PDA

View Full Version : Rackham vs GW



ZAChos
16-06-2006, 17:23
Hey there.

For any that do the whole rackham thing, I was wondering on the quality of castings compared to gw stuff, as if its one thing that bugs me about gw its the huge amount of time it takes to clean the models and the huge amounts of metal filings in my carpet afterwards.

Cheers.

Zac

Spacemunkie
16-06-2006, 18:52
When a company starts to mass produce figures, you inevitably get the occasional ropey model. Rackham minis are made from a different alloy and seem a bit softer, but generally the quality is as good as or slightly better than GW especially where mould lines are concerned.

Still had dodgy ones though. Not enamoured with their rules mind. Confrontation is stodgy.

boogle
19-06-2006, 19:54
I don't own any Rackham models, but on checking the blisters at my local Indy store, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of flash on the models

A neutral shade of black.
20-06-2006, 14:24
Less flash, probably as much of the odd bits you get from the holes in the molds. Metal is different, somewhat greasier in the blister packs and a lot more brittle.

Blackadder
12-08-2006, 13:06
Rackham minis are made from a different alloy and seem a bit softer, but generally the quality is as good as or slightly better than GW especially where mould lines are concerned.

Their alloy contains lead, much like GW's pre-white metal alloy. This alloy is perhaps cheaper, but certainly easier to cast. It is their for limited to kids and adults ("old kids") from 14 years up.
The one miniature I build sofar contained little flash.

gjnoronh
12-08-2006, 17:04
Lead and as others have noted significant difficulties with some poses breaking.

I'm not a fan of lead in my toys regardless of age of folks using them.

Persephone
16-08-2006, 15:27
I've always found Rackham models to be of a much higher quality than GW, aesthetically and in quality of casting. Flash just falls off and there are far fewer mold lines. The problem with Rackham is that a lot of their models are very delicate and can be brittle in certain areas.

Jedi152
16-08-2006, 15:29
Remember that lead is also very poisonous - the reason that GW stopped using it.

In terms of sculpting, i find Rackham more cartoony and 'unrealistic'.

generulpoleaxe
16-08-2006, 21:43
and gw is realistic ?

they are all over the top, just in different styles.
if you want realist then paint/use the larger historic sculpts.

Agelmar
16-08-2006, 21:46
In terms of sculpting, i find Rackham more cartoony and 'unrealistic'.

Funny, I think the same thing about GW models.

As for model quality, I have a large number from both companies and I find the Rackham models (especially the newer ones) to be very good quality. Of the last 20 or so blisters I've purchased, I don't think any had flash. Also, since the metal is softer, what mold lines you do have are easily removed with a hobby knife.

Z-chan
17-08-2006, 00:57
IMHO, Rackham dwarfs look like retards. Fine Undead and Knights though.

Tymell
20-08-2006, 22:07
I like both kinds of models for different reasons, and since I only just recently had a proper look at Rackham models I'm trying not be too swayed by a feeling of "ooooh, new stuff!" that I know is there.

I find some of their models, such as goblins and dwarves, to be less than GW, but I'm in love with the bigger, more unique ones, and especially the daemony things. Definitely some I may get just because they're nice models (I've been using a wolfen-type model as a Khorne daemon prince for a while now).

The Judge
23-08-2006, 13:12
Rackham is definately boosted by the superb paint jobs... but even with my gamers standard I love the model style. Flash and mold lines are less frequent that GW, but as they're thin and fiddly, they break a LOT easier, especially their Cynwall elves.

Essia
31-08-2006, 05:47
Just keep in mind that because the metal is soft and the models have very delicate details. you may have to be more careful when removing flash. fragile bits may break or too much force and some of the details comes off as well.

Suicide Messiah
31-08-2006, 13:39
If you drop a lead model on the floor dont expect its face to be visible when you pick it up. Ive never bought a Rackham model simply becasue they are made of lead.

Jedi152
31-08-2006, 13:44
Then you can't have brought GW stuff when they were lead. It was softer, but i doubt it was that soft. I've still got tons of lead figures around at home, and they've survived the 10+ years i've had them.

Archaon
31-08-2006, 13:54
Remember that lead is also very poisonous - the reason that GW stopped using it.

In terms of sculpting, i find Rackham more cartoony and 'unrealistic'.

Not entirely correct.. lead was replaced with white metal because GW was aiming for the toy stores (amongst others) and a classification as a toy but to get that they had to get rid of the lead because laws in various countries forbids lead in toys and the sale as a toy.

Chiron
31-08-2006, 16:08
I agree with the delicate part, wire cutters/knife are utterly essential when trying to get weapons and things off sprues and I really wouldnt like to drop them

Suicide Messiah
31-08-2006, 17:03
I know GW used lead and yes i bought them. Though at the time i was about 9 and they looked liek ***** if i dropped them or not.

I still have many old lead GW minis and the missing faces and other details are the reason i dont buy lead minis anymore.

grickherder
31-08-2006, 17:48
As for which is more cartoony, I think they're equal-- just with different styles. I happen to like some of the models from GW bette than Rackham ones and some of the Rackham ones better than GW -- in terms of cartoon style.

Generally though, I stick to more realistic looking historical miniatures. I also don't find the price of either GW or Rackham to be particularly attractive.

generulpoleaxe
31-08-2006, 18:21
it's quite a shock when you think that it's cheaper to get metal miniatures from oldglory and gripping beast than buy plastic from gw.

then you have 10mm, lokk at pendraken miniatures, and then look at the price of gw's warmaster miniatures.

some things of gw's are worth there price for the quality, not many tho.

Senbei
31-08-2006, 21:25
*tries to refrain from bashing GW's plastic price hiking tactics*

On the bright side, I've had a great deal of fun buying 'Skeleton Army' boxed sets off E-Bay recently. for £15 I can get myself 30 (better looking than the current ones) warriors, 8 horse and a chariot. So I bought two... Found a Plague cart on 'Buy it now' for a little over £6 inc P&P..... nice black coach alternative.... The Nightmare legion (24 lead armoured skeletons with short polearms and command) for about £20 and an old screaming skull catapult for under a fiver.... Then I decided that I realy should stop this shopping spree. The two Items I still want are the plasic Ork battlewagon (Mint in box if possible) and the 'Skeleton War Machines' chariot.... Shame I'm off to Uni or I might have a chance of being able to afford them when they turn up :/

dumbuket
02-09-2006, 06:22
There's about 12 or so Rackham models that I'd like to own... the rest are somewhere between "meh" and "ick". GW stuff is "heroic scale", rackham models are just cartoonish. Too rounded and comicbook-y, if that makes any sense. Plus, whoever's painting the stuff for their website is just too talented... with that kind of polished painting, almost any model can look good.

That said, I really like the cynwall novas.

Senbei
02-09-2006, 20:32
Good mini's... Difficult to paint... Well, that's my view on Rackhams stuff....

GW are easier to paint.. but their love of plastic means that they haven't released anything inspiring recently....

johhny-turbo
23-09-2006, 19:53
Rackam mini's sometimes remind me of colletible action figures.

I can imagine that if not painted to a high quality they would look like utter crap but I'm not sure

DonkeyMan
23-09-2006, 21:26
Now collecting both (Rackham and GW) and playing both (only skirmish games anymore though) I personally think that Rackham minis mostly are of a much better quality (and often much more detail).

I also noticed that the details on the Rackham minis are much better carved out then on the GW minis, so you don't loose them as easy as on GW minis while you're painting them. Though you should have a magnifier when painting Rackham minis, because of the so many small details they sculpt on their minis (still wonder sometimes how they can get so much details done on their minis).

I don't find Rackham minis to be cartoony, but that lies in the eye of the beholder.

I really hope that Rackham will grow and get true competion towards GW. Competition is always good for the customer.

Flame of Udun
24-09-2006, 00:23
I like both Rackham, GW and PP minis but Rackham get the shiny award for best dragons, check it :)

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d119/Hellboy555/junk/UKCYTI01_3.jpg

but their Goblins look like baby headed fools.

Wraithbored
24-09-2006, 02:51
I prefer Rackham miniatures over GW's for purely personal reasons.

Makaber
24-09-2006, 13:47
Well, seeing as this thread has evolved into a Confrontation analysis, there's my 2 cents. My main problem with Rackham models is that while they're individually very neat and usually pretty cool-looking, stylistically they're all over the place. There's no feel of a world to it, no sense of unity. Compare the schlock comedy stylings of the goblins, to the grim techno-madness of the Alchemists, to the anime videogame werewolves. It's like they've gotten four different designers, let each one work along in complete isolation, then throw all their ideas in a blender.

Oh, and their rules are kinda dodgy. It's not that they don't have neat ideas, but they are so poorly translated it hurts, and the little leaflet dealio they have going makes it hard to look things up.

leonmallett
24-09-2006, 16:32
One ggod thing about rackham is that each race is very cohesive in sculpting 9each by one sculptor I think), more so than some older GW ranges (DE anyone?)

generulpoleaxe
24-09-2006, 22:19
they both have advantages and draw backs.

at the end of the day it is purely down to personal taste.

(i do agree that the rules need to be translated and set out better)

Kalamadea
25-09-2006, 09:07
model-wise, each has it's own place. A lot of the older rackham figs are utterly terrible, I still have some old Alahan archers lying around that make Nagash look incredible. A lot of the newer stuff, however, is incredibly well sculpted, I'm especially fond of the Alahan and Wolfen lines.

The biggest problem with rackham is that while they do, in general, have better castings with less flash, they are HORRIBLE when it comes to retiring worn-out molds, somthing made even worse becuase of all the super-detail. Look at a blister of something that's been around for a few years and you stand a good chance of seeing areas where the mold itself stuck to previous casting and the metal has filled in the gap. Also, not only are the models thin and brittle, they have some of the tiniest joints you've ever seen, far too small to pin.

Another problem is the amount of detail on the figs. Yes, you heard me right, I'm complaining becuase they are so detailed. Why? Becuase each and every model needs to be painted like a showcase figure. There's so many details on even rank & file troops that they take forever to paint. Not so bad for confrontation, but trying to get a Ragnarok army done is damn near impossible.

Osbad
25-09-2006, 11:18
Quality of sculpting is purely a personal aesthetic. I personally prefer Rackham's take on "heroic fantasy", but YMMV. However, the original post asked about casting quality, and that is a scientifically demonstrable fact, not mere opinion.

From my sample of 9 Rackham miniatures assembled and painted so far I can say 100% have been almost completely free from flash and casting lines, and there have been no casting anomolies! That isn't something I can say for GW metals or even Privateer Press.

In summary, Rackham's casting quality spanks GW's butt, but I may just have been lucky so far... Once I have painted as many Rackham models as I have GW ones then would be a fairer time to make a comparison.

The game is afoot
03-10-2006, 15:55
Rackham have the edge in quality of sculpting but then again they are running a skirmish game so they don't have to rank up like GW figures.
GW plastics are a little dull and considering how cheap they are to manufacture they are not remotely cheap.
I like many models from both of these manufacturers but I'd buy models from half a dozen other smaller manufacturers before I bought anything from either of these two heavyweight companies.

Lord Vilmore
22-10-2006, 00:34
how can there even by a comparisation between the quality of the models? :eek: :eek:

I've never had any problems with any of my rackham figures.
And people complaining about lead in your miniatures.... are you gonna eat them or what? Its not like there arent a thousand things in life which are more unhealthy then a miniature containing lead....

and about them looking crap when painted not-showcase-level, I dont know where you get that idea from? a badly painted rackham figure will likely still look better then a badly painted GW figure. But because there are fewer models in your army it might catch the eye more then a badly painted model in a rear rank of a unit. But then again if you only have 10 models to paint instead of 100 you can spend some more time on them. And drybrushing will make the details come out quick and nicely (especially quick)

Festus
22-10-2006, 15:15
Hi

how can there even by a comparisation between the quality of the models? :eek: :eek:
Yes, you can compare the style, and more importantly, the casting quality.


I've never had any problems with any of my rackham figures.

Lucky git! Honestly, many Rackham models are moade from such worn out molds that there are only unwanted lumps of metals where there should be an undercut... :(

Abysmal quality control, TBH.

Festus

A neutral shade of black.
22-10-2006, 15:19
Lucky git! Honestly, many Rackham models are moade from such worn out molds that there are only unwanted lumps of metals where there should be an undercut... :(

Abysmal quality control, TBH.

It would appear you've just been unlucky. I've never had a problem in the three years I've been buying Rackham models. :?

Luke
22-10-2006, 19:00
It would appear you've just been unlucky. I've never had a problem in the three years I've been buying Rackham models. :?

I agree. Festus, you are one unlucky dude. I and everyone I know has been blessed with immaculate casts.

The Judge
22-10-2006, 19:51
Agreed there as well.

Maybe I don't buy as much as you, and can't compare though. If you buy enough, there will be problems

The game is afoot
22-10-2006, 20:15
Rackham has the better talent and the better sculpts.
No question.
I wonder why they have to go for some of the rerally strange postures and weapon sizes on some of their models.

Tymell
22-10-2006, 21:04
Rackham has the better talent and the better sculpts.
No question.
I wonder why they have to go for some of the rerally strange postures and weapon sizes on some of their models.

Just a different style, I guess. Some fantasy worlds really try to aim for realism, others will go all out on things that don't necessarily "make sense", but are willing to sacrifice that for a more stylistic image.

Festus
23-10-2006, 14:54
Hi

It would appear you've just been unlucky. I've never had a problem in the three years I've been buying Rackham models. :?
FUnny, maybe they got better.

But I stopped buying Rackham minis because of that over three years ago... they just didn't seem worth my money.

Greetings
Festus

The game is afoot
23-10-2006, 20:12
If you want rank and file it's hard to go past GW for things like regular orcs, Dark Elves, metal beastmen, Undead skellies (plastic) and the previous regular metal Lizardman spearmen.
Pretty much everything else is obtainable cheaper and better elsewhere.
Rackham can't compete on the RaF models but they do some seriously cracking character models that leave almost all of the GW equivalents in their wake.

txamil
28-10-2006, 04:53
True, but you only need 20 to 30 models to have a decent sized game.

I think because you don't have to rank up, Rackham models can be a lot more dynamic.

A table full of Rackham minis looks ******* great.


Unless Ive been the one to paint them. They are a real bitch to paint.

A neutral shade of black.
28-10-2006, 11:08
More like 10-20. 20 is the maximum amount of models you can have on the table at any given time in a 400AP game if you follow the CoRD rules - which you should.

Rackham's "rank and file" isn't R&F, and it still beats GW's models over the head. They aren't meant to rank up, since Conf' is a skirmish game and Rag has loose formation.

HarlequinZero
09-11-2006, 08:20
Ok, here's my two cents. I've been collecting Rackham minis for two years and I have an absolute boat load of them. However, I have recently given up on them. Why you ask? Well, I'll lay this all out...

Rackham models are really nice as far as appearance goes. I am of the opinion that the majority of their recent sculpts trounce anything GW has done. However, I can't say that they're perfect either. I got a Meliador the Celestial who had part of his robes turned into a solid block of metal. This wasn't flash. There was just a block of metal where his robes were supposed to be. This isn't just old models like Meliador either. I got the new Dwarf Blunderbuss models and one arrived with the end half of his gun just missing. It wasn't snapped. It looked like it was melted off the miscast was so bad.

Also, their packaging is horrible. Almost anything in a box arrives with the styrofoam box chewed up by the models banging around inside during shipping. This is fine for big things like Wolfen who don't have delicate parts. But my box of Knights of Alahan arrived with two of their three lances snapped clean in half beacuse the heavy bodies of the horses broke through the crap styrofoam and smashed the incredibly fragile lances. Lances and spears have been a big problem for me. I've had more broken lances and spears show up then I can count. On the bright side Rackham is very quick to replace these things free of charge if you contact their customer service.

Next is trying to paint these damn things. I do enjoy painting. I'm not one of those people who plays with bare lead. The problem is that Rackham sculptors cram as much crap as physically possible on to every square inch of their models. This is nice on some of the models. I really like the travel kit on the Behemoth Orcs, (even though I don't like the physical representation of the orcs themselves.) The amount of gear on them makes them look like they really are travellers out in the mountains carrying supplies to survive for weeks at a time. The main thing I hate is the stuff I would paint freehand on GW models. This is worst on the Alahan, Cynwall and Devourer minis. What I mean is the crap load of little filligree the designers sculpt on the models. I don't need all that junk on my rank and file and if I did want it it's all stuff that I could do freehand. Just give ME the decision if I want to include it or not. This isn't such a huge problem for Confrontation as you're not painting huge quantities of models, but it's horrible for Ragnarok. Heck, even Rackham cheats at this. If you look at their publications they use a photography trick to make it LOOK like they have big blocks of painted minis when they don't. The easiest way to spot it is if you look at the identical scenic bases. If they can't even accomplish completing a full Rag army then how am I supposed to do it?

Lastly, their game rules aren't horrible, but trying to work through them is like reading about Lacanian psychoanalysis. Their translating is terrible and while their sculpting quality has been getting better lately their translations have been getting worse. I can't even understand a lot of things in the Cadwallon book. It was rushed and it shows.

I want AT-43, but I won't buy it as soon as it's released. I'll wait until someone can tell me if they've actually translated it well or if it's stuck in some kind of linguistical void between French and English.

A neutral shade of black.
09-11-2006, 09:51
This isn't just old models like Meliador either. (...) But my box of Knights of Alahan arrived with two of their three lances snapped clean in half beacuse the heavy bodies of the horses broke through the crap styrofoam and smashed the incredibly fragile lances.

You obviously don't live in France - I do (or did, since uni is in the UK). The above is a combination of bad luck and distance - the broken lances are due to your postal service, not Rackham. Since most of their clientčle until recently has been French, they've had no reason to expend piles of money on more complicated packaging when it works fine for France. Not saying they shouldn't, just that that's why they haven't.


What I mean is the crap load of little filligree the designers sculpt on the models. I don't need all that junk on my rank and file and if I did want it it's all stuff that I could do freehand.

That's always been Rackham's style, though. That'd be like saying you love the GW ork models but hate the fact that they look like apes (which pretty much defines the models). And incidentally, Rackham models hae no rank and file. It's a skirmish game, so each piece is suitably embellished.


This isn't such a huge problem for Confrontation as you're not painting huge quantities of models, but it's horrible for Ragnarok.

I can imagine, yes. :lol:


Heck, even Rackham cheats at this. If you look at their publications they use a photography trick to make it LOOK like they have big blocks of painted minis when they don't. The easiest way to spot it is if you look at the identical scenic bases. If they can't even accomplish completing a full Rag army then how am I supposed to do it?

Actually, no. Most of the armies shown in the Rag stuff are real. They have identical scenic bases because they're chain-cast and chain-painted so as to save some time.


Lastly, their game rules aren't horrible, but trying to work through them is like reading about Lacanian psychoanalysis. Their translating is terrible and while their sculpting quality has been getting better lately their translations have been getting worse. I can't even understand a lot of things in the Cadwallon book. It was rushed and it shows.

Click here (http://www.infinitythegame.com/foro/forum/viewtopic.php?p=19364#19364) for the story, if you want.


I want AT-43, but I won't buy it as soon as it's released. I'll wait until someone can tell me if they've actually translated it well or if it's stuck in some kind of linguistical void between French and English.

I think they're still looking for someone who can translate professionally, which means that the odds are it'll be in that lingo. For Great Justice!

HarlequinZero
09-11-2006, 11:22
That's always been Rackham's style, though. That'd be like saying you love the GW ork models but hate the fact that they look like apes (which pretty much defines the models). And incidentally, Rackham models hae no rank and file. It's a skirmish game, so each piece is suitably embellished.


Umm....actually Rackham DOES have rank and file. All those boxes that say Ragnarok on them are, as far as I know, designed for Ragnarok. The Cynwall elf box is ridiculous. The model joints are like wire thin and then they have filligree covering every square inch of their armor. They are supposed to be rank and file, but they are sooo not.


It's not that I don't like the models. Like I said, I think they're nice. But I like large scale games like Warhammer Fantasy. The models Rackham makes just aren't designed to be used in Ragnarok even though, as I said, some of them are in fact designed for Ragnarok. :wtf: I mean, even in the Cry Havocs they tout the posable nature of their unit boxes so you can make a load of unique models. That shows they're geared for Rag. If Rackham wants to push Rag I think they need to seriously rethink their model strategy. At least that's my opinion.

Oh, and they need to hire someone who can actually translate... NeutralShade, your post on the Inifinity forum was funny.

A neutral shade of black.
09-11-2006, 12:10
The models Rackham makes just aren't designed to be used in Ragnarok

Yep, that I agree with. Hence the "they have no rank and file" comment. Their "rank and file" models remain skirmish models and therefore embellished so that the table actually looks interesting when there's only ten models on it. That said, two fully-painted Rag armies are just stunning. A lot more so than WFB or 40k armies.

Scactha
09-11-2006, 21:51
My main problem with Rackham models is that while they're individually very neat and usually pretty cool-looking, stylistically they're all over the place. There's no feel of a world to it, no sense of unity. Compare the schlock comedy stylings of the goblins, to the grim techno-madness of the Alchemists, to the anime videogame werewolves. It's like they've gotten four different designers, let each one work along in complete isolation, then throw all their ideas in a blender.

I have to agree there. The problem is unity. Theyīre good but just not coherent.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
12-11-2006, 13:08
As already stated, Rackham use a lead alloy, which means any flash will be softer, and thus easier to get shot of. This may well be done pre-packaging, although I have absolutely no proof.

However, Rackham may have nice sculpts, but several of the models simply aren't that practical for regular play, due to skinny arms and scrawny ankles. The softer alloy means these will break off without extreme care, and due to the lack of substance in the initial model, they are also pretty much impossible to repair!

Overall, I think Rackham have a lot to offer, but GW retain their edge, as the models are a lot more practical. Rackham have a big following amongst the painting fraternity, but I've not heard much in the way of praise for their rules!

Cherrystone
12-11-2006, 13:15
but I've not heard much in the way of praise for their rules!

Confrontation 3 is my favourite game system, havnt touched WFB, necro or even the mighty epic since ive got this game.

Scactha
13-11-2006, 09:57
Rackham have a big following amongst the painting fraternity, but I've not heard much in the way of praise for their rules!
I beg to differ! Everyone here that tried Rackham, which is basically everyone who plays WFB, find R really good including myself.

R is smooth and intuitive imo. They are fast with FAQ compared to GW and remedies mistakes. GW cannot even admit mistakes and has a plethora of excuses not to if you press them.

But a comparison isnīt useful with two games that arenīt about the same thing. One is skirmish and the other big battle. WFB is all about the movement advantage...or itīs supposed to be and got much better with 7th ed. R is about thinking on your feet and constantly remaking your plans. This is a big reason I hear against the system because GW people are in a comfort zone of always being able to calculating the odds and thus much easier coming to a desicion. One wrong stacked card or die roll in R forces you to remake you plans. Not always popular I find.

Morathi's Darkest Sin
13-11-2006, 22:36
I've only been playing Confrontation for a couple of weeks so far, but the key things so far for me are the masses of Skills/abilities.. just like GW used to be before its grand dumbing down to shift more units... and the cards, no army books required, just grab that box and all the rules are inside... or just need the one rulebook to reference, very refreshing.

Models I agree are a little fidly.. had a sentinel of Dainkil (the female one) have an ankle snap and foot break into two bits just because I was trying to ease her back into position, fortunately Eris repaired and green stuffed her back into shape, shes much more able with little parts than I am. :p

I'm very immpressed so far though and the combat rules run like a dream, haven't got into spellcasting yet though. But from our games already I fear Mordheim has had its day in our household.

The game is afoot
16-11-2006, 06:33
I have to agree there. The problem is unity. Theyīre good but just not coherent.

Understandable considering it's not a skirmish game.

Scactha
23-11-2006, 09:55
Played a game of WFB yesterday and it just annoyed me. Know why? Itīs simply the all or nothing approach of the system. Any unit making losing one battle is basically dead however great it is. I feel more and more that that type of game isnīt my type of fun and love the incremental change of power that happens in C3.

I somehow imagines e.g. a unit of Chaos Warriors to fight to the last man meteing out death to the last breath. Instead we have a charge, some exchanges of swings and then the individually awesome warriors all turn tail and are run down. Itīs just quite...dull and not heroic. Thereīs of course the rules considerations and all that but it doesnīt escape the fact that it feels alot like chess where one piece knocks ut another with the difference itīs regiments in this game.

grimkeeper
30-11-2006, 20:08
hi,when i first saw Rackhams mimis i was gob smacked and thought GW days may well be numbered,however after purchaseing minis and rules i found them to be difficult to get to grips with which i put down to; lost in translation,and the figs were overly small and delicate.I still appreciate the look of a well painted Rackham mini but they have along way to go to match GW tried and tested standars and there no cheaper.

Senbei
03-12-2006, 19:58
hi,when i first saw Rackhams mimis i was gob smacked and thought GW days may well be numbered,however after purchaseing minis and rules i found them to be difficult to get to grips with which i put down to; lost in translation,and the figs were overly small and delicate.I still appreciate the look of a well painted Rackham mini but they have along way to go to match GW tried and tested standars and there no cheaper.

Ditto.....

AinuLainour
03-12-2006, 20:02
Rackham photoshops their minis.

On the other hand, they do have (overall) better sculpts than GW and their painters put more time into the minis as far as I can tell.

Senbei
03-12-2006, 21:28
True... Well... Some of their stuff. I still find it hard to like the Hyuuuuuuugeee heads they put on some of their mini's..... and even in their slightly larger scale, I still find their Goblins too large.