gif) to something that looked like it was out of a manga cartoon (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2180091_99120208008_LizardmenStegadon1_873x627.jp g).

Since then, models have become more and more toonish, and less and less realistic. The Dreadknight, the Heldrake, things like that, just look like something out of a Power Rangers episode...

Maidel
25-11-2012, 12:12
I'm so confused. What the heck are you watching that you call manga, because that has no similarity to it what so ever.

Anima tactics is a game based on manga designs: http://www.arcaneminiatures.co.uk/miniatures-detail.asp?ID=34184

Gw miniatures from any period don't look anything like this.

soviet
25-11-2012, 14:24
For me, I first really noticed a change in design ethos with the lizard men stegadon.

It went from vaguely realsitic with a toonish leaning (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ts1HdLGjywM/R48U6lVd68I/AAAAAAAAAmQ/02kHVBTmQAc/s400/Stegadon.gif) to something that looked like it was out of a manga cartoon (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2180091_99120208008_LizardmenStegadon1_873x627.jp g).

Since then, models have become more and more toonish, and less and less realistic. The Dreadknight, the Heldrake, things like that, just look like something out of a Power Rangers episode...

When did you start playing? Because I look at the Dreadknight and the Heldrake and then I look at stuff like Nagash and the second edition Orks and I think... seriously? You think things have got more cartoony as time has gone on? No way.

Volt
25-11-2012, 15:02
Exactly. You need to look at the figures from the 90s if you want to see some cartoonish ones. Just look at this skeleton: 158359

Kaptajn_Congoboy
25-11-2012, 15:02
Nothing has gotten more 'tooney. Or less. They've always been tooney one way or the other. CAD has, however, allowed designers to throw buckets of detail everywhere. This can work...and it can be too much. A lot of recent big kits have been the latter. This is an industry-wide phenomenon that can be remedied by solid art direction, but GW has been into CAD the longest so it is more noticeable.

nosebiter
25-11-2012, 15:14
Nothing has gotten more 'tooney. Or less. They've always been tooney one way or the other. CAD has, however, allowed designers to throw buckets of detail everywhere. This can work...and it can be too much. A lot of recent big kits have been the latter. This is an industry-wide phenomenon that can be remedied by solid art direction, but GW has been into CAD the longest so it is more noticeable.

I don't think that last statement is acurate at all. They were not first, they just shouted the loudest about it. As they allways do...

Rogue
25-11-2012, 16:20
Hit and miss, currently more miss than hit. Going from 6th ed, I loved the 6th Ed Empire, but did (do) not like the 6th ed and onwards orcs - too shaved gorilla for me, and the goblins are almost as bad. 7th Ed empire are laughably poor models (greatswords excepted). Initially I liked the 6th ed skaven, but grew to dislike them, but the 7th ed skaven are (IMO) the best models GW produce. The lizardmen have improved with each re-release. 7th Ed chaos (all forms) have improved (with a very few exceptions - minos I am trying to avoid looking at you). Elves of all descriptions have improved from 5th ed, although DEs are in desperate need of de-FC'ing. Undead had major failings throughout 5th-6th ed, but have improved in 7th/8th. The TK basic skellies are still terribad, and the zombies are almost the worst sculpts availible for zombies these days. As always with GW though, the main problem isn't the sculpting, but that's another post for the pricing thread.

I tend to take this approach, although it is even more miss than hit for me. I agree with shelfunit on the Empire, undead common troops, and OnG models. I do like some of the older Elf models from back in the 5th better however, and I can't stand the new Dwarfs. The 6th edition Dwarf models may have had their faults but they were good sculpts, and most importantly matched what I have from the 4th edition. Overall there are few Fantasy armies that I have interest in collecting.

~Aura~
25-11-2012, 17:23
I think the 6th/early 7th edition era figures are the best. There are some standouts from earlier periods, but a lot of the more recent stuff has been pretty shonky, especially the large things, which look too exaggerated and cartoony for the most part.

6mmhero
26-11-2012, 00:12
I have quite a wide collection of GW figures and I must say for the most part I am a huge fan of the newer figures (shame about the medium that some are released in however). I really like the Coven Throne/Mortis engine, I love the Skaven range and the Dark Eldar range both of which they have got spot on. The Necron range got a lot of character added to it.
I am not a big fan of the latest Space Marine flyer, Dread Knight or the Hell Riders (these seem very lazy in terms of models).

One thing that I have noticed however is that a lot of kits that I am not that keen on really grow on me the more that I see them in person such as the Warshrine and the Daemon Engines (saw these at games day and really changed my mind on what I thought of them).

Scaryscarymushroom
26-11-2012, 05:06
Anima tactics is a game based on manga designs: http://www.arcaneminiatures.co.uk/miniatures-detail.asp?ID=34184

Gw miniatures from any period don't look anything like this.

Right you are that GW minis don't look anything like that, but calling Wen Yu Li's artwork manga makes it sound cheap.

This (http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/180/b/e/anima__Arcangel_by_Wen_M.jpg) is different from this. (http://animatedcartoons.co/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/naruto-anime.jpg)

Hendarion
26-11-2012, 07:10
Right you are that GW minis don't look anything like that, but calling Wen Yu Li's artwork manga makes it sound cheap.

This (http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/180/b/e/anima__Arcangel_by_Wen_M.jpg) is different from this. (http://animatedcartoons.co/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/naruto-anime.jpg)
True... There's a big difference between a picture and error 404. :p

lbecks
26-11-2012, 07:43
Right you are that GW minis don't look anything like that, but calling Wen Yu Li's artwork manga makes it sound cheap.

This (http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/180/b/e/anima__Arcangel_by_Wen_M.jpg) is different from this. (http://animatedcartoons.co/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/naruto-anime.jpg)


Wen Yu Li isn't an anime or manga artist.

And to be fair to manga artists (and comic book artists and animators in general), they have to keep their designs relatively simple since they may have to draw them 1000's of times opposed to just once or twice for figure art.

Carlosophy
26-11-2012, 11:45
I think the quality of GW's figures has come on leaps and bounds in the last 15 years. Although their style is wonderfully nostalgic, would any tyranid player want the old 2E striding warriors in his army? Or the flatcast plastic berzerkers and plague marines? or the one-pose brettonian bowmen? The Screamer-Killer is great but compared to the new Carnifex it looks daft.

Sometimes they have been way-off, like the 3E disco dancing Striking Scorpions or the pack-in Necromunda models but on the whole I'd rather have a cool looking Gabriel Seth striding into combat leading my marines than starjump powerfist and bolter captain.

RunepriestRidcully
26-11-2012, 11:50
I generally prefer the metal Temple guard and Phoenix guard to the new plastic oes, and for the most part a lot of the new releases have "meh" to awful. If I where to do High elves for example, I love the Pheonix guard, but would go for the old metals rather then the new plastics. Fortunalty I have enough of the metal temple guard to not need the plastics.

Maidel
26-11-2012, 12:50
Wen's work is extremely close to manga, especially the earlier stuff. He's gotten more and more detailed over the last 6 years I've followed him.

But my point is that GW is nothing remotely like manga, it's not even close.

Askari
26-11-2012, 12:56
While I've been massively unimpressed by the new Chaos Space Marine and Warriors of Chaos sets (Dark Vengeance models exluded, those are amazing) I just think it's one of those things that they sometimes get 'wrong' in my eyes.

The Empire and Vampire Counts releases were fantastic, in my opinion. Even going back a little, Necrons, Dark Eldar and Grey Knights have nary a poor model amongst them, all fantastic re-boots of older ranges.

lbecks
26-11-2012, 13:17
Wen's work is extremely close to manga, especially the earlier stuff. He's gotten more and more detailed over the last 6 years I've followed him.

But my point is that GW is nothing remotely like manga, it's not even close.

The Tau were inspired by anime. I'd even say there's a bit of zaku-ness to the space marine design. And that's going way back.

Sildani
26-11-2012, 13:55
I wouldn't. Design similarities does not make for design ethos similarities.

And I very much enjoy what GW is doing these days. All the new stuff feels like it comes from the same universe, we probably have Jes Goodwin to thank for that. I'm not saying everything they're making is excellent, but it's better than many of the things they've done before.

As for the second version of the Striking Scorpions: they were called "Striking Bunnies" for a reason.

eldargal
26-11-2012, 14:07
I think it is an impossible question to be honest. There is no 'GW style' for a start, there are 30+ aesthetics and the only thing they all have in common (bar LOTR/Hobbit) is heroic scale which is hardly unique to GW. I know someone will likely say GW style is to throw skulls on it but before anyone bothers let me point out many armies have no skulls on, like eldar, High Elves, Tau etc.

In my opinion things are improving. The new VC release was fantastic and has made me a devoted fan of an army I actively disliked aesthetically before (the vampires, I didn't mind the VC core kits). I enjoyed the Empire release too, though I can see why some people didn't. But really I don't think anyone can really say 'GWs stylistic direction is becoming less to my taste' when it is so varied. A specific army or armies certainly, but not the company as a whole.

Karak Norn Clansman
26-11-2012, 14:39
This is a matter of taste, and I think that Chaos Space Marines took a great leap forward with all the new releases. Had the Defiler been released today, it would have looked a hundred times better than the blocky thing we have at the current. The return of rounded vehicle plating for Imperial and Chaos factions is welcome, it has been sorely needed since the days of 2nd edition if I'm not mistaken! I'm indifferent to most 40k releases, but Grey Knights always look nice (it was a good move from metal to plastic) and the Jokaero is characterful. The Imperial Guard received some good advisors but little else to be excited over. Bring out affordable greatcoat infantry and I'll give you my money! Dark Eldar have improved, though.

I do not like everything which Weta Workshop have done with the Hobbit creatures, but GW's translation of them from screen to miniature is on the large flawless, Hunter Orcs excepted. GW's own Dwarf (and to a degree also goblin) forces for Lotr have a better style than the new heroes, but this issue mainly comes down to beard size, and perhaps length. We'll see how the main bulk of Hobbit releases look later on.

In the fantasy sector there have been much improvement in a lot of new character models, and with the exception of Empire State Troops and High Elf elite units every new troop kit is better than they were during 6th edition, when I entered the hobby. I think the war wagons are more useful for acquiring excentric terrain bits and a nice nobleman's wagon for the bagage train than for frontline units. The Demigryphs worked well whilst the new mega-Griphon was a joke due to its enormous size. The new Ogre kits were fine enough, although I found some horns to be odd, and Tomb Kings have generally received an improvement. Wood Elves received an aesthetic of their own during the latest update which suited them. I don't mind the direction of Vampire Counts, but then again they're far from my taste. Dwarfs need an update, however. Some characterful old metal Dwarf sculpts and AoW's new range put the GW stunties to shame. The Isle of Blood High Elf Lothern Sea Guard and Ellyrion Reavers were perfect (I only added bowstrings and could find no conversions that were needed). The new Daemons are an improvement with the glaring exception of the Daemonettes. Do bring back the lithe dancers of 6th edition! Skaven are in good hands, although the Warp Lightning cannon was better in its metal form and the catapult kit is laughable. And the Greenskins have improved since 6th edition, although the mainstay Orc and especially Goblin kits could do with an update.

All in all I have continued confidence in GW's style direction. There have always been some things which I don't like, but today's armies usually look better than they did two editions ago, although some really old sculpts manage to compete with modern armies. Price is another matter entirely, but let's keep silent about that issue in this thread.

Eldorad
26-11-2012, 14:57
I think the quality of GW's figures has come on leaps and bounds in the last 15 years. Although their style is wonderfully nostalgic, would any tyranid player want the old 2E striding warriors in his army? Or the flatcast plastic berzerkers and plague marines? or the one-pose brettonian bowmen? The Screamer-Killer is great but compared to the new Carnifex it looks daft.

Sometimes they have been way-off, like the 3E disco dancing Striking Scorpions or the pack-in Necromunda models but on the whole I'd rather have a cool looking Gabriel Seth striding into combat leading my marines than starjump powerfist and bolter captain.

Nailed it.

dancingmonkey
26-11-2012, 15:37
Some of us do want 2nd ed models, my nids are all second ed and I wouldn't have it any other way.

I admit I'm a bit odd in that respect though :D

Maidel
26-11-2012, 16:01
The Tau were inspired by anime. I'd even say there's a bit of zaku-ness to the space marine design. And that's going way back.

Tau were inspired by mecha in general. Be that anime, macross, gundam, or mechwarrior/battletech.

just because something was inspired by something else doesnt mean that the design ethic is the same as the inspiration.

loveless
26-11-2012, 16:15
I actually can't think of anything to complain about. My biggest problem with the Chaos Marine release outside of pricing was that the new stuff was, well, not plastic cult troops or Obliterators :p That is to say, not what I wanted to see, but I can't really mark them down for that given that the models are okay (I did, however, buy more Hordes stuff instead of 40K stuff since the new Chaos didn't appeal to me enough).

Fantasy-wise, everything they've done for the armies that interest me has been an improvement. I like all of the Vampire Counts plastics and character models (except for winged vampire with a wing that looks nothing like a bat wing), all of the newest Skaven stuff is super, and the Wood Elves have maintained looking good since their makeover. New stuff for the Empire is typically solid, as are High and Dark Elves, but all three suffer from poor core models (Empire Huntsmen are okay, State Troops are fine, but over-detailed for the quantity IMO).

I'm still trying to figure out the exact strategy here..."big kits" vary wildly in size and price (why is a Coven Throne more expensive than a Terrorgheist?), but they tend to do well at creating them. Heck, I'd probably go after one of each big kit just to have if they didn't take forever to paint (and if it wouldn't cost the same as owning a small island in the Caribbean).

EDIT: Not really GW's decision, but the new Hobbit stuff is pretty awesome. I'm going to be all over that starter set...not sure if I'm going to bother with the special edition, though...Radagast is alright, but he seems to have the tiniest feet this side of the Russian Ballet.

Scaryscarymushroom
26-11-2012, 17:18
True... There's a big difference between a picture and error 404. :p

That 'error 404' was supposed to be a picture of the character cast from Naruto. Can't fix it right now.

(BTW, I would sooner buy old Necrons, old Grey Knights, old Daemons, 3rd edition Carifexes, and 2nd edition tyrants rather than new ones. Certainly, not all old things are better. I would avoid old gaunts, warriors, biovores, gargoyles, tyrant guard. Let dancing monkey keep them. And, really old Daemonettes. Marines of all types are a wash; they've hardly changed except for the vehicle chassis, which are more detailed now.)

thenamelessdead
26-11-2012, 17:34
In certain respects the plastic revolution has improved armies but it largely depends on what it was replacing. Much of the old metal models were superior to their plastic counterparts - just think back to the Pestigors, my god they were nice. Some of the plastics are a great improvement, like the VC Black Knights (although that wasn't difficult). Finecast - well, everyone knows what that means.

Stylistically, however, I see them almost looking to the Red Period for inspiration. There are a hell of a lot of big, characterless, cheesy models around now. The razorgor (pumba) is a prime example, along with its 'minotaur' cousins. Absolutely horrible design. Then recently we've seen the explosion of huge, unwieldy, silly looking 'centrepiece' WHFB models, none of which appeal to me in the slightest.

lbecks
26-11-2012, 20:46
Tau were inspired by mecha in general. Be that anime, macross, gundam, or mechwarrior/battletech.

just because something was inspired by something else doesnt mean that the design ethic is the same as the inspiration.

Macross and gundam are anime series and btech was inspired by Marcoss as well. I'd say overall the gw ethos has shifted overtime being influenced by several outside art styles. For example the miniature definition Of heroic scaling with lts stumpy looks and big head and hands is giving way to the comic book definition of heroic.

Maidel
26-11-2012, 20:48
Macross and gundam are anime series and btech was inspired by Marcoss as well. I'd say overall the gw ethos has shifted overtime being influenced by several outside art styles. For example the miniature definition Of heroic scaling with it's stumpy l

That was my point really. Although the influence may have been manga based (with westernised gaming added in from battletech) the actual product bares very little stylistic resemblance to them.

BlackJuju
27-11-2012, 09:21
Definitely the new Necron look is vile. No more the cold menace... Tomb kings in space.
At least we know who to blame, Matthew Ward (destroyer of worlds)!

lbecks
27-11-2012, 11:23
That was my point really. Although the influence may have been manga based (with westernised gaming added in from battletech) the actual product bares very little stylistic resemblance to them.

Manga refers to comics and anime refers to animation. OT but there's a difference. And your point was GW stuff doesn't remotely resemble Japanese influences, but i'd say again, remotely it does. The influence is there. Of course it's not a facsimile, but that's not the way influences work.

Fear Ghoul
27-11-2012, 16:22
Definitely the new Necron look is vile. No more the cold menace... Tomb kings in space.
At least we know who to blame, Matthew Ward (destroyer of worlds)!

Were the pyramids, scarabs, and skeletons not indicative already that Necrons were Tomb Kings in space?

And we all know that Ward spends his spare time sculpting "terrible" miniatures - just so people hate him that little bit more.

Maidel
27-11-2012, 16:27
Manga refers to comics and anime refers to animation. OT but there's a difference. And your point was GW stuff doesn't remotely resemble Japanese influences, but i'd say again, remotely it does. The influence is there. Of course it's not a facsimile, but that's not the way influences work.

hang on, theres a clear difference between something having a passing resemblance to something, and actually being in that style. Theres as much a resemblance to transformers as to any manga video/comic in the tau (and yes, I know transformers was based on a japanese toy line which in essence is also manga, but styliscally they are very different).

lbecks
27-11-2012, 17:36
hang on, theres a clear difference between something having a passing resemblance to something, and actually being in that style. Theres as much a resemblance to transformers as to any manga video/comic in the tau (and yes, I know transformers was based on a japanese toy line which in essence is also manga, but styliscally they are very different).

If you're arguing that the Tau bear resemblance to all robots because they have robots and to manga/anime as purely coincidental then you're wrong on that point. From Andy Chambers "We chose the Tau mainly for their, clean, modern, manga image, and their vibrant history." I know Rick Priestley also said in an interview they tried to capitalize on the anime boom of the early 2000's (Gundam Wing comes to mind) with the Tau.

Maidel
27-11-2012, 19:39
If you're arguing that the Tau bear resemblance to all robots because they have robots and to manga/anime as purely coincidental then you're wrong on that point. From Andy Chambers "We chose the Tau mainly for their, clean, modern, manga image, and their vibrant history." I know Rick Priestley also said in an interview they tried to capitalize on the anime boom of the early 2000's (Gundam Wing comes to mind) with the Tau.

Yes, erm, whats your point? Again I come back to my point above, possibly not explained very well - Something can be based very clearly on another idea, but the end product is very different. Tau have battle suits. They are big mecha. The end product of the design ended up with something that looks nothing like any particular manga that I can find/ think of, nor do the tau look anything like manga drawings.

I can completely understand wanting to 'ride the wave' around mecha in the early 2000s, but that doesnt mean it has to be slavishly copied from it, and the tau arent.

Original inspiration + years of design = end product that doesnt have to look anything like the original.


PS - I am not, nor have I been, claiming that the Taus original inspiration wasnt manga mecha.

Laniston
27-11-2012, 20:13
Definitely the new Necron look is vile. No more the cold menace... Tomb kings in space.
At least we know who to blame, Matthew Ward (destroyer of worlds)!

I like the new Necrons. At first look, tomb blades especially, I was skeptical but I am finding more and more that I like the models. Mostly it is coming from assembling them and being able to see all the cool little things here and there that you don't get to see in the pictures. Now I think tomb blades are pretty great. Definitely strange still, but good strange.

lbecks
27-11-2012, 22:14
Yes, erm, whats your point? Again I come back to my point above, possibly not explained very well - Something can be based very clearly on another idea, but the end product is very different. Tau have battle suits. They are big mecha. The end product of the design ended up with something that looks nothing like any particular manga that I can find/ think of, nor do the tau look anything like manga drawings.

I can completely understand wanting to 'ride the wave' around mecha in the early 2000s, but that doesnt mean it has to be slavishly copied from it, and the tau arent.

Original inspiration + years of design = end product that doesnt have to look anything like the original.


PS - I am not, nor have I been, claiming that the Taus original inspiration wasnt manga mecha.

You said "But my point is that GW is nothing remotely like manga, it's not even close."

Since that's been disproved I think we can agree case closed.

Senbei
27-11-2012, 22:34
Some of us do want 2nd ed models, my nids are all second ed and I wouldn't have it any other way.

I admit I'm a bit odd in that respect though :D

Haha! I'm doing mine with 1st ed stuff. It happily confuses the store-kiddies and causes the Blackshirts to weep bitter tears.

>_>

Edit: It is more just a demonstration force though... not sure I could afford all the Genestealers and stuff needed for a bigger force. Those, termagants and warriors were the only real 'troop' types to make it into 3>. Gone are mind-slaves, Zoats, Brood Brothers, Squig Swarms' (could use them as rippers I guess) and the like.

Shimmergloom
28-11-2012, 02:37
GW models have turned into a collection of tonka toys from beastmen onwards.

Scaryscarymushroom
28-11-2012, 03:04
GW models have turned into a collection of tonka toys from beastmen onwards.

That seems a little unfair to Dark Eldar, about 2/3 of which are pretty nice (if a little pricy).

:p

Maidel
28-11-2012, 15:57
You said "But my point is that GW is nothing remotely like manga, it's not even close."

Since that's been disproved I think we can agree case closed.

???

What's been disproved?

Gws figure range does not look anything like manga, no one has even remotely proved that.

The tau range is inspired by mecha, and manga mecha especially, but the end product has very little similarity to the inspiration.

What do you think you have disproved exactly?

lbecks
28-11-2012, 23:09
???

What's been disproved?

Gws figure range does not look anything like manga, no one has even remotely proved that.

The tau range is inspired by mecha, and manga mecha especially, but the end product has very little similarity to the inspiration.

What do you think you have disproved exactly?

I don't think you know what remotely means. That means that even if it's just a fraction of a percent of resemblance, it is there. And given that there's a direct quote from Andy Chambers stating that there is in fact an influence and a resemblance, you have been disproved. And not even a remote influence. A direct influence. It's up to you to prove to me that Andy Chambers was lying if you'd like to be proved that GW minis, in particular the Tau, don't have even a remote resemblance to things from manga and anime. Which they do.

Scaryscarymushroom
28-11-2012, 23:27
I don't think you know what remotely means. That means that even if it's just a fraction of a percent of resemblance, it is there. And given that there's a direct quote from Andy Chambers stating that there is in fact an influence and a resemblance, you have been disproved. And not even a remote influence. A direct influence. It's up to you to prove to me that Andy Chambers was lying if you'd like to be proved that GW minis, in particular the Tau, don't have even a remote resemblance to things from manga and anime. Which they do.

Just let him have the last word.

Clearly "Not manga=inspired by manga designs" for Anima Tactics, but if it's Andy Chambers' idea of manga, then "Manga=Not even a remote resemblance to manga." But Tau don't even look like the angry triceratops that started this ridiculous dispute, which looks like something out of He-Man or Thundercats. :shifty:

Hooooo! :D

lbecks
28-11-2012, 23:36
Just let him have the last word.

Clearly "Not manga=inspired by manga designs" for Anima Tactics, but if it's Andy Chambers' idea of manga, then "Manga=Not even a remote resemblance to manga." But Tau don't even look like the angry triceratops, which looks like something out of He-Man or Thundercats. :shifty:

Hooooo! :D

Given that manga and anime (as such manga/anime is much broader than just robots) were discovered by GW pre-2002 (the Tau launch) it is possible to assume all post-2002 models (Which includes triceratops) were somehow, even remotely, influenced by manga and anime designs. I think we can all agree case closed!

Maidel
29-11-2012, 07:49
Sigh.

Why do people always say things like 'let him have the last word' or similar things. It's a horrible nasty way of trying to close down a line of discussion by making the other person look argumentative while at the same time trying to ensure that they themselves get the last word.

I really don't know what the problem is.

My point is that while many things gw has created may have their roots or inspiration in many places (manga, lotrs, Star Wars, alien films etc) the end product that gw produces looks nothing like manga.

As other people have already asserted manga is fairly basic looking due to the fact that its animation that has to be repeated over and over again. Contrastingly gws output is getting more and more complex, especially when cad is used for the design as its so easy to add additional details in the design process.

Therefore I don't understand how gws is heading towards manga 'stylistically' when the different ranges it produces really don't look stylistically similar to each other.

Also, nowhere do I disagree with any chambers comment that was posted up. They were picked because their influences were exactly as he stated and they would appeal to people who liked manga (man piloted, humanoid robots are very manga in theme). But my assertion has always been that the end product looks almost nothing like the inspiration. It is no different to saying that Chadian guardsmen inspiration is the US army/marine core, but the end product, while still being humans in light body armour really looks stylistically like gws own product, not like a US marine. Eldar were inspired by 'elves in space' and were even called that for a while and wore chain mail in places, but the end product now (appart from their elven heads) again while having a passing resemblance to elves, now very much has its own style and appearance that is very distinct from elves.

This conversation could go round in circles, but appart from people posting 'yes they are' every time I say I don't think they are, I really do not see any evidence disproving me.

lbecks
29-11-2012, 08:51
Sigh.

Why do people always say things like 'let him have the last word' or similar things. It's a horrible nasty way of trying to close down a line of discussion by making the other person look argumentative while at the same time trying to ensure that they themselves get the last word.

I really don't know what the problem is.

My point is that while many things gw has created may have their roots or inspiration in many places (manga, lotrs, Star Wars, alien films etc) the end product that gw produces looks nothing like manga.

As other people have already asserted manga is fairly basic looking due to the fact that its animation that has to be repeated over and over again. Contrastingly gws output is getting more and more complex, especially when cad is used for the design as its so easy to add additional details in the design process.

Therefore I don't understand how gws is heading towards manga 'stylistically' when the different ranges it produces really don't look stylistically similar to each other.

Also, nowhere do I disagree with any chambers comment that was posted up. They were picked because their influences were exactly as he stated and they would appeal to people who liked manga (man piloted, humanoid robots are very manga in theme). But my assertion has always been that the end product looks almost nothing like the inspiration. It is no different to saying that Chadian guardsmen inspiration is the US army/marine core, but the end product, while still being humans in light body armour really looks stylistically like gws own product, not like a US marine. Eldar were inspired by 'elves in space' and were even called that for a while and wore chain mail in places, but the end product now (appart from their elven heads) again while having a passing resemblance to elves, now very much has its own style and appearance that is very distinct from elves.

This conversation could go round in circles, but appart from people posting 'yes they are' every time I say I don't think they are, I really do not see any evidence disproving me.

GW's component assembly is getting more complicated but their detail design is actually getting simpler. For example, empire miniatures. The free company had much more detail than the more recent releases. The pre-2000 Orcs have a lot more minute detail than the more recent savage orcs or boar riders. GW has shown that they really like clean lines. Just look at the savage orc boss single they released recently. Overall very clean.

Also you keep using phrases like "does not remotely", "looks nothing like", "nothing remotely like manga, it's not even close" and then say "looks almost nothing like." You seem to not even know how influences manifest themselves in final products. When Andy Chambers says GW chose a clean manga inspired look for the Tau, a sensible person can look at the Tau and say "yes, i can see the influence, it is clear. They have clean lines like the manga inspirations they harbor." Not "The Tau do not remotely look like manga" or "the Tau looks nothing like manga." If either of those statements were true then GW's design team would have failed in implementing a clean manga inspired look which they set out to achieve. Now why do the Tau not look exactly like something from Macross? Because GW A) Has artists who pride themselves in combining existing ideas into somewhat newish ideas, however not devoid of influence, and B) directly lifting a design will get you sued. How can I have a conversation with someone who contradicts himself in his posts? That's being intellectually dishonest on your part. You can't keep square with your argument. I've stood on my position and provided evidence, and you can't even keep consistent in your posts. We're case closed here unless you'd like to contradict yourself once again. You can go in a circle of alternating statements if you wish, but I won't continue a conversation with an intellectually dishonest person.

Scaryscarymushroom
29-11-2012, 15:52
Just for the record, models like Romeo Exxet, which was used as an example of a mini that was "inspired by a manga style" are more detailed and subtle than anything I've ever seen from Games Workshop.

158786

That thing is 30mm scale, btw. Anima Tactics minis are a true joy to paint. I desperately wanted to leave that picture here so NO ONE would be confused about the quality and detail they can expect from Cipher Studios.

Oh. also: Scyla Anfingrimm looks like if Wreck-it-Ralph, Khorne, and a Gorilla got together and had a single child between them. And Mr. Anfingrimm would like to remind you where GW is headed stylistically.

158787

"I'm Gonna Wreck It!"

Maidel
29-11-2012, 20:18
GW's component assembly is getting more complicated but their detail design is actually getting simpler. For example, empire miniatures. The free company had much more detail than the more recent releases. The pre-2000 Orcs have a lot more minute detail than the more recent savage orcs or boar riders. GW has shown that they really like clean lines. Just look at the savage orc boss single they released recently. Overall very clean.

Also you keep using phrases like "does not remotely", "looks nothing like", "nothing remotely like manga, it's not even close" and then say "looks almost nothing like." You seem to not even know how influences manifest themselves in final products. When Andy Chambers says GW chose a clean manga inspired look for the Tau, a sensible person can look at the Tau and say "yes, i can see the influence, it is clear. They have clean lines like the manga inspirations they harbor." Not "The Tau do not remotely look like manga" or "the Tau looks nothing like manga." If either of those statements were true then GW's design team would have failed in implementing a clean manga inspired look which they set out to achieve. Now why do the Tau not look exactly like something from Macross? Because GW A) Has artists who pride themselves in combining existing ideas into somewhat newish ideas, however not devoid of influence, and B) directly lifting a design will get you sued. How can I have a conversation with someone who contradicts himself in his posts? That's being intellectually dishonest on your part. You can't keep square with your argument. I've stood on my position and provided evidence, and you can't even keep consistent in your posts. We're case closed here unless you'd like to contradict yourself once again. You can go in a circle of alternating statements if you wish, but I won't continue a conversation with an intellectually dishonest person.

Dear me. Intellectually dishonest? The word you should be looking for is hyperbole. It means using exaggerated statements to make a point. Nothing/almost nothing there is nothing remotely dishonest about that. Accusing me of over exaggerating my point would be far more appropriate in the situation.

My point without hyperbole - tau look almost nothing like their source inspiration. It's there, but you have to look for it, rather than it jumping up and smacking you in the face.


Just for the record, models like Romeo Exxet, which was used as an example of a mini that was "inspired by a manga style" are more detailed and subtle than anything I've ever seen from Games Workshop.

158786

That thing is 30mm scale, btw. Anima Tactics minis are a true joy to paint. I desperately wanted to leave that picture here so NO ONE would be confused about the quality and detail they can expect from Cipher Studios.

Oh. also: Scyla Anfingrimm looks like if Wreck-it-Ralph, Khorne, and a Gorilla got together and had a single child between them. And Mr. Anfingrimm would like to remind you where GW is headed stylistically.

158787

"I'm Gonna Wreck It!"

For the record the low detail on manga was not brought up initially by me, and wasn't supposed to be a comment about the anima models which are great. It just shows stylistic similarities with manga -eg huge sword.

And if gw heads towards Scylla as its style direction, I'll be jumping ship before you.

lbecks
29-11-2012, 22:59
Dear me. Intellectually dishonest? The word you should be looking for is hyperbole. It means using exaggerated statements to make a point. Nothing/almost nothing there is nothing remotely dishonest about that. Accusing me of over exaggerating my point would be far more appropriate in the situation.

My point without hyperbole - tau look almost nothing like their source inspiration. It's there, but you have to look for it, rather than it jumping up and smacking you in the face.

You can be hyperbolic and consistent. Which you weren't. In effect your statements went from the denier position to the accepting position (when evidence was brought forth) and you didn't want to admit it. Rather you wanted to save face and say the accepting position was yours all along. Hyperbole that results in an inconsistent argument is intellectual dishonesty.

Maidel
29-11-2012, 23:25
Yea. My lack of consistency. I had to go back a reread just to make sure I wasn't posting in my sleep or something.

First post was about gw in general and specifically the stegadon:


I'm so confused. What the heck are you watching that you call manga, because that has no similarity to it what so ever.

My second, also about gw in general:


But my point is that GW is nothing remotely like manga, it's not even close.


First post about tau specifically:


Tau were inspired by mecha in general. Be that anime, macross, gundam, or mechwarrior/battletech.

just because something was inspired by something else doesnt mean that the design ethic is the same as the inspiration.

Second post about tau specifically:


That was my point really. Although the influence may have been manga based (with westernised gaming added in from battletech) the actual product bares very little stylistic resemblance to them.

Final post about tau before we just get argumentative about semantics


hang on, theres a clear difference between something having a passing resemblance to something, and actually being in that style. Theres as much a resemblance to transformers as to any manga video/comic in the tau (and yes, I know transformers was based on a japanese toy line which in essence is also manga, but styliscally they are very different).


I'm REALLY not seeing this inconsistency you keep going on about. The only possible inconsistency is when I was asking about the stegadon (which is clear in context because its directly under a person talking about the stegadon) you assumed I was talking about tau?

I've always used the 'very little' or 'almost' proviso when referring to tau specifically, so maybe you want to revise your statements about me being inconsistent.

lbecks
30-11-2012, 01:29
Yea. My lack of consistency. I had to go back a reread just to make sure I wasn't posting in my sleep or something.

I'm REALLY not seeing this inconsistency you keep going on about. The only possible inconsistency is when I was asking about the stegadon (which is clear in context because its directly under a person talking about the stegadon) you assumed I was talking about tau?

I've always used the 'very little' or 'almost' proviso when referring to tau specifically, so maybe you want to revise your statements about me being inconsistent.

"But my point is that GW is nothing remotely like manga, it's not even close." We've already determined you don't know what remotely means and that you made a very definitive blanket statement. And then I brought up the Tau and their manga influence (Tau are created by GW, hence they can be included in your quoted statement.) And then you tried to explain since there are mecha in anime/manga the Tau have a coincidental connection to anime "Tau are inspired by mecha in general . . . or mechwarrior/battletech." Then I brought up the quote by Chambers that they were deliberately designed to stylistically emulate a manga look. So therefore the Tau, even remotely, are like manga. Hey, it is close! That refutes your blanket GW statement. Then you try to say "well, that was my point all along!" when it wasn't and you were just being dishonest about your position.

Havock
30-11-2012, 01:42
Well, the Chaos Warshrine and Scylla look silly imho. Even going so far as to say "****".

Then there's the new 40k flyers (from Stormraven onward) and I am not really convinved of them anymore.

Lexington
30-11-2012, 02:09
"Lately" is difficult to gauge, since miniatures cited as recent in this thread go back to at least six or seven years ago. Lots of time to cover, and some major stylistic shifts.

In the last three or so years, though, they've definitely decided that "moar" is a bigger priority than "better," at least as far as 40K's concerned. Witness the cartoonishly overdone Necron revamp, which completely went against the subtle aesthetic that their original line had. So many moving parts and dingbat accessories. Same goes for the hideous Blood Angels - especially the Sanguinary Guard, which may be the stunning failure of basic design in the company's history. The Grey Knights had the Dreadknight, which, shockingly, managed to live up to the crass lameness of it's name.

It just seems to me that, as in many aspects of the 40K IP, GW is just doing the dumbest and most obvious things when it comes to minis design.

Maidel
30-11-2012, 09:32
"But my point is that GW is nothing remotely like manga, it's not even close." We've already determined you don't know what remotely means and that you made a very definitive blanket statement. And then I brought up the Tau and their manga influence (Tau are created by GW, hence they can be included in your quoted statement.) And then you tried to explain since there are mecha in anime/manga the Tau have a coincidental connection to anime "Tau are inspired by mecha in general . . . or mechwarrior/battletech." Then I brought up the quote by Chambers that they were deliberately designed to stylistically emulate a manga look. So therefore the Tau, even remotely, are like manga. Hey, it is close! That refutes your blanket GW statement. Then you try to say "well, that was my point all along!" when it wasn't and you were just being dishonest about your position.

Sigh. What is your issue with me? On at least two threads you have made it your mission to try and discredit me. It's rather flattering that you should consider me worth so much of your time, but it's a little creepy. I stopped posting in another thread because it was becoming 'unpleasant' and not conducive to discussion, and the same is happening here.

I made a blanket statement. Yes, as I said its called hyperbole. When discussing gw in general there is nothing 'dishonest ' about saying that gw aren't manga influenced. You can argue with me that gw ARE manga influenced, but what you are trying to do is discredit me by saying, well the tau are, thus his initial statement is dishonest. Sorry, rubbish. This is an Internet forum, not a law court. If people were to detail every last exception to everything they said, nothing would ever get discussed. If you read other parts of the forum you will see posts saying 'the Necron flying circus is unbeatable.' It's not, everyone knows its not, it's hyperbole to make a point.

Anyway, if you actually READ and discussed my posts, rather than trying to semantically dismantle me, you will actually notice that my two statements don't contradict each other.

Gw is nothing like manga DOES NOT get contradicted by saying the tau are manga influenced. Why? Because when discussing gws general style I don't think it is manga influenced. See the difference? Discussion on general styling vs discussion on single range, no contradiction.

Now, if you would like to disagree with me, show me some photos, pictures, anything that proves your point, great, please do. My point, not revised or edited just restated and in context of the thread - where gws style is headed is not manga influenced.

stahly
30-11-2012, 10:19
Oh. also: Scyla Anfingrimm looks like if Wreck-it-Ralph, Khorne, and a Gorilla got together and had a single child between them. And Mr. Anfingrimm would like to remind you where GW is headed stylistically.

158787

"I'm Gonna Wreck It!"

Scyla was sculpted by Trish Carden (Morrison), who is one of the longest working GW sculptors. She started back in the 80s and so look most of their models today. Scyla represents not where GW's art direction is heading to, but coming from.

Better take a look at the models of the creative masterminds in the GW studio like Jes Goodwin and Brian Nelson, who also provide a lot of concept art for the other sculptors. Jes e.g. did the concept art for all the new Chaos models, including Heldrake and the Maulerfiend/Forgefiend. Also look at the models of the "new generation" of sculptors like Seb Perbet (Hellpit Abomination, River Trolls), Martin Footit (Zombie Dragon) or even Alex Hedström (Skullcrushers), who all work mainly digital. These younger sculptors bring in all kinds of inspiration they grew up with - comic books, cartoons, manga, games and the like. In general, I think they add more stylistic abstraction to the models. Take a look at the 6th edition Lizardmen stegadon. A rather realistic sculpt, but in the end rather uninspired and generic, like a triceratops toy with a howdah on top. The new plastic one is much more stylized, you can just feel someone made a lot of concept art to create a more unique design for such a creature.

williamsond
30-11-2012, 11:19
To be honest i think the new chaos war machines are really bad, they just look daft/goofy and have no asthetic link with the rest of the range. The only good version of the flyer I have seen is where some guy removed the head and replaced it with a cockpit then made the wings more forward swooping. as for the whole Manga/anime debate now that some one has mentioned it i can really see the influence in the DE and Tau lines, maybe the current batch of sculpters grew up on a diet of manga videos during the 90's like I did.

lbecks
30-11-2012, 12:39
Sigh. What is your issue with me? On at least two threads you have made it your mission to try and discredit me. It's rather flattering that you should consider me worth so much of your time, but it's a little creepy. I stopped posting in another thread because it was becoming 'unpleasant' and not conducive to discussion, and the same is happening here.

I made a blanket statement. Yes, as I said its called hyperbole. When discussing gw in general there is nothing 'dishonest ' about saying that gw aren't manga influenced. You can argue with me that gw ARE manga influenced, but what you are trying to do is discredit me by saying, well the tau are, thus his initial statement is dishonest. Sorry, rubbish. This is an Internet forum, not a law court. If people were to detail every last exception to everything they said, nothing would ever get discussed. If you read other parts of the forum you will see posts saying 'the Necron flying circus is unbeatable.' It's not, everyone knows its not, it's hyperbole to make a point.

Anyway, if you actually READ and discussed my posts, rather than trying to semantically dismantle me, you will actually notice that my two statements don't contradict each other.

Gw is nothing like manga DOES NOT get contradicted by saying the tau are manga influenced. Why? Because when discussing gws general style I don't think it is manga influenced. See the difference? Discussion on general styling vs discussion on single range, no contradiction.

Now, if you would like to disagree with me, show me some photos, pictures, anything that proves your point, great, please do. My point, not revised or edited just restated and in context of the thread - where gws style is headed is not manga influenced.

You left that other thread because a whole lot of people other than me were pointing out how inconsistent your posts are and how what you say doesn't make sense. If multiple people are finding that same thing about you then that's on you. You're responsible for that by misleading people with your dishonest statements. This is an internet forum. We communicate by what we write. So if you like playing fast, loose, and dishonest with your words then people are going to point it out to you. And if you don't like it, work on being more thorough, precise, and consistent with what you write.

Back to the Tau. Considering the Tau make up a percentage of what GW has designed they may be included in any type of "general" accumulation of style points. So when you still say "I don't think it is manga influenced" you haven't realized that this is no longer a matter of opinion. Andy Chambers flat out said in GW's published magazine manga has directly influenced GW's design. It's a fact.


Scyla was sculpted by Trish Carden (Morrison), who is one of the longest working GW sculptors. She started back in the 80s and so look most of their models today. Scyla represents not where GW's art direction is heading to, but coming from.

Better take a look at the models of the creative masterminds in the GW studio like Jes Goodwin and Brian Nelson, who also provide a lot of concept art for the other sculptors. Jes e.g. did the concept art for all the new Chaos models, including Heldrake and the Maulerfiend/Forgefiend. Also look at the models of the "new generation" of sculptors like Seb Perbet (Hellpit Abomination, River Trolls), Martin Footit (Zombie Dragon) or even Alex Hedström (Skullcrushers), who all work mainly digital. These younger sculptors bring in all kinds of inspiration they grew up with - comic books, cartoons, manga, games and the like. In general, I think they add more stylistic abstraction to the models. Take a look at the 6th edition Lizardmen stegadon. A rather realistic sculpt, but in the end rather uninspired and generic, like a triceratops toy with a howdah on top. The new plastic one is much more stylized, you can just feel someone made a lot of concept art to create a more unique design for such a creature.

I think Trish has the most old school style in her sculpts. Jes Goodwin has been around since the 80's and he's not devoid of outside influences. I think his Dark Eldar creatures have a certain french style because those are the models he first used FIMO with and I believe he was in contact with MIKH while learning how to use it.

Maidel
30-11-2012, 13:27
Back to the Tau. Considering the Tau make up a percentage of what GW has designed they may be included in any type of "general" accumulation of style points. So when you still say "I don't think it is manga influenced" you haven't realized that this is no longer a matter of opinion. Andy Chambers flat out said in GW's published magazine manga has directly influenced GW's design. It's a fact.


No, that's not true and would be misleading.

I don't think that any of the other ranges are manga influenced, you may disagree, but this is about what I said, not what you think. If you go with my premise that only the tau have that influence. Saying that gws style in general (which is what this thread is about) is heading towards manga is untrue.

Consider this. Each range is equated to a family, so there are 30 families. If I said that there are 30 children (equate with manga style influence) then what you are saying is each family has on average a child. In fact, 29 families don't have a child, and one has 30 children. So in general the families don't have children.

In the same way gw is not manga influenced, the tau however are specifically. My posting is consistent, the problem is you would prefer to target me and what I have written, rather than providing a single shred of evidence to back up your assertions.

lbecks
30-11-2012, 14:01
No, that's not true and would be misleading.

I don't think that any of the other ranges are manga influenced, you may disagree, but this is about what I said, not what you think. If you go with my premise that only the tau have that influence. Saying that gws style in general (which is what this thread is about) is heading towards manga is untrue.

Consider this. Each range is equated to a family, so there are 30 families. If I said that there are 30 children (equate with manga style influence) then what you are saying is each family has on average a child. In fact, 29 families don't have a child, and one has 30 children. So in general the families don't have children.

In the same way gw is not manga influenced, the tau however are specifically. My posting is consistent, the problem is you would prefer to target me and what I have written, rather than providing a single shred of evidence to back up your assertions.

"If you go with my premise that only the tau have that influence." First of all that isn't your premise. That's a fact that I brought up with evidence from Andy Chambers from WD. You're being dishonest again.

"Saying that gws style in general (which is what this thread is about) is heading towards manga is untrue." Secondly, my contention with your post is about this statement: "But my point is that GW is nothing remotely like manga, it's not even close." The quote says that's your point. That's your premise. And that is the point I disputed and disproved. Why you keep denying that i'm not sure.

Thirdly, your child example makes no sense. Did you make that up on the fly without thinking about what you're saying? I'm sensing common themes with you.

Here's a family example if you want one of those. There's this family of caucasian british people. Grandparents, children, grandchildren. Some guy says "This family has no asian japanese members, they're not even remotely related to one." Turns out one of the children married an asian japanese woman and had children (grandchildren) who are half asian japanese and half caucasian british. The family now has asian japanese members. The guy who said "This family has no asian japanese members, they're not even remotely related to one" now says "They don't even look japanese! Look at their eyes! I don't see it!" in an effort to save face for his fallacious earlier statement and disregarding the fact that their mother is asian japanese. Any opinion or statement from "they're not even remotely related to one" guy does not deny the fact that the caucasian british family now has asian japanese members. He's just being intellectually dishonest at this point because he will not admit he was wrong in his initial statement.

Maidel
30-11-2012, 14:16
Erm. Seriously, all you are doing again is trying to discredit me, rather than discuss the situation I've layed out.

If it makes you happy, I'll even say that when I was talking about gw in general I was not thinking about tau. It's not true, but if it helps move the conversation along a step I'm happy to make that white lie.

Your analogy is actually completely wrong, because having Japanese relatives would genetically affect the family in general, whereas tau having a certain influence only affects that range, not the rest. My analogy was far more apt I'm afraid, your is just confusing and misleading. That is, unless you think that the tau having manga influence suddenly means that space marines do as well?

I'll try again. This thread is about gws stylistic influence and where it is heading.

In this thread I have said that gw in general doesn't have a style, each range has its own style, or that some ranges share a style, but it's not consistent across the board.

Only one range has any manga influence, and I keep saying its an influence as apposed to a style direction because I simply don't see the resemblance in the final product, and to be frank, only a small proportion of the army is actually mecha at all.

Do you wish to discuss this? Or do you wish to carry on the character assassination which is frankly looking a bit stalkerish.

lbecks
30-11-2012, 14:38
Erm. Seriously, all you are doing again is trying to discredit me, rather than discuss the situation I've layed out.

I've already discredited your point that you, uh, stated as your point. I proved that point was false. We really don't need to discuss anything beyond that but you keep responding to me in an effort to somehow retcon the point that you stated as your point.


If it makes you happy, I'll even say that when I was talking about gw in general I was not thinking about tau. It's not true, but if it helps move the conversation along a step I'm happy to make that white lie.

It's nice that you're trying to make me happy but do you know what would really make me happy? Having discussions with people who are into intellectual honesty. Being even more dishonest won't help. If you're still going to deny facts then don't do it. If you'd like to admit you were incorrect in assuming that the Tau had no manga/anime influence then you may do so. If you had done that in the first place you could have avoided digging this dishonest hole for yourself.


Your analogy is actually completely wrong, because having Japanese relatives would genetically affect the family in general, whereas tau having a certain influence only affects that range, not the rest. My analogy was far more apt I'm afraid, your is just confusing and misleading.

The Tau having deliberately stated Manga influence does influence whatever is considered the whole of GW style. Since GW has many sculptors who are given a certain amount of design autonomy any "GW style" blanket statement takes into account all work. Any concept of "GW Style" must consist of the sum of its parts. As Tau is a part it must be considered when talking of the entirety of "GW style." I still don't know what you were trying to say in your analogy. Maybe someone else who reads it can explain it, but you did a bad job. My analogy is very straight forward and easy to understand. You even understand that a part affects the whole. The two things are not mutually exclusive like how you think the Tau and your vague notion of "GW style" are. Also in my family example I didn't take into account generations beyond. For example, one forum member in this thread said he sees a manga influence in the Dark Eldar range. Do you know the sculptor tasked with bringing a manga style into the Tau? Jes Goodwin. He's also the sculptor who was tasked with overseeing the Dark Eldar range. So the influence has expanded beyond the Tau if someone in this thread stated they can see a manga influence in a range designed by the very same person who designed the manga styled Tau.


That is, unless you think that the tau having manga influence suddenly means that space marines do as well?

Space Marines look like Zaku mobile suits. I've said that in this thread. The rounded helmets, big boots, exposed cabling on the chest, big shoulder pads. Of course there's no quote from someone working at GW when they were designed who says that, so it's in the realm of opinion. Unlike the Tau being like manga, which is in the realm of fact.


I'll try again. This thread is about gws stylistic influence and where it is heading.

In this thread I have said that gw in general doesn't have a style, each range has its own style, or that some ranges share a style, but it's not consistent across the board.

Are you saying that now? Because you didn't say that before. You said GW does have a style and for some reason in your mind the Tau do not contribute to that style. This is another example of you being dishonest by straying from the point that you stated as your point, the one that I directly responded to and disproved.


Only one range has any manga influence, and I keep saying its an influence as apposed to a style direction because I simply don't see the resemblance in the final product, and to be frank, only a small proportion of the army is actually mecha at all.

Do you wish to discuss this? Or do you wish to carry on the character assassination which is frankly looking a bit stalkerish.

Character assassination? You've assassinated your own character with your responses and intellectual dishonesty, in this thread and the one you had to exit because you were embarrassing yourself. You could avoid making yourself look bad by just admitting when you are wrong when it comes to facts. Hey, i've been wrong about some factual things. However when it's pointed out to me i'm wrong i look at the evidence and facts and then determine those were right and I should amend what I thought was true. You on the other hand deny facts and pursue intellectual dishonesty by trying to assert altered statements and tangential discussions. You've done it here and you did it in the the thread you "had" to leave.

I stand by my refuting of your point, which you stated as your point:

"But my point is that GW is nothing remotely like manga, it's not even close." <- That's your point is it not? You said it's yours. The point that I responded to. And it was disproved.

Scaryscarymushroom
30-11-2012, 18:30
Scyla represents not where GW's art direction is heading to, but coming from.

I'd love to believe that. But I'm really cynical and somewhat pessimistic. Here's my idea of where GW came from:

158842158843158844158846158847158848



Better take a look at the models of the creative masterminds in the GW studio like Jes Goodwin and Brian Nelson, who also provide a lot of concept art for the other sculptors. Jes e.g. did the concept art for all the new Chaos models, including Heldrake and the Maulerfiend/Forgefiend.

Sadly I don't really like the Heldrake, and I'm non-plussed by the _______fiends. Contrast the pics of old stuff I have attached above with this newer stuff:

158849158850158851158852

^^I'm especially fond of the egyptian silver surfer over here. And the stormraven (while not pictured) is an aboslute charm...

(Also, limit of 10 pics per post. But I think I've made my point. We all know what the new CSM mutilators look like. And what the Stormraven looks like. And other new things.)

stahly
30-11-2012, 21:54
So how does this prove your point when I can do this:

158854158855158856158857158858

Point is, there will always be models that turn out better and some that don't. For the record, I dislike most of the models you posted, too. And there were a couple ones recently I didn't liked as well, such as the Chaos Warshrine.

But what I see is that they put a lot more creative energy in their model ranges to create something that has a style other model ranges or fantasy/sci-fi universes don't have. For example, take Vampire Counts. They used to have an amalgamation of generic vampiric cliché models - I mean how bad were those classic von Carstein models. The newer models are much more cohesive and add a certain kind of asthetic that truely fits the Warhammer world while doing away with the cheesy Lord Dracula with cape kind of stuff.

Fear Ghoul
30-11-2012, 23:17
I'm confused about the concept of a "manga style", because there is no such thing. Naruto has a different style completely from Hellsing. Final Fantasy has a completely different style from Tekken. Talking about a "manga style" is like talking about a "American live-action style" i.e. makes no sense. Stylistically the Tau were influenced by general mecha styles from Patlabor and Gundam, but GW took this and made it into their own as they did with Moorcock's Chaos and Tolkien's Elves. I don't see what the problem is here or why people are getting so worked up about it.

@Scaryscarymushroom: The examples you use don't make any sense. How are the new Grey Knight Terminators different stylistically from the 3rd edition Grey Knight Strike Squad apart from being in terminator armour? You also use a Hobbit Troll when surely you know that GW had very little control in its design. And why are the seven Sisters clones suppossed to be superior to recent offerings from GW? Why don't you compare the old Bloodletters with the new ones if you want to talk about style changes? Why do you deliberately pick the Storm Talon to prove your point when everyone knows it is one of the least liked Marine models of recent times? Why don't you instead talk about much more liked Marine models such as the Death Company, Sanguinary Guard, Chosen, Possessed, Raptors, and Helbrute (to name a few)? Whilst I appreciate that everybody has certain GW models they don't like, there is a difference between fair and consistent opinion versus selective citation and bias.

Scaryscarymushroom
01-12-2012, 00:03
@ Stahly

Prove my point? I was trying to say that GW's minis have changed and I generally don't like where the company is going. (Perhaps I have a somewhat constrained view of what "the company" is. I'm almost exclusively interested in 40k.)

If you want to argue, I'm sure Maidel is up for it. :p

I do like the Dark Eldar cover art.
Don't like the Bloodletters, I wish those hadn't happened. (I also prefer the old Daemonettes. The new Nurglings are kinda funny and sort of cute in a disturbing way. Much less disgusting than the old ones.)
Don't really care for the Hellpit Abomination either.
These CSM are pretty cool,
as is the Vampire Counts art.


Point is, there will always be models that turn out better and some that don't.

Yes! I do agree. It's not as if the old Scyla Anfirgrimm was something to be proud of. And much of the *really* old stuff looked kinda wacky, too.

So then here's the question for you: Where is GW heading stylistically? I can say I don't like it, and you can say you do like it, and we might be providing answers to essentially different questions.

I'll speak in terms of a 40k timeline, as that's the only one I really know.

Around 2nd edition GW had some really incredible artwork (in which there was a lot of red, yellow, and orange wispy stuff everywhere - I love that style. John Blanche is a genius. Like if Van Gogh were obsessed with war, and then crossed with Frank Miller.) and they produced a lot of good minis and a lot of bad minis. The 2d edition chaos, orks and space wolf codices had a strange, comic feel to them. The orks were especially odd, big green things dressed in full military outfits... GW's strongest point at the time was probably chaos space marine characters (many of whom are still around today, including that BAMF Cypher).

Around late 2ed. and early 3rd edition GW kept their comic feel but the overall aesthetic of 40k shifted. Dark Eldar, Necrons (the really old ones), and SoB kept some of the comic-book elements, but also explored a more "tortured" and dismal direction for the game in general. GW set out to establish a different kind of sci-fi, one that wasn't so sterile as star wars or star trek. This (IMO) is where they finally started to make serious headway with that goal.

Eventually (late 3rd. early 4th) the bright color-pallete and wildness became replaced with a grim, pale design scheme highlighted by confusion, horror, brutality, futility, shame, and morbid curiosity. Everywhere it was 'hear no evil; see no evil; speak no evil.' And everywhere there was evil to hear and see. Much of the imperial art depicted self-inflicted wounds or torture. "Innocence proves nothing." "Suffer not the witch to live." Mankind was rotten, and it was telling itself to close its eyes and wish the rot away. That idea was at the forefront of the game's aesthetic. At least, that's the part of it that I saw most, by a dramatic amount. At the same time, 40k maintained a distinctly gothic feel that perfectly reflected the stagnation of the Imperium both in habit and belief. GW got that gritty sci-fi they wanted.

After a few years, though, the game started to feel like a waxy old man with clammy, wrinkly skin and liver spots.

Late 4th and early 5th, that bright color palate returned. Chaos went aesthetically AGGRO in the 4th edition book, which was a HUGE departure from the existing feel for the game. 5th ed. space marines were better than 4th ed. chaos in terms of artwork, but then by late 5th everything except Space Wolves (but including thunderwolf cav.) and except Dark Eldar (but including the Succubus and a few other non-essential kits) started heading steadily towards the bright, eye-catching, distinctly 'marketed,' hulk-smash style. There were bold colors and sharp edges on everything. No subtlety or inflection. And many new releases invoke a feeling for me that is similar to this DBZ clip of people powering up and screaming a lot. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xthm6dzMbBk)

And the art, as it always had, influenced the model design.

Nowadays, GW puts out stuff like this:

"Welcome to the grimdark universe of Chaos, the Emperor has ruled this world for 40000 years, but he would rather utilize all manners of machinery to maintain his rotting state than give up his power. Power is truly a terrifying thing, which side will you choose? Will you choose to serve the rotting corpse of the Emperor or lead the Xenos to topple this empire? " (granted, for a Chinese audience through a twitter-like online service. But the simplicity of the writing and the concept is about on par with what I'd expect from the fluff in GW's new codices anyway.)

I like the 40k of late 3rd and early 4th. Wrinkly-Old-Catholic-Monk-Syndrome aside, I think it had the best aesthetic feel GW has ever been able to offer. I'm not excited about where 40k is going at any rate.

Scaryscarymushroom
01-12-2012, 00:08
How are the new Grey Knight Terminators different stylistically from the 3rd edition Grey Knight Strike Squad apart from being in terminator armour? You also use a Hobbit Troll when surely you know that GW had very little control in its design. And why are the seven Sisters clones suppossed to be superior to recent offerings from GW? Why don't you compare the old Bloodletters with the new ones if you want to talk about style changes? Why do you deliberately pick the Storm Talon to prove your point when everyone knows it is one of the least liked Marine models of recent times? Why don't you instead talk about much more liked Marine models such as the Death Company, Sanguinary Guard, Chosen, Possessed, Raptors, and Helbrute (to name a few)? Whilst I appreciate that everybody has certain GW models they don't like, there is a difference between fair and consistent opinion versus selective citation and bias.

I was trying to show a difference of general direction, not a strict comparison of one thing to another. That's why I didn't think to show the old bloodletters compared to the new ones.

And I happen to like 'the seven Sisters clones' thank you very much. So, yes. The sisters are supposed to be superior to recent offerings from GW because I like their style more. Not that I expect you to agree with me. You are allowed to disagree with me after all.

And I didn't realize that everyone and their mother absolutely hated the storm talon to pieces; while liking any of your other examples. Honestly, I think it's one of the less offensive space marine kits with an age of less than 5 years. If they were both the same price, I'd sooner buy it than a stormraven.

Anybody know exactly how much liberty GW had with the Goblin King? I don't expect it to be much, but there could be posing stuff, props, and for all I know there might even be some liberty taken with anatomy. I haven't seen the hobbit yet, after all. Have you?
Before we go shouting about it some factual analysis would be useful.

And I believe that my opinions are fair and consistent biased. They're also mine. I prefer the first group of pictures to the second group of pictures. I even prefer the first group to the third group of pics offered by Stahly. That isn't to say there are groups of pics that are meritless.

Fear Ghoul
01-12-2012, 01:44
I was trying to show a difference of general direction, not a strict comparison of one thing to another. That's why I didn't think to show the old bloodletters to the new ones.

The problem is that none of your examples offered a fair comparison. If you want to illustrate changes over time then time should be your only variable. Comparing models tat are not designed to look remotely alike across different systems is just pointless. It would be like comparing a 4th edition WHFB Goblin to a 6th edition 40k Helbrute.


And I happen to like 'the seven Sisters clones' thank you very much. So, yes. The sisters are supposed to be superior to recent offerings from GW because I like their style more. Not that I expect you to agree with me. You are allowed to disagree with me after all.

I like the armour and weapons of the sisters, but dislike their faces severely. Why is every model having the same face suppossed to be a good style?


And I didn't realize that everyone and their mother absolutely hated the storm talon to pieces; while liking any of your other examples. Honestly, I think it's one of the less offensive space marine kits with an age of less than 5 years. If they were both the same price, I'd sooner buy it than a stormraven.

There are of course people who dislike the other newer Marine kits as well, however I remember a lot more vitriol directed at the Stormtalon and Stormraven. I myself would never buy a Stormtalon strictly from a model aesthetic perspective.


Anybody know exactly how much liberty GW had with the Goblin King? I don't expect it to be much, but there could be posing stuff, props, and for all I know there might even be some liberty taken with anatomy. I haven't seen the hobbit yet, after all. Have you?
Before we go shouting about it some factual analysis would be useful.

How much liberty did they take with the LOTR models? Hardly any. In fact many of the models exhibited poses directly lifted from scenes in the films, including the Moriar Troll and Balrog. There is no reason to suspect this Goblin King will be any different.


And I believe that my opinions are fair and consistent. They're also mine. I prefer the first group of pictures to the second group of pictures. I even prefer the first group to the third group of pics offered by Stahly. That isn't to say there are groups of pics that are meritless.

You actually describe yourself as pessimistic and cynical, which by definition makes you predisposed to bias.

The problem is that you have selected bad examples because they aren't really illustrating anything, as per my first point above. If you want to talk about GW style changes then you should compare older and newer versions of the same model, or new models within the context of the army as a whole. You also haven't explained why the pictures you presented are better, beyond saying that they simply are. Why are 3rd edition Grey Knight Strike Marines better than 5th edition Grey Knight Terminators? By contrast I have explained why I think the Sisters models look dire by today's standards, and in other threads I have explained why I prefer the new daemonettes (and most of the newer daemons) to the older ones.

I also think the problem lies in the premise that GW has a style, which I don't think is the case. Armies have styles and sometimes they change for better and sometimes for worse. The doom and gloom surrounding newer GW models has existed ever since I entered the hobby many years ago. Some still hold that 2nd edition 40k models with their comically oversized heads, hands, and weapons and squat poses are more "characterful" (insert: bizarre) than todays offerings, and some believe that Rogue Trader models are better still. Nostalgia I think has a lot to do with people's perceptions of model quality.

Scaryscarymushroom
01-12-2012, 02:04
You actually describe yourself as pessimistic and cynical, which by definition makes you predisposed to bias.

Oh, you got me. I am pre-disposed to bias after all.

158880

There. I fixed that part of my post above. I'm not fair. Or consistent. I'd rather change when people point something out to me than be consistent about something that's untrue.


You also haven't explained why the pictures you presented are better, beyond saying that they simply are.

Personal opinion. That's why. If I said "cheese pizza is better than pepperoni because I like it more" would you jump down my throat and tell me that my argument about cheese pizza is circular? It's not an argument at all.

The problem with making arguments about why 'X is better than Y' is that there's an inherent element of subjectivity. Unless you can agree on what specifically, better means... (for example, many people agree that a better business plan is one that (ethically) results in both short-term and long-term gain. Some people might disagree on that ethical part, some people might insist that a 'better' business plan is one that takes pollution and waste into account. Others will disagree and put profit above the environment.)

Maybe you like meat on your pizza. Maybe you like your pizza to be more greasy than I do. Meh. If you do, you aren't wrong, but please don't tell me that I need to justify my personal preference or else I will be.

If I said "Sisters of battle are better than new stuff because, despite their ugly man-faces, I think that the sculpts offer a nice mix of sharp and smooth edges, fabric that looks quite weighty, there are skulls, and the shoulders have fleur-de-lys on them" all that says is that I know what I like in a mini. It doesn't say that, objectively, every other person should think they are preferable to other minis in every way.

Inquisitor Engel
01-12-2012, 02:23
I think there's some weird stuff coming out, but I like where they're heading. The new Necrons are all REALLY cool models and concepts, the Dark Eldar are probably the only army out there that's picture perfect on everything IMHO and the new Chaos, while not exactly my cup of tea for my own traitor legionnaires, they're certainly impressive models and do look VERY Chaos.

Are there missteps? Yes, but there always have been and given the creativity in the 40k and WFB community, they're nothing people can't get around.

Fear Ghoul
02-12-2012, 03:06
Oh, you got me. I am pre-disposed to bias after all.

158880

There. I fixed that part of my post above. I'm not fair. Or consistent. I'd rather change when people point something out to me than be consistent about something that's untrue.



Personal opinion. That's why. If I said "cheese pizza is better than pepperoni because I like it more" would you jump down my throat and tell me that my argument about cheese pizza is circular? It's not an argument at all.

The problem with making arguments about why 'X is better than Y' is that there's an inherent element of subjectivity. Unless you can agree on what specifically, better means... (for example, many people agree that a better business plan is one that (ethically) results in both short-term and long-term gain. Some people might disagree on that ethical part, some people might insist that a 'better' business plan is one that takes pollution and waste into account. Others will disagree and put profit above the environment.)

Maybe you like meat on your pizza. Maybe you like your pizza to be more greasy than I do. Meh. If you do, you aren't wrong, but please don't tell me that I need to justify my personal preference or else I will be.

If I said "Sisters of battle are better than new stuff because, despite their ugly man-faces, I think that the sculpts offer a nice mix of sharp and smooth edges, fabric that looks quite weighty, there are skulls, and the shoulders have fleur-de-lys on them" all that says is that I know what I like in a mini. It doesn't say that, objectively, every other person should think they are preferable to other minis in every way.

On the other hand why should personal opinion be sacrosanct? If people aren't willing to explain themselves then why bother releasing their opinions into the public domain? There is also a subtle difference again which your pizza example glosses over - we justify our personal food tastes through citation of colour, texture, form, and flavour. All of these things are entirely subjective in terms of what people prefer, however problems do arise with consistency of preference. Using your pizza example if someone says they like pizza because it has cheese on it then that is fine. Someone saying they like margherita pizza because it has cheese on it but hate pepperoni pizza because it has cheese on it is not fine. It is a contradiction. Either the persons reasoning is wrong (maybe it's about more than simply the presence or absence of cheese) or they are inherently contrary.

Therefore you cannot say that reasoning doesn't matter, because it is what we do to make our decisions in life. that affect us and others around us. Expecting not to have to defend your position on something and sanctifying it as personal opinion is simply a cop out, a strategy designed by people (in general) to defend that that which they know is undefendable through its unreason. I would like to emphasis that I do not intend offense with this comment, but rather explaining that I see no point discussing anything at all if all people are going to say is "it's my opinion and don't question it". We'd all be as well stop visiting forums and continue living our normal lives in silence.

I'm somewhat confused regardless as you go ahead and explain your appreciation for the Sisters at the bottom anyway, despite your protestation that you shouldn't have to do so. Now that you have done so I can understand your position. I actually agree with most of what you say, however for me the same hideous man-face repeated four times over ruins the unit as a whole regardless of its other merits. Back in 2nd edition it was considered a good set of models, but today we are given many more model options that are often more detailed and closer to true scale, so I don't think they compare very well. I look forward to seeing what GW does with the plastic reboot of which they are in desperate need.

None of the above however changes the original charge: selective citation of a few recent GW models doesn't prove a stylistic change has occurred, nor would it do so even had you explained what change had occurred and why the previous style was better.

Scaryscarymushroom
02-12-2012, 10:02
On the other hand why should personal opinion be sacrosanct? If people aren't willing to explain themselves then why bother releasing their opinions into the public domain? There is also a subtle difference again which your pizza example glosses over - we justify our personal food tastes through citation of colour, texture, form, and flavour. All of these things are entirely subjective in terms of what people prefer, however problems do arise with consistency of preference. Using your pizza example if someone says they like pizza because it has cheese on it then that is fine. Someone saying they like margherita pizza because it has cheese on it but hate pepperoni pizza because it has cheese on it is not fine. It is a contradiction. Either the persons reasoning is wrong (maybe it's about more than simply the presence or absence of cheese) or they are inherently contrary.

Was I inconsistent in this manner? Allow me to summarize what I think I said over several posts. Maybe I was unclear or perhaps I didn't think hard enough about what I typed at first.


I don't like Scyla. I don't like GW's new style. I would like to believe that Scyla represents the old, rather than the new, but I don't see it that way (something about being pessimistic, which was supposed to be a comment about my outlook for GW's development of style). I see GW's old style as being this: pic.pic.pic.pic.pic.pic. (Mostly late '90s early '00s.) I see GW's new style as being this: pic.pic.pic.pic. (Mostly 2011 or later.) The first group is better than the second group. And the third group is ok. Blather about pros and cons of Sisters of Battle.

Not really sure if I was inconsistent. I see a distinct difference the first group of pics when compared to the second and even the third set. (bleaker, more formal and threatening style and presentation generally vs. literally more colorful, polarized and proud* style and presentation generally)

Second, a person can be consistent and prefer cheese/margherita pizza to pepperoni pizza even if they don't like cheese. They might dislike cheese and absolutely detest pepperoni. Saying "X is better than Y" still has problems when trying to judge a statement objectively. Now, I like some of GW's work, so the only way this point is applicable is to distinguish 'preference' from 'like.'

Third, (and this is going out on a tangent) a person might like cheese and like pepperoni, but find the combination overwhelming. That doesn't make them inconsistent when they say "I like cheese pizza because it has cheese. Cheese is good. If it had no cheese, it would be a worse pizza." and "I dislike pepperoni pizza because it has cheese. Cheese is good, but if it had no cheese, it would be a better pizza."


Therefore you cannot say that reasoning doesn't matter, because it is what we do to make our decisions in life. that affect us and others around us. Expecting not to have to defend your position on something and sanctifying it as personal opinion is simply a cop out, a strategy designed by people (in general) to defend that that which they know is undefendable through its unreason.

Whoa. I hope I didn't say that reasoning doesn't matter. Reasoning is an excellent tool, but I think it has little to offer when it comes to a person's attempts to justify their like or dislike for something. I can say what I appreciate about Sisters or my favorite color or whatever; but trying to analyze why a person likes certain elements of something while disliking certain elements of something else is like a dog chasing its tail.

"Why do you like SOB? What makes them better than new stuff?"
"Because they have a specific set of characteristics, including skulls and religious symbols."
"Why are skulls and religion so important?"
"Because I like doom, misery and its relation to blind faith."
"And what does that have to do with anything regarding model design?"
"Schopenhauer and Nietzsche had it right. Life is suffering and insanity. Seems fitting that it is reflected in minis."
"Why do you think that's fitting?"
"Please stop bothering me."

This isn't reasoning or argument. (It is discussion, however! :))

Give me some rules (or facts, i.e. things we take for granted**), and I will give you an argument.
Here's a rule: Whenever Mushroom and Fearghoul argue, it is by communicating through Warseer. Here's another rule: Mushroom and Fearghoul never use Warseer at the dinner table. Here's an argument: Mushroom and Fearghoul are arguing, therefore they are not at the dinner table.

I dare to challenge the notion that sanctifying something as personal opinion is simply an excuse to remain ignorant. Rather, I insist that there is absolutely no good way to defend an opinion unless it has some factual grounds. The word 'better' invites disagreement because it implies some factual basis for even the most outlandish comparisons (such as 'which fake universe is better?'). I should have just said "I like the old stuff more than the new stuff." After all, that's what I actually meant when I said "the old is better than the new."

Practically speaking, there's a big difference between defending an opinion and presenting a cohesive argument.

Providing yourself with sound reasoning for personal decisions can lead to predictable and desirable results, such as having a nice job, a nice home, a nice family, eating good food, having fun, getting your name recorded in history books, whatever floats your boat. And, providing justification for major social issues can be a vehicle for powerful change. Regardless of the benefits, keep asking why and you'll get a really vague, meaningless and convoluted answer. Why powerful change? What's the point? Why is it so important that a person goes to school? Why learn? Why contribute to society? Why make more money? Is it because 'the man' said that would be a good idea?

"Because (proper noun) liked it," "(proper noun) disliked it," "It preserves the species," "Because of social Darwinism," "Because Jesus/Buddha/the spirit of love would have done it." Doesn't matter what the question is. Why did Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X fight for the empowerment of black people in America? Why do some people think that it matters that cattle takes so much more resource to farm than grain does, when beef is so tasty? Why is Marijuana legal in 2/50 (or illegal in 48/50) of the United States? Justify that, senators and congressmen of the United States. A person can dress it up with reasons and pretense, and as a human being and a product of nature/nurture, I'll agree that certain pretenses are more persuasive than others.

I'm not really even an amateur philosopher, I just ask lots of questions and doubt too much. ;)


I would like to emphasis that I do not intend offense with this comment, but rather explaining that I see no point discussing anything at all if all people are going to say is "it's my opinion and don't question it".

I sincerely thank you for pointing this out. Perhaps I came off too harsh before. I felt attacked by your comment, and I felt like you were saying that I would be wrong to believe that "older is better" without providing some sort of universal standard for judging the quality and style of minis. (And I recognize now that you never said that, my fault.)


We'd all be as well stop visiting forums and continue living our normal lives in silence.

Eh. Maybe. And that might be a sad thing. Maybe I'd get some painting done.


I'm somewhat confused regardless as you go ahead and explain your appreciation for the Sisters at the bottom anyway, despite your protestation that you shouldn't have to do so.

I did it to make a point... This is what I was trying to say: "I could say whatever I wanted about why SoB were better than other minis, and the only objective information you could glean from that is that I, Mushroom, (claim to) know what I like in a mini."


Now that you have done so I can understand your position. I actually agree with most of what you say, however for me the same hideous man-face repeated four times over ruins the unit as a whole regardless of its other merits. Back in 2nd edition it was considered a good set of models, but today we are given many more model options that are often more detailed and closer to true scale, so I don't think they compare very well.

Awesome. :) I too understand where you're coming from. I dunno, maybe I've developed a resilience to their gaze of death since I've painted about 100 of these faces. I've gotta admit, I actually love the way their bottom lip curls up on all the ones that are gritting their teeth. It's kinda funny.


I look forward to seeing what GW does with the plastic reboot

I am very curious about this... If I like it (which I doubt :p haha) GW may get me to buy a few boxes to use as Celestians. Just to paint up, or for when I game with the 3rd edition and 4th edition rules. :D


of which they are in desperate need.

If you say so. :( Some attention, definitely. An actual rules update maybe... but even then I'm not sure I'd like it.


None of the above however changes the original charge: selective citation of a few recent GW models doesn't prove a stylistic change has occurred, nor would it do so even had you explained what change had occurred and why the previous style was better.

Indeed. Taking to heart this comment, I still feel that overall the first set of pictures has an aesthetic quality the second lacks and vice versa (even though there may be some similarities); and the pics I chose to display were the ones that I thought most aptly illustrated a generalized shift in design across GW's entire model range (or 40k at least, as I have paid very little attention to fantasy). That is, from "grimdark" to "bright and heroic" See the top of this post for what I think that means.

(Assuming there is an aesthetic at all, which assumption you wrote about earlier. It's an interesting idea, that GW has no 'look.' Not really sure what to make of it. Other companies definitely do.)

Also, worth mentioning: I would be lying if I said I picked those pictures in an effort to make GW of today look good. I did selectively cite models and art that I think are not good. But I didn't pick any models I like the look of because I don't think GW is headed that direction. :/ How's that for cyclical?

I hope you've had as much fun reading this post as I've had writing it. Now it is late and I must sleep.

*As an aside, I thought about using the word 'cocky' and the word 'pompous' but they both have too strong a negative connotation.
**As another aside, if anyone can explain to me the mathematical proof for why 1+1=2, I would greatly appreciate it. It would be wonderful to stop taking this for granted.

Fugazi
02-12-2012, 20:21
Anyone else feel the same?
Truthfully, my overall opinion of their miniatures (both WHFB and 40k) is that I love about 25%, am indifferent to 35%, and loathe 40%. The chaos demon engines and grey knights dreadknight are awful. They look like concept sketches that needed a lot of reworking. But as much as I hate them, there are enough new models I do like (the Chosen are great, in my opinion; the DV cultists are pretty good).

But for me that doesn't reflect much of a change. I've always had mixed feelings about GW's lines (all the way back to Rogue Trader).

Fizzy
02-12-2012, 20:46
Wow people attack each other pretty hard. But I actually agree with a lot that their style has gone wrong. I would not call the latest things missteps. The only thing I approve of these days are Dark eldar. All other stuff have disappointed med hugely.

Thats why I only started collecting Forgeworld models. Cooler and they rarely fail with the concept and style.

These are all opinions. Non fact. But thats how I feel about GW's new turn.

Thuggrim
02-12-2012, 23:07
GWs latest releases are very mixed somethings are great others are simply terrible. Some of those are subjective, not to my taste as others are not to other peoples taste - this is not a bad thing as long as it matches army character as lets face it the look and play style are why we want different forces. Others are objectively bad, in as much as they are made with no justification in background, no precident and no determinal reason beyond making a bigger kit.

I think there are stylistic choices being made that are dubious - and background is being re-written as well, which is also very dubious. Both I think are the result of a single common factor: GW has cut back to 2 games (I will omit LOTR as the design work, at least stylistically is not in their control) and they have stated they are not doing new armies as they are cannot turn around and support the armies otherwise, this results in stagnation which they are trying to break but re-inventing and changing backgrounds and styles in order to keep people expanding armies. The problem in my view is this leads to styles that don't match the army idea and this puts people off, and any new people are unlikely to be attracted as the range is never (With the exception of DE) fully and comprehensively revamped so the older elements they disliked remain. In short they need to sort their act out in terms of rules and codex revisions, on many levels, and ensure each army keeps a consistant strong visual theme and there is something to appeal to everyone. Also they neeed to lose the army book every 5-8 years model - release rules in new kits or online.

My opinion is they are too restricted, and the design studio does not have enough autonomy from number crunchers, and as a result, no longer has the skill base, to deliver upon these and innovate in a manner in keeping with the rich history. GW is a business as such they need to consider the numbers, but I have a feeling that is the only driving factor at the moment to the detriment of what made them the success they were.

Oh and scaryscarymushroom those new bloodletters are actually more of a return to the original concepts and art - will see if I can get time to picture anything from my lost and the damned book.

Trasvi
03-12-2012, 03:57
I think GW's biggest change stylistically was the 4th edition Space Marines codex. When they turned Ultramarines from Golden Yellow + Ultramarine Blue to Shining Gold + Regal Blue. I think they went to black guns too? It instantly made the most iconic army of the 40k universe take about 10 levels in badass.
I think this was necessary for a number of reasons:
1) A lot of GW's background was based upon pop culture references. A bunch of character and place names are lifted directly from movies, literature, or politicians (Mag Uruk Thraka = Margaret Thatcher). The people who began the game at the time of these references understood and enjoyed them, but were moving on, and the references now seemed too 'camp' to the incoming crowd. A turn to more serious background would see the game be enjoyable for all generations and not date so easily.
2) The colour schemes again were quite childish. Kids getting into the hobby would look at those schemes in the same way that they view old movies, say old vs new Bond, Tron, etc. The better done effects and general grittiness make it more appealing to kids these days.

Barring occasional models, I like the new style. The new Dark Eldar are pretty amazing and really show what GW can do if they're given free reign to ignore their old stuff. Necrons also desperately needed a reboot for simple game play purposes: I remember the Kill Team missions in late 3rd edition where you were able to add a Boss to the defender's army. Except for Necrons, who were characterless and boring. Simple things like that ostracised Necron players from many aspects of the game.
I love where GW is *heading* stylistically. They might have made a few mistakes along the way, but overall its a pretty good run.

Sonson
03-12-2012, 11:42
It depends what you're after, I suppose. Character and charisma, fantastical stuff is I think what made the games, and it is being lost in favour of grim dark po-facedness.

Warhammer sixth edition got the right balance between character and realism, in my opinion. The proportions were good but there was so much ancillary stuff as well. Before that they were all character, sometimes looked abit off due to their more heroic frame but other times that made them timeless. The majorioty of old Citadel miniatures are a joy to paint on their own.

Since then they've moved towards a more "realisitc" approach which for me risks looking dated. Some of the new things are brillaint, when they get it right-the new skeletal models for example, the Dark Vengeance stuff-but when they don't hit that note you get a sort of uncanny valley affect where they look worse for not looking quite real enough. They also look generic and flat to me a lot of the time. I get the feeling they spend more time on making sure hands are at the right size before throwing some chains on there or what have you. It's about sculpting bodies and then dressing them up in a fantasitc style, rather than the two being part of the same whole as was the case with the older Citadel stuff.

Forgeworld I think are the exception to this, they're very impressive models full stop, they work as a concept and as a realisitc representation. If GW want to advance in any way this should be the direction they're going in.

I still like the older models as much as I did twnety years ago, but I doubt I'll be scouring ebay for some of the new stuff in another twenty years time. Both speak of their time, I think, but now what that means with GW is mass production and lack of creativity.

williamsond
03-12-2012, 12:23
I have to aggree with one of the above posts the new necrons are really nice apart from the lasy "upside down vehicle being a new vehicle" there's nothing in that range I didn't like. By contrast the chaos range is so hit and miss I cant bring my self to even buy half the stuff never mind paint it. There's not much in the Nid range I don't like either, as far as plastic kits have gone they are some of the best GW have done IMO.

PointBlank
03-12-2012, 13:22
Sigh. What is your issue with me?

For a start, you keep saying 'sigh' in a discussion thread.

On a general note, can we get away from this pointless bickering about what constitutes a manga influence, or at least take it to a PM discussion? *** is dull as hell yo'.




In the last three or so years, though, they've definitely decided that "moar" is a bigger priority than "better," at least as far as 40K's concerned. Witness the cartoonishly overdone Necron revamp, which completely went against the subtle aesthetic that their original line had. So many moving parts and dingbat accessories. Same goes for the hideous Blood Angels - especially the Sanguinary Guard, which may be the stunning failure of basic design in the company's history. The Grey Knights had the Dreadknight, which, shockingly, managed to live up to the crass lameness of it's name.

It just seems to me that, as in many aspects of the 40K IP, GW is just doing the dumbest and most obvious things when it comes to minis design.

Exactly so. It infuriates me that you can browse Forgeworld's excellent Heresy era Armour designs, then open up GW's store and be presented with cartoonish muscle marines with wings and over-sized guns stuck all over them. Apparently it's the trend now though if the GK's giant lunchbox bolters are anything to go by.

It's no wonder people have been joking about the new Dark Angels' range being comprised of 'Dark Plasma Guns' and 'DarkLionSwordHunters'. When your design policy becomes the butt of jokes, you should worry. When it actually outdoes some of those jokes (flying landraiders, Thunderwolves), you are in deep ****.

Corbeau
03-12-2012, 13:25
I think a lot of the miniatures look a bit... naff. Maybe it's symptomatic of the CAD design, but the new stuff looks a bit bland - vehicles and similar items look more like kid's toys (which arguably, they are). I really liked some of the new Dark Eldar stuff, but some of the larger miniatures leave a lot to be desire in my opinion. There now seems to be a tendency towards miscellaneous assortments of random miniatures (big shiny things). Tabletops are increasingly looking like a right hodge-podged mess.

I'm really not a fan of things like War Altars and Shrines and that sort of thing, and these only seem to be on the increase, especially with things like Apocalypse and flyers in 40k. I also think the shift in the studio painting style has a lot to do with it to be fair, it's clearly technically sophisticated but feels very bland and a bit lifeless.

In summary, I think some individual pieces are improvements, but overall it all feels a bit... meh. Succinct and well argued, I know.

This is of course, personal opinion.

Fear Ghoul
03-12-2012, 14:56
Not really sure if I was inconsistent. I see a distinct difference the first group of pics when compared to the second and even the third set. (bleaker, more formal and threatening style and presentation generally vs. literally more colorful, polarized and proud* style and presentation generally)

Second, a person can be consistent and prefer cheese/margherita pizza to pepperoni pizza even if they don't like cheese. They might dislike cheese and absolutely detest pepperoni. Saying "X is better than Y" still has problems when trying to judge a statement objectively. Now, I like some of GW's work, so the only way this point is applicable is to distinguish 'preference' from 'like.'

Third, (and this is going out on a tangent) a person might like cheese and like pepperoni, but find the combination overwhelming. That doesn't make them inconsistent when they say "I like cheese pizza because it has cheese. Cheese is good. If it had no cheese, it would be a worse pizza." and "I dislike pepperoni pizza because it has cheese. Cheese is good, but if it had no cheese, it would be a better pizza."

My impression was more that there were apparent contradictions in liking the old power armoured 3rd edition Grey Knights when the new 5th edition terminator armoured Grey Knights have no obvious stylistic difference beyond being armoured differently. I also still don't really understand the utility of comparing completely different models (old Bloodletter versus Goblin King for example) and talking about stylistic change because they were never meant to have the same style. Someone who doesn't know anything about GW would look at Tyranids and Space Marines and not be able to tell that they were made by the same company.


Whoa. I hope I didn't say that reasoning doesn't matter. Reasoning is an excellent tool, but I think it has little to offer when it comes to a person's attempts to justify their like or dislike for something. I can say what I appreciate about Sisters or my favorite color or whatever; but trying to analyze why a person likes certain elements of something while disliking certain elements of something else is like a dog chasing its tail.

"Why do you like SOB? What makes them better than new stuff?"
"Because they have a specific set of characteristics, including skulls and religious symbols."
"Why are skulls and religion so important?"
"Because I like doom, misery and its relation to blind faith."
"And what does that have to do with anything regarding model design?"
"Schopenhauer and Nietzsche had it right. Life is suffering and insanity. Seems fitting that it is reflected in minis."
"Why do you think that's fitting?"
"Please stop bothering me."

This isn't reasoning or argument. (It is discussion, however! :))

I think I didn't explain my point very well. I am not interested in why you like something from an ontological perspective, but rather what you like about it and how that relates to aspects of good miniature design and the background that is inspired by those miniatures. In this regard you have explained what you like about the Sisters and we happen to share a common view. However in my case the faces make for bad miniature design and make no sense from a background perspective without some major rewrites on where the Schola Progenium (?) gets its recruits. I look forward to collecting a Sisters army (with discount of course) when improved models are released. I don't even care if they are competitive.


I dare to challenge the notion that sanctifying something as personal opinion is simply an excuse to remain ignorant. Rather, I insist that there is absolutely no good way to defend an opinion unless it has some factual grounds. The word 'better' invites disagreement because it implies some factual basis for even the most outlandish comparisons (such as 'which fake universe is better?'). I should have just said "I like the old stuff more than the new stuff." After all, that's what I actually meant when I said "the old is better than the new."

To some extent that's true, however I notice a tendency for people to defend their opinions even in the face of facts, and to do so all they say is "It's just my opinion" as if that' supposed to mean something. But that's a rant for another debate.


Providing yourself with sound reasoning for personal decisions can lead to predictable and desirable results, such as having a nice job, a nice home, a nice family, eating good food, having fun, getting your name recorded in history books, whatever floats your boat. And, providing justification for major social issues can be a vehicle for powerful change. Regardless of the benefits, keep asking why and you'll get a really vague, meaningless and convoluted answer. Why powerful change? What's the point? Why is it so important that a person goes to school? Why learn? Why contribute to society? Why make more money? Is it because 'the man' said that would be a good idea?

"Because (proper noun) liked it," "(proper noun) disliked it," "It preserves the species," "Because of social Darwinism," "Because Jesus/Buddha/the spirit of love would have done it." Doesn't matter what the question is. Why did Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X fight for the empowerment of black people in America? Why do some people think that it matters that cattle takes so much more resource to farm than grain does, when beef is so tasty? Why is Marijuana legal in 2/50 (or illegal in 48/50) of the United States? Justify that, senators and congressmen of the United States. A person can dress it up with reasons and pretense, and as a human being and a product of nature/nurture, I'll agree that certain pretenses are more persuasive than others.

I'm not really even an amateur philosopher, I just ask lots of questions and doubt too much. ;)

We all rely on axioms otherwise our brains could not compute that which occurs around us in a sensible manner and we would go insane. In other words, our world would be indistinguishable from the Realm of Chaos. You cannot argue against someone's axioms per se, but you can argue against the consistency of their axioms and the flow of their logic from those axioms. In the case of this debate, a lot of people make the assumption that GW has a distinctive style that has change over time. My position is that GW has precisely no exstensive style as they borrowed from everyone else and refined it to their customers demands. The only thing I can think of that GW do with their models that nobody else does is add skulls. Another axiom people have is that GW and FW are seperate companies with seperate marketing teams. I would also contend that this isn't true simply because FW is owned and was founded by GW. So when people say that GW has gone downhill but FW is amazing it comes off as a bit ill-concieved.


If you say so. :( Some attention, definitely. An actual rules update maybe... but even then I'm not sure I'd like it.

They need a reboot because hardly anybody buys them anymore. They are the most expensive and time-consuming army by far to build in an already expensive and time-consuming hobby.


Indeed. Taking to heart this comment, I still feel that overall the first set of pictures has an aesthetic quality the second lacks and vice versa (even though there may be some similarities); and the pics I chose to display were the ones that I thought most aptly illustrated a generalized shift in design across GW's entire model range (or 40k at least, as I have paid very little attention to fantasy). That is, from "grimdark" to "bright and heroic" See the top of this post for what I think that means.

I don't really think 40k has become less grimdark. Some things like the latest incarnation of Necrons became less grimdark, but other things such as Chaos Chosen, Raptors, etc have become more grimdark.


Exactly so. It infuriates me that you can browse Forgeworld's excellent Heresy era Armour designs, then open up GW's store and be presented with cartoonish muscle marines with wings and over-sized guns stuck all over them. Apparently it's the trend now though if the GK's giant lunchbox bolters are anything to go by.

It's no wonder people have been joking about the new Dark Angels' range being comprised of 'Dark Plasma Guns' and 'DarkLionSwordHunters'. When your design policy becomes the butt of jokes, you should worry. When it actually outdoes some of those jokes (flying landraiders, Thunderwolves), you are in deep ****.

There are some misconceptions here. Grey Knights carry Storm Bolters so of course they would be bigger than Bolters. The Sanguinary Guard have muscled armour for the same reason that the ancient Greeks and Romans did - to symbolize its artifice and perfection of the human form. The wings are stylized homages to Sanguinius and are otherwise not mandatory.

Additionally GW has always had silly exaggerated names in the background, and the more recent codexes are no different. Most of the wolf names in the Space Wolves codex actually predate the current codex.

Scaryscarymushroom
03-12-2012, 18:53
My impression was more that there were apparent contradictions in liking the old power armoured 3rd edition Grey Knights when the new 5th edition terminator armoured Grey Knights have no obvious stylistic difference beyond being armoured differently. I also still don't really understand the utility of comparing completely different models (old Bloodletter versus Goblin King for example) and talking about stylistic change because they were never meant to have the same style. Someone who doesn't know anything about GW would look at Tyranids and Space Marines and not be able to tell that they were made by the same company.

I never had any intention of doing a strict model-by-model comparison, otherwise I would have put up old bloodletter vs. new bloodletter, old GKTs vs. new GKTs.

I just think you don't see what I'm trying to describe, which is a bunch of adjectives that the first set of pics has in common, versus a bunch of adjectives that the second set of pics has in common (despite all the obvious differences among individual pictures). Until you and Stahly brought it up, I wasn't trying to express my opinions of the models individually. Except for the necron art and perhaps the stormraven. :shifty:

You're looking at the trees. I'm looking at the forest.

A forest containing oaks and maples is very different from a forest containing pines and firs. They are all trees, but all the trees in one forest can be easily distinguished from the other by virtue of whether they have needles or leaves. The same way, a collection of model designs can make up a whole with a common aesthetic that is distinguishable from another collection of model designs that make up a different common aesthetic, despite similarities with the first group (they are all GW) and differences among eachother (one is a flyer, one is a fat grounded monster).

As far as the Goblin King is concerned, I'm happy to acknowledge that GW most likely didn't lay out the blueprints for that one. And I understand wanting to milk the hobbit films for all their(they're?) worth. They wouldn't have avoided making a Goblin King mini if it had any potential whatsoever for release. I do have questions about whether or not GW could have picked (from the film) a more flattering pose for the mini. The model rubs me the wrong way, but maybe it's unfair of me to use that as an example of GW changing when there is definitive outside influence. Can't really tell who did what. I have criticisms of some of the dwarf minis, Gandalf, and of Bilbo too. But the criticisms for the dwarves are completely lifted from the movie (I don't like their Dr. Seuss hairdos). I can't tell whether my beef with the goblin-town Gandalf is a film-related thing or if it's related to sculpting choices. (I can't really tell what he's doing-- he just looks sorta confused). My criticism of Bilbo is actually the smug look on his face. I wonder if GW had any artistic license with the models' expressions...


how that relates to aspects of good miniature design and the background that is inspired by those miniatures.

'good' is in the eye of the beholder. And although we haven't really incorporated other elements in our own discussion, GW's style extends further than just miniatures design.

And isn't it a two-way street? The background and the miniatures inspire each other?

At any rate, if you want to do a little bit of model-by-model comparison I'm up for it.

As for some of the new chaos becoming more grimdark rather than less... that depends on how you define grimdark. I personally don't see a notable difference on the grimdark scale when you compare it to the CSM troops box or the old raptors. (Which I suppose I should consider a victory for GW given my opinion that GW are becoming generally less grimdark.)

They look cool, and they're definitely more evil-looking than any CSM I've seen in the time I've been in the hobby. They are more extreme in other ways, including more detailed which IMO is good, and more blindly confident/arrogant which IMO is bad, although easy to forgive on a chaos model. I'm running out of adjectives for grimdark. Grimdark is like that albino dude in the Da Vinci Code. More than just how he looks; it includes the things he does and why. It's in the crestfallen, weary posture of the PAGK justicar, and the way the black and red blend together to really make the yellow eyes pop out on the old bloodletters.

I do think there are some big differences in the old GKs vs. new GKs, beyond armor style. Here are some things about the new GK range in general that bother me. Some of them are on the GKTs. Some of them are also on the new PAGKs. I won't even talk about the Dread Knight or Stormraven.


The baroque(?) style headwear on the unhelmeted heads.
The flatness (and in some cases concave surfaces) make GKT's helmets look like the front of a cruise liner.
Falchions. GK should not be dual-wielding psychic super-ninjas in heavy armor.
The design of their guns, which draw more attention now than they did, with huge magazines and increased size. (Sensible or not, I feel that it detracts from the minis as works of art.)
Posture and posing. (the GKT raising his sword up in the air as if he were ready for the most 'epic' picture of a lifetime is particularly bothersome for me, as is the hammer man ("Look at this hammer! Look at it! Give it a good... long... look. Look!") and the PAGK with his sword stuck through a plaguebearer head. It's like they're all saying "I'm the coolest thing since sliced bread." And I just don't need that attitude from a model collection. :p
Posture and posing includes the fact that the feet seem to be even further spread apart across the entire Grey Knight range.

They don't look combat-ready and they don't convey the sort of emotion that I'd expect them to feel. I can get past some things, like the shape of the GKT helmets, but in sum, what bothers me most is that they look like they're ready to shoot scenes for an action movie or have their picture taken for promotional material. The PAGK even look that way on the tabletop, unless you get really crafty with a knife in order to do lots of repositioning work.

The new Daemons don't fit with my image of how they should look, according to their background. The new bloodletters look like lanky coneheads with antlers. Take away their swords and they don't look as brutish as I imagine them to be. Even with their swords, they don't look like the embodiment of rage and bloodlust. Daemonettes are supposed to be freaky (and the new ones are) but they should also be alluring (IMO the new ones aren't).

I'll admit, the new Kabalite Warriors are a drastic improvement over the old ones, and I really like all the Dark Eldar beasts except the razorwing flock. The old wyches are especially poorly proportioned even by heroic standards, and though they are pretty cool in a certain 'ruthless gang' way, they aren't particularly memorable. I'd rather have the new ones. In fact, I might consider the kabalite warriors, beasts and wyches to be worth buying, and I'm a hard sell when it comes to troops. Most of the sculpts new v. old Dark Eldar are a tossup for me, and I have mixed reaction with some of the new ones that didn't have an old analogue. The Lhamean is nice, but the other members of the court range from "meh, it's an armored snake. Whatever." to "what were they thinking?"

The new Archon is much more well sculpted, but the face-mask on the old one is just so immediately striking. I don't have strong feelings one way or another on the new grotesques, wracks, the succubus, incubi, or the Talos, and I especially dislike the new mandrakes, although the old ones are sorta goofy. After 'shiny new toy syndrome' wore off, they started to lose their appeal for me.

But in my head, 2010 (the release of the Dark Eldar) is starting to get into the archives a little bit. There have been a lot of releases since then.

In my mind, warfare should be cumbersome, physically and mentally. With the exception of a few armies, I'd like it if this were more at a forefront in GW's design choices. Those armies that are the exception can represent everything that makes warfare physically and mentally cumbersome. Chaos seems obvious, torture for Dark Eldar, unforgiving 'man against nature' type conflict for Tyranids, and relentless, unsophisticated pressure from the Orks.

On the whole, the new 40k minis just look so clean and unaffected by the weight of killing and the reality of war: pain, death, and other topics that people seem to feel more strongly about. I think GW used to have a little bit of awareness about these things, and now they are less focused on them, and more preoccupied with making the minis "cooler" and relatable to a broader audience. (And in the case of re-designing the daemonettes, maybe to make them a little more politically correct too.)

That isn't to say that GW weren't concerned with making their minis cool and relatable before; just that it's more of a concern now than it was; and the bohemian artistry element is weaker today than it was 10 years ago.

Alas, Bohemianism is not likely to make you money. :p

I hope that helps to explain why I think GW has a style, what I think is changing about it, and what I don't like about the perceived change.


[Sisters of Battle] are the most expensive and time-consuming army by far to build in an already expensive and time-consuming hobby.

That expensive part is true. Seems like anything related to finecast is more time consuming. SoB are only 2-3 piece models, have no complex mold lines and usually don't require much cleanup. They're moderately easy to paint to a tabletop standard, too; although it may take more brainpower than painting a vanilla marine to the same standard. Penitent engines and exorcists are certainly very time consuming though, and repentia, despite being single piece minis, are much more difficult to paint.

A reboot might make them less expensive overall, but probably not by much. After all, pricing doesn't seem to be a concern with GW either. :p (Or, if it is, they are only concerned with whether the prices are high enough.)

Corbeau
03-12-2012, 20:31
I definitely think there is a cleaner feel overall, and that's definitely reflected in the studio (are they still 'eavy metal?) painting style, which seems bizarrely uniform and prescribed these days.

Personally, all my stuff is made to look worn and grubby, weathering powders aplenty, even my Space Marines. No shiny heroes for me. I've not really painted anything new for a while but it'd be interesting to line up some of the newer, 2010 onwards, stuff - studio and non-studio painted (preferably a bit more of a muted, grubby style - Ron at From the Warp perhaps).

Flame Boy
04-12-2012, 23:33
If we are going to compare changes in style over time, let's at least do it properly! :p

Bloodletters http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y139/pathwinder14/Berserkers/Bloodletters1.jpg?t=1243253682

Here we have some lean, nasty-looking demons. Okay, they look pretty tired nowadays, but look what happens to them...

Bloodletters http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1184381_99119915003_ChaosBloodlettersMain_445x319 .jpg

STEROIDS FOR THE STEROID GOD!

...and then the more recent version...

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1540389_99129915001_WHBloodletters10_873x627

These are much closer to the original images for Bloodletters, and they drop the clumsy "bigger is better" approach of the middle models. It clearly looks like they went back to basics to improve on their original imagery. I'm not going to say this is happening across the board, as I really don't rate the current Daemonettes compared to there previous models, however, I think this is a trend that has been happening over the last few years. I'm glad, for example, that the Tyranid range took a step back from cheesy grinning bugs back to their more unusual, alien roots.

The only things I've seen recently that I'm not keen on would probably be the current Daemonettes, and the Heldrake just seemed far too much a "dragon engine" than a "daemon engine". Then there's space marine Chibi fliers that remind me of Advance Wars units, which should look out of place in 40k. http://media.nintendo-gamer.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Advance-Wars-GBA-screenshot-2.jpg. Then there's the new Necron Flayed ones. I think the scissor hands and stolen torsos look clumsy compared to bladed fingers and strips of flesh. In general, I think they have been improving, though the new Chaos shine was a bit odd when I first saw it.

Fear Ghoul
04-12-2012, 23:37
I just think you don't see what I'm trying to describe, which is a bunch of adjectives that the first set of pics has in common, versus a bunch of adjectives that the second set of pics has in common (despite all the obvious differences among individual pictures). Until you and Stahly brought it up, I wasn't trying to express my opinions of the models individually. Except for the necron art and perhaps the stormraven. :shifty:

A forest containing oaks and maples is very different from a forest containing pines and firs. They are all trees, but all the trees in one forest can be easily distinguished from the other by virtue of whether they have needles or leaves. The same way, a collection of model designs can make up a whole with a common aesthetic that is distinguishable from another collection of model designs that make up a different common aesthetic, despite similarities with the first group (they are all GW) and differences among eachother (one is a flyer, one is a fat grounded monster).

I don't see anything in common between the first set and the models, or between the second set of models. The only commonality in my observation is the fact that they are 28mm models. Orcs and Goblins have a few styles (savage orc, black orc, night goblin, etc). Daemons have four styles (Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch, Slaanesh). Elves have three styles (High, Dark, Wood). But there is almost nothing in common between them that can't be found on other miniatures.


And isn't it a two-way street? The background and the miniatures inspire each other?

Of course, although apparently the sculptors come up with miniatures first and then the writers have to develop background for them.


As for some of the new chaos becoming more grimdark rather than less... that depends on how you define grimdark. I personally don't see a notable difference on the grimdark scale when you compare it to the CSM troops box or the old raptors. (Which I suppose I should consider a victory for GW given my opinion that GW are becoming generally less grimdark.)

They look cool, and they're definitely more evil-looking than any CSM I've seen in the time I've been in the hobby. They are more extreme in other ways, including more detailed which IMO is good, and more blindly confident/arrogant which IMO is bad, although easy to forgive on a chaos model. I'm running out of adjectives for grimdark. Grimdark is like that albino dude in the Da Vinci Code. More than just how he looks; it includes the things he does and why. It's in the crestfallen, weary posture of the PAGK justicar, and the way the black and red blend together to really make the yellow eyes pop out on the old bloodletters.

The new Chaos Chosen, Helbrute, Aspiring Champion, and Warp Talons are more Grimdark in my opinion because they actually look like they have been corrupted by Chaos. Previously this was achieved simply by adding spikes and horns, but now we see actual mutations rampant across these miniatures. The models also look more baroque to represent how old they possibly are and how long they have been fighting the Long War.

Does the PAGK have a crestfallen appearance? Looks to me like the sculptor just designed his head cocked to one side.


I do think there are some big differences in the old GKs vs. new GKs, beyond armor style. Here are some things about the new GK range in general that bother me. Some of them are on the GKTs. Some of them are also on the new PAGKs. I won't even talk about the Dread Knight or Stormraven.


The baroque(?) style headwear on the unhelmeted heads.
The flatness (and in some cases concave surfaces) make GKT's helmets look like the front of a cruise liner.
Falchions. GK should not be dual-wielding psychic super-ninjas in heavy armor.
The design of their guns, which draw more attention now than they did, with huge magazines and increased size. (Sensible or not, I feel that it detracts from the minis as works of art.)
Posture and posing. (the GKT raising his sword up in the air as if he were ready for the most 'epic' picture of a lifetime is particularly bothersome for me, as is the hammer man ("Look at this hammer! Look at it! Give it a good... long... look. Look!") and the PAGK with his sword stuck through a plaguebearer head. It's like they're all saying "I'm the coolest thing since sliced bread." And I just don't need that attitude from a model collection. :p
Posture and posing includes the fact that the feet seem to be even further spread apart across the entire Grey Knight range.

They don't look combat-ready and they don't convey the sort of emotion that I'd expect them to feel. I can get past some things, like the shape of the GKT helmets, but in sum, what bothers me most is that they look like they're ready to shoot scenes for an action movie or have their picture taken for promotional material. The PAGK even look that way on the tabletop, unless you get really crafty with a knife in order to do lots of repositioning work

I understand some of these points. The poses do seem more heroic than previously, however they don't really seem that odd compared to Brother Captain Stern, Dante, or Calgar. I'm not really bothered by the Storm Bolters, because in all honesty the weapon sizes in Fantasy and 40k are all kinds of huge. However the helmets seem to me to be almost exactly the same as they were on the previous terminator models (this is why it is important to compare like for like). And isn't baroque part of what people like about 40k? Seems to me that with the cowl they answered the ancient problem of what Marines do with long hair in helmets.


The new Daemons don't fit with my image of how they should look, according to their background. The new bloodletters look like lanky coneheads with antlers. Take away their swords and they don't look as brutish as I imagine them to be. Even with their swords, they don't look like the embodiment of rage and bloodlust. Daemonettes are supposed to be freaky (and the new ones are) but they should also be alluring (IMO the new ones aren't).

Meh. The old Bloodletters and Daemonettes looked good. The new Bloodletters and Daemonettes look good.

I believe John Blanche explained in a WD article his reasoning behind the redesign of the Bloodletters. I think he said that he wanted to move them away from being imagined as simply muscular brutes because that was a simplification of Khorne's aesthetic.

As for the Daemonettes, I'm not really too fussed about them looking alluring because if that were the case I would just model a scantily clad Liv Tyler onto a base. My interpretation of the background is that Daemonettes appear alluring in the minds of their victims but are in fact horrible twisted monstrosities, which I think the new models represent wonderfully. Plus I was sick to death of people looking at the old models and thinking Slaanesh=boobs.


In my mind, warfare should be cumbersome, physically and mentally. With the exception of a few armies, I'd like it if this were more at a forefront in GW's design choices. Those armies that are the exception can represent everything that makes warfare physically and mentally cumbersome. Chaos seems obvious, torture for Dark Eldar, unforgiving 'man against nature' type conflict for Tyranids, and relentless, unsophisticated pressure from the Orks.

On the whole, the new 40k minis just look so clean and unaffected by the weight of killing and the reality of war: pain, death, and other topics that people seem to feel more strongly about. I think GW used to have a little bit of awareness about these things, and now they are less focused on them, and more preoccupied with making the minis "cooler" and relatable to a broader audience. (And in the case of re-designing the daemonettes, maybe to make them a little more politically correct too.)

To be honest, I don't see much of what you're talking about. I think you're looking for high art where there has never been any. Compare the 3rd edition Tactical Marines to the Dark Vengeance Dark Angels Tactical Mariens, and in both cases I don't see any evidence of suffering, pain, or any other "reality of war". They are nice looking models to be used in a wargame. The background art is a different matter because the artists can imagine a scene rather than scuplt a single model.

Also Daemonettes never used to sport naked breasts. It was only the 6th edition Fantasy ones by Juan Diaz that had lots of boobs.


That expensive part is true. Seems like anything related to finecast is more time consuming. SoB are only 2-3 piece models, have no complex mold lines and usually don't require much cleanup. They're moderately easy to paint to a tabletop standard, too; although it may take more brainpower than painting a vanilla marine to the same standard. Penitent engines and exorcists are certainly very time consuming though, and repentia, despite being single piece minis, are much more difficult to paint.

A reboot might make them less expensive overall, but probably not by much. After all, pricing doesn't seem to be a concern with GW either. :p (Or, if it is, they are only concerned with whether the prices are high enough.)

The prices nearly always come down when things are converted to plastic. 5 plastic Black Knights now costs £18, whilst in 2004 that same number in metal costed £25. Additionally by spending a couple of extra quid you can buy from bitz sites the necessary parts to build 5 Hexwraiths for which nearly all components come in the Black Knights dual kit box. If it costs £30 to buy nine Sisters now, I'd expect it to be around £22.50 to buy at least ten in plastic with a variety of options and upgrades included.

Scaryscarymushroom
05-12-2012, 02:39
I don't see anything in common between the first set and the models, or between the second set of models. The only commonality in my observation is the fact that they are 28mm models. Orcs and Goblins have a few styles (savage orc, black orc, night goblin, etc). Daemons have four styles (Khorne, Nurgle, Tzeentch, Slaanesh). Elves have three styles (High, Dark, Wood). But there is almost nothing in common between them that can't be found on other miniatures.


Hmm. OK. Well, I dunno. I tried to illustrate some commonality. I guess I didn't do a very good job. Or you disagree with me when I describe certain models as having certain characteristics. For the record, I disagree with the last sentence here. I think that GW elves have many differences from one another and can be easily distinguished, but they also have a common bond at a higher level. If all the fantasy armies had no style in common, GW would have failed at creating a cohesive "warhammer world;" a common world in which high elves, dark elves, and wood elves all live (in addition to the stylistically different Tomb Kings, who also have something in common with GW elves at a higher level).

Take your earlier example with the tyranid v. space marine. At a first glance, a GW noob might think they're made by the same company or by different companies for sheer ignorance. How many miniatures companies do they think there are? One? Hundreds? An uninformed onlooker might think there are thousands of model companies, and they all specialize or dominate certain regions. How is a layman supposed to know the difference?

But show them a collection of 5 sci-fi models from 4 companies; say a Tyranid, a space marine, a Reaper Chronoscope Mini, a Rackham AT-43 mini, and a MERCS mini and then you told them there are only 4 companies present, they might start to see more similarities between the Tyranid and the Space Marine, even if it just comes down to anatomy (or lack thereof), crispness, or some rounded quality in the shape of the space marine shoulders that somehow crosses over into Tyranid carapace but not into the other three. Or whatever.



Of course, although apparently the sculptors come up with miniatures first and then the writers have to develop background for them.


I didn't know that. Curious. I thought the sculptors worked from art and stories just as much as artists and writers worked from model designs. In fact, I didn't think there was a link to their creation or publication, except for a direction shared by all members of the studio, and maybe a little bit of poking around to see what everyone else is up to.



Does the PAGK have a crestfallen appearance? Looks to me like the sculptor just designed his head cocked to one side.


I say that he looks crestfallen because of the angle of his chest and the position of his arms.


However the helmets seem to me to be almost exactly the same as they were on the previous terminator models (this is why it is important to compare like for like).

Perhaps this is an instance yet again where you don't see a difference and I do. Even comparing like-for-like, I can criticize the new GKT helmets for pushing it too far. While the GKT helmets are almost exactly the same shape, the old ones bulged out a little more on almost all surfaces and had a less exaggerated point on the front, making it more helmet-like. The 'nose' at the front of the helmet is lower on the old models, giving them more of a vision slit and more of a forehead.

It is a subtle difference, but for me it makes all the difference in the world. Detail detail detail. It makes and breaks things.



And isn't baroque part of what people like about 40k? Seems to me that with the cowl they answered the ancient problem of what Marines do with long hair in helmets.


Gothic is part of what I like about 40k. I look at it and see gargoyles, and a series of almost needlessly complex shadows. Baroque just makes me think of harpsichord music.

And Space wolves don't seem to worry about long hair, why should any other marine? Conversely, why should any other marine even have long hair at all when their sergeants don't?



I believe John Blanche explained in a WD article his reasoning behind the redesign of the Bloodletters. I think he said that he wanted to move them away from being imagined as simply muscular brutes because that was a simplification of Khorne's aesthetic.


Interesting. Sounds like evidence of change in style. Although 'simply muscular brutes' is a key feature of the older Bloodletters, it isn't the only feature. I'd also describe them as menacing and primal. Which is sort of how I envision Khorne generally. Menacing, Brutish, Primal.


STEROIDS FOR THE STEROID GOD!

Lol.

And 'roid ragey. :D



As for the Daemonettes, I'm not really too fussed about them looking alluring because if that were the case I would just model a scantily clad Liv Tyler onto a base. My interpretation of the background is that Daemonettes appear alluring in the minds of their victims but are in fact horrible twisted monstrosities, which I think the new models represent wonderfully. Plus I was sick to death of people looking at the old models and thinking Slaanesh=boobs.


Alluring is not the only thing that Daemonettes should be. They should also be freakish. Do you really think the Freakish+Alluring combo I am after could be satisfied by a miniature version of Liv Tyler? :p Liv Tyler doesn't have claws, horns or animal feet, meaning she'd need to be extra-freakish in other ways to make up for that.

The trouble with the new ones for me is that they remove me from the 40k universe. I can't get immersed with tru-vision. If I can only see them as horrible twisted monstrosities, I have a hard time imagining how a victim might see them. It becomes 'just' a model. Nothing more. I sit there and think, "How can an imperial guardsmen possibly find anything attractive in this?" And "Magic!" is sort of an unsatisfactory answer. (I know I've said otherwise before in other threads, but I have reflected on it and I don't think that now.)



Also Daemonettes never used to sport naked breasts. It was only the 6th edition Fantasy ones by Juan Diaz that had lots of boobs.


Yeah, I know. That again should be evidence of change right there. Not only from what they were to what they are, but from what they were a long time ago to what they were 10 years ago. Anyway, much like the Bloodletters=Muscular Brutes, just thinking that Slaanesh=Boobs is an oversimplification. Like it or not, boobs are a factor. Or they used to be.

I suppose if people are going to get hung up on one design choice without acknowledging others, a designer will need to choose which one. Would they rather 95% of the population see the chest and say "Boobs!" or see the head and say "Punk!"

It's just a choice. Better? Worse? If the designer wants people to think Boobs and they think Punk, the designer made a bad choice. If he wants them to think Punk and they think Boobs, equally bad design choice.

But it's still just a choice. A choice to go one way or the other. Eh. I know which one I prefer and why.

Lucky me, the first time I saw a humanoid creature with 6 breasts depicted anywhere, it was painted on the ceiling of the Uffizi gallery. So I can relate back to that, rather than just thinking of them as boobs for boobs' sake.



To be honest, I don't see much of what you're talking about. I think you're looking for high art where there has never been any.

Now we're getting into ontological issues again. Art is everywhere. High art or pop art, media art, whatever. The distinction got a little blurry around the 1960s, and it's practically dissolved by now. A person can choose to see a urinal as high art if they want to. In 1917, Marcel DuChamp deemed it so. (http://artintelligence.net/review/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/duchampfountaincol.jpg)

I find artistic merit in the game. Then, I can usually find artistic merit in almost anything. Perhaps there is not as much merit in 40k as in the Sistine chapel, Samuel Beckett plays, or sculptures by Rodin. I certainly find more artistic merit in the 3rd ed. Grey Knights than I do in this 1952 oil painting by Ad Reinhardt:
159109
And that thing is studied at universities, probably because it is supposed to get this reaction from people: :wtf:

You know what else gets that reaction from people? Trolls. Way to go, Mr. Reinhardt. :slow clap:

(EDIT: Hours later with a little bit of research, Ad Reinhardt's work is growing on me. It fits with my 'less-is-more' mentality.)



The prices nearly always come down when things are converted to plastic. 5 plastic Black Knights now costs £18, whilst in 2004 that same number in metal costed £25. Additionally by spending a couple of extra quid you can buy from bitz sites the necessary parts to build 5 Hexwraiths for which nearly all components come in the Black Knights dual kit box. If it costs £30 to buy nine Sisters now, I'd expect it to be around £22.50 to buy at least ten in plastic with a variety of options and upgrades included.

There are not many 40k kits that are that cheap. Things that are, have always been cheaper than SoB. Like tyranids, orks and tau troops. And there are currently metals that sell for less than £22.50 for 10 (Vostroyans). I really have a hard time seeing the rhyme or reason behind their pricing, and I think that SoB will retain their expensive quality the same way Grey Knights have.

The metal to plastic switch has been talked to death in the pricing thread. I think there's a healthy mix of ups and downs. I don't think metal Space Marine terminators were $10 each, and GKs hardly changed in price at all. 5 PAGKs dropped in price by $2.

For reference, $66 US =41 GBP right now.

If they were released before next June, I'd expect plastic SoB to go for $29 for 5 and come with a veteran and a large array of special options like the new GK boxes do. Then GW would parade this around like it's a fantastic deal because metal is harder to work with, comes with less modeling options, and they'd probably say "these new kits are more finely detailed than any kit we've released before. And they're cheaper than Grey Knights (not to mention cheaper than buying 3 metal SoB, 1 Veteran, and 1 assault weapon)!" But $29 for 5 models is still really darn expensive. I'd say they would go for $33 for 5, but they're only 12 points each. Or maybe GW sees low points as increased demand, therefore higher price. :shifty:

After the price hike, I'd expect the same box to be $33 or $37.25, the same price as a box of GKs. If it's 2 Junes away, I'd expect 5 for $37.25, or $40. The price of Bitz through a distributor is likely to be greater than 50% of the cost of the kit for whatever parts are essential, like legs and torsos, and small percentages for the rest because they won't be in demand.

So yes, it'll cost less, but not much less (by my standards), and the kit versatility will go up. I don't think the price will drop enough to get me to go out and double my 2000 point witch hunters force, despite them being my first and by far most loved army. Hell, it was expensive last year. GW's definitely priced me out by now.

Angelwing
05-12-2012, 08:29
Probably a bit late too the party, but I thought Tau were actually influenced by the trade federation in Star wars episode 1, with a sprinkling of anime robots thrown in. The studio army was even painted in the same colours as star wars..

As for the main thread question, I like some GW stuff, dislike other GW stuff. I tend to end up collecting what I do like. I have mixed feelings on the past couple of years releases but i have no real overall dislike of the style direction.

And as early tyranids have been mentioned, I can field tyranid armies from all editions, 1st -5th and like them all. Some edition stuff doesn't mix together too well and most later releases look better than earlier versions. Its fantastic fun to take my 1st ed army to a LGS and have players and staff gaze in wonder.

Scaryscarymushroom
05-12-2012, 20:15
Probably a bit late too the party, but I thought Tau were actually influenced by the trade federation in Star wars episode 1, with a sprinkling of anime robots thrown in. The studio army was even painted in the same colours as star wars..


Not related to Star Wars, but I have a friend who once thought Tau were inspired by Halo (regardless of the closeness in release dates) because he saw a similarity in the tau logo and the marathon logo. (http://www.bungie.net/images/Inside/History/inline/marathon/marathon_logo.jpg)

Kakapo42
06-12-2012, 00:49
Scaryscarymushroom, I think I'm starting to get you. I'm not sure I agree with the entirety of your argument, but I think I can see where you might be coming from.

the late 3rd edition/early 4th edition 'era' did have a very different look and feel to the current style, and the Imperium then was quite different to how it's depicted now. I started 40k during that early 2000s late 3rd/early 4th ed time, and I very much remember the Imperium as this vast decaying titanic empire with a very thin exterior of pride and adventure (I see numerous bits and bobs from that time and I think 'adventure' just as much as I think 'grim and dark'), sheltering an enormous rotting underbelly of death and darkness and despair. The fire and brimstone was falling from the sky, and judgement was being passed, but humanity was blocking it's ears and singing "la-la-la-la-la I can't hear you!" at the top of it's voice. It was falling to bits but didn't quite see it.

And there was a different look to it then. Rather than thinking 'skulls' or 'baroque', I see the late-3rd/early-4th Imperium and think 'candles' and 'gothic architecture'. It was a 40k that really did seem to be going to hell in a handbasket, a 40k where you could find ancient secret vaults watched over by flying techno-cherub security cameras that you would acces by playing the right keys on a candle and scripture covered piano or pipe organ, before finding tomes and records of ancient knowledge. You can see that side of the old Imperium in the artwork of the Witchhunters, (older) Dark Angels and even the old 3.5 Chaos codex (which depicts it being torn down and destroyed), just to name a few examples. And at the same time there was this frontier (IMO), shown in a lot of the colour photos in the 4th edition rulebook, that was full of mystery and excitement and anything could happen. This all seems to be lacking in the 'new' look of 40k to me.

And I must say I like that 'old' late-3rd/early-4th edition 40k much more than it's current incarnation. I see this (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/6/68/Daemonworld_sepia.jpg) artwork showing a Deamon world ruled by the Word Bearers, and it looks (to me at least) menacing and terrible, like something one would see in a bad dream. But when I look at it's colour rendition in the Crusade of Fire book, it just seems silly to me. I see those old 3rd edition Bloodletters (I had almost completely forgotten how they looked until they were posted on here) and they do seem very brutal and primal, and I look at the old 3rd edition deamonettes (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/images/5/58/Daemonettes_miniatures.jpg) and they do seem to have that blend of alluring and 'just plain wrong'. I certainly think they seem more sinister than the newer variety. Even the old Dark Eldar had their charms, I could see them and think "ha-har, those are villains if ever I saw 'em", and while the new Dark Eldar models are indeed fantastic (much sleeker and more lethal looking than the old), this (http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?hl=en&tbo=d&biw=1517&bih=714&tbm=isch&tbnid=R9t9I7bnt8c62M:&imgrefurl=http://lkhero.blogspot.com/2010/10/need-more-pain-please.html&docid=7O_74UzVhcbfHM&imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_N8rQRcs-DzM/TLwITc3esoI/AAAAAAAAAgI/k6t-4GqsTBc/s1600/m1032517_de_art1.jpg&w=221&h=297&ei=7uW_UJvsIKSViAeY94CgBA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=1030&vpy=291&dur=875&hovh=236&hovw=175&tx=96&ty=116&sig=105775616110197474847&page=2&tbnh=141&tbnw=105&start=37&ndsp=44&ved=1t:429,r:69,s:0,i:291) still says 'Dark Eldar' to me much more than this (http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?num=10&hl=en&sa=X&tbo=d&biw=1517&bih=714&tbm=isch&tbnid=n_jXUXg67xneiM:&imgrefurl=http://www.trespassgames.co.uk/warhammer-40k/dark-eldar.html&docid=gYZGPv3oiX2yLM&imgurl=http://www.trespassgames.co.uk/media/catalog/category/Dark_Eldar_Art_1.jpg&w=273&h=273&ei=4Oa_UMS2LM2SiQf8-oGwDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=414&vpy=116&dur=1649&hovh=217&hovw=217&tx=102&ty=115&sig=105775616110197474847&page=1&tbnh=141&tbnw=141&start=0&ndsp=46&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0,i:92).

But more than that, the artwork and miniatures from that time have something more to me. It is almost certainly in no small part due to nostalgia, but those miniatures and artwork had character. They had some sort of spark or magic about them that I don't see in the newer releases. I look at the models on the 40k collector's page, like the Night Lords Hero or the Warsmith, or the Last Chancers, and they have heart. It's not just the 40k miniatures too, I look at those in the Warhammer collector's section and they have a certain charm that I sometimes struggle to find amongst the new releases. Maybe it's the new paint schemes they're using, or perhaps it's the use of CAD technology, but something just doesn't feel right to me about a lot of the new releases. They seem cold and sterile to me, even some of the better ones I see just seem... off, like something's missing.

Of course, like I say this is almost certainly largely due to nostalgia, I did start 40k at precisely the time of late 3rd edition and early 4th edition, so those miniatures and artwork are what I was first exposed to and what I grew up with. I entirely expect that, years from now, those youths that gleefully purchase the new models and rules we lament now will go onto whatever they have instead of forum discussions in the future and complain that the Helldrake they knew was far superior to the Chaos releases then, or that the Dreadknight or Storm Talon are what they think of when they think of 40k instead of whatever new units the GW of that time will have put out.

Good golly gosh, I'm only just out of Secondary (high) school, and already I'm becoming a bitter disgruntled hobby veteran!

Trustey
06-12-2012, 01:24
I am completely unimpressed by the ridiculous 3 story building tall models with every new wave. Also the trend of pricing those huge "miniatures" for 50 bucks makes the practice of charging 25 for a single infantry lord on foot or 40-50 for a single mounted lord extremely suspect. Am I the only one who doesn't feel like painting a model the size of a Tonka truck? I like painting singles, but even the joy of that is rapidly diminishing thanks to horde rules. I'd like to see a Mordheim relaunch or an updated Warbands rules article because I am sick of the size and magnitude of WHFB.
Also stylistically, the latest WoC release was ridiculous and disappointing.

ehlijen
06-12-2012, 02:09
If we are going to compare changes in style over time, let's at least do it properly! :p

Bloodletters http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y139/pathwinder14/Berserkers/Bloodletters1.jpg?t=1243253682

Here we have some lean, nasty-looking demons. Okay, they look pretty tired nowadays, but look what happens to them...

Bloodletters http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1184381_99119915003_ChaosBloodlettersMain_445x319 .jpg

STEROIDS FOR THE STEROID GOD!

...and then the more recent version...

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1540389_99129915001_WHBloodletters10_873x627

These are much closer to the original images for Bloodletters, and they drop the clumsy "bigger is better" approach of the middle models. It clearly looks like they went back to basics to improve on their original imagery. I'm not going to say this is happening across the board, as I really don't rate the current Daemonettes compared to there previous models, however, I think this is a trend that has been happening over the last few years. I'm glad, for example, that the Tyranid range took a step back from cheesy grinning bugs back to their more unusual, alien roots.


On that note, however, why are the new ones lettting their tongues dangle out like that? That's not scary, not even wierd, really (I see dogs doing that all over the place in summer). It's just goofy. 'Pull it and I'll fart' goofy. And I don't think that's what GW wanted...

Trasvi
06-12-2012, 03:58
On that note, however, why are the new ones lettting their tongues dangle out like that? That's not scary, not even wierd, really (I see dogs doing that all over the place in summer). It's just goofy. 'Pull it and I'll fart' goofy. And I don't think that's what GW wanted...

GW seems to think its scary. I was assembling some Chaos Knights the other day and noticed that all their horses are also poking their tongues out.

ehlijen
06-12-2012, 08:20
GW seems to think its scary. I was assembling some Chaos Knights the other day and noticed that all their horses are also poking their tongues out.

Poking tongues out can be made scary. But all bloodletter tongues droop down in the exact same happy puppy way.

Does anyone actually find that scary? Honest question, I'd really like to know.

Inquisitor Kallus
06-12-2012, 08:44
Poking tongues out can be made scary. But all bloodletter tongues droop down in the exact same happy puppy way.

Does anyone actually find that scary? Honest question, I'd really like to know.

The 'new' Bloodletters are great models, best incarnation yet. The tongues give them a predatory vibe, strange and unusual like snakes in a way. Though it would have been nice to have had some without tongues out giving you the option.

Ebon
06-12-2012, 09:50
My tastes seem to be about 180 from everyone else. I liked the "spiky marines" look of CSMs, I think the new daemon engines look silly (someone described them as "demonic dinobots" and I agree). I think I'm probably the only person on earth who likes the current TK skellies. I think some of the larger kits that have been released recently look utterly absurd (Chaos warshrine most glaringly but the Hurricanum/whatever as well). I loathe the current Empire soldiers (primarily because it's virtually impossible to rank them up) and like the green gorilla look of Orcs. I really dislike the addition of huge monsters to seemingly every WFB release too. It just makes the factions that could field monsters before (Lizardmen, for example) seem less special.

duffybear1988
06-12-2012, 11:29
Great page of text

THIS!

This is exactly how I feel!

duffybear1988
13-12-2012, 18:56
Anyone reading the Dark Angels rumours? I may actually, seriously rage-quite if they prove true!

Elite Ravenwing bikers with thunder hammers shaped like ravens, Elite Deathwing, 2 flyers with silly names...

It's Thunderwolves and dino bots all over again.

6mmhero
14-12-2012, 11:43
Why rage quite? You don't have to buy them and you don't need to play against them.
Also perhaps the models will look really good, so no matter what they are called they could look very nice.
I am interested in Dark Angels as I have a half painted army but I will only add what I like the look of.
As for the dinobots I really wasn't sure on them when I first saw pictures but they grew on me quickly and seeing them painted slightly differently helped as well.

Still if it is not your thing then it is not your thing. :-)

x-esiv-4c
14-12-2012, 12:32
GW shapes their IP and product to better suit their target demographic (the affluent 12 year old). If dinobots and ravenhammers sell (which their marketing group has determined) then so be it.

Bassik
18-12-2012, 12:25
In videogames and the like I see the same universe I fell in love with all those years ago, but the current army books and the new 40K rulebook do not feel the same at all, the game has become shallower and even dumber then it has ever been.

I think it's because they kepped the Grim-Dark, but stopped playing it for laughs.
A real shame.

Metal Handkerchief
18-12-2012, 23:02
I was away from 40K for half a year, then came back and the first thing I saw was the Chaos Maulerfiend/ Forgefiend and Heldrake.

My eyes literally rolled back into my head.

My impression is that they're completely losing it, and a dark age is coming to 40K. Though, I hadn't seen much of the new Necron stuff either, but I liked those okay-ish. And I loved most of the Dark Eldar minis. (I ended up starting DE as a result)

It seems like they realized WHFB is so much less popular than 40K now that they decided to put all their bad sculptors on 40K and all their good ones on fantasy. I sure don't know anyone who plays fantasy.

I made a promise to myself that if I hate the new Tau models come march as much as I hate the new Chaos models, I'm dumping all my stuff on ebay and starting Warmachine. Getting out while I still can.

So remember this post if you see Forge World-like Crisis suits or giant titan-sized super-Broadsides and close combat Tau, or anything else that breaks the classic Tau looks. You might be able to snap up 5000+ points of Tyranids, 1500+ points of Orks, 6000+ points of Tau, a smattering of marines and 5000+ points of DE for cheap, 90% of which has just been sprayed once.

stonehorse
20-12-2012, 03:15
Having seen the new Dark Angel stuff, I can honestly say that GW have taken a change in art direction for the worse. The last 40K army that I liked model wise was the Dark Eldar. Fantasy seems fine, but 40K is going through an odd period. Glad that the currant Tyranid range doesn't have a single bad model, phew!

Commandojimbob
20-12-2012, 15:00
For me, whilst the 40k universe got to me in 2nd edition, looking back, the models and style of today are far superior (yes the occassional model pops up that makes me go yuk) - this is all subjective I know, but the details, styles, poses and coherency is sooo much nicer than it has ever been - I did not like the sillyness of the models 20-30 years back.

Again that is just my subjective view but for me, along with 6th edition, 40k has never felt so coherent and alive .

duffybear1988
21-12-2012, 10:29
Those new DA kits are terrible. There's far too much bling on them that they just look really crappy.

I have friends who don't play 40k but always took an interest in my hobbies because we are mates. They used to think that 40k was alright because although it was a bit childish, it still had an adult setting (sort of). When I showed them the pictures of the new stuff (DA and CSM new releases, the SM flyers) they laughed at how lame it has become. It is for kids now - it looks like something from a cartoon.

6mmhero
22-12-2012, 12:12
From the pictures the Dark angels stuff looked ok. But I will wait to see them in the flesh before singing the praise or damning them.
The Helldrake grew on me so much once i actually saw it and I really like it. It is not cartoony in the flesh and I kind like the idea of it. The great thing with the Chaos codex is if you don't like a model you can kitbash and make your own.

I think it is going to be an interesting year ahead to see which way the styles pull towards.