|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:42 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It's amazing how many old sculpts like those have absolutely zero effort on the faces. Like, they're barely faces at all. You can do your best with paint but you're still basically painting a muppet head. That's probably why the gave everyone cool helmets
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
How did you people even play in the 90s...
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
JcDent posted:How did you people even play in the 90s... It was a dark time with beer bellied warriors and oddly proportioned weapons, but it had a goofy charm to it and when you have 100 identical dudes marching in loose formation because the models don't rank at all, you just accept it as normal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
JcDent posted:How did you people even play in the 90s... Those 'unarmoured' ladies are part of the reason why GW got big. They were producing (mostly) better stuff and raising the bar. Later they decided sitting on the bar lording it up over everyone else was a sound idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
someone decided this looked good: count the ways it's terrible (the work itself is great, it's the idea that's bad)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
Is it propped up with something under the base so it doesn't fall over?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 12:00
|
|
|
Frobbe posted:someone decided this looked good: How the hell does it not fall over? Those
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 12:33
|
|
|
Frobbe posted:someone decided this looked good: Honestly, apart from the shoulder missile launchers looking really out of place I don't mind it. It's just taking the Tau to their logical conclusion of 40k Gundams. Still ridiculous though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
Well, if you're gonna go Tau, you may as well go Megatau, and that's kind of rad for that. Integrate the missile pods into the shoulders or chest (or make it one or two rows as forearm launchers, because Rocket Fists are grand), ditch the head vents, and you've a fairly good piece of work so long as you don't mind going balls-to-the-wall anime.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
That's an incredibly orky Tau thing. A hovertank would probably carry all those weapons better though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Loomer posted:Well, if you're gonna go Tau, you may as well go Megatau, and that's kind of rad for that. Integrate the missile pods into the shoulders or chest (or make it one or two rows as forearm launchers, because Rocket Fists are grand), ditch the head vents, and you've a fairly good piece of work so long as you don't mind going balls-to-the-wall anime. Yeah, only the rocket launchers and the wents stand out. Besides the horrible decision to buy GW.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Yeah, only the rocket launchers and the wents stand out. The head is WAY too far back, it needs to be moved forward to be more in line with the shoulders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
Skellybones posted:A hovertank would probably carry all those weapons better though. but but but muh anime
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Skellybones posted:That's an incredibly orky Tau thing. Basically true of everything and the reason why we don't see awesome mechs in modern military forces. If it was better then the Americans would have funded the crap out of R&D to make it happen by now. Sadly I don't think these new Tau things are awesome either. The base of this one is either attached to the table or made of cast iron.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
im the camera head that cant see poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
or wait maybe im the chest visor that can't see poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
I dont know what I am...
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Moola posted:I dont know what I am... Moola posted:hey kid ima skull 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
lol I dont remember posting that
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
JcDent posted:How did you people even play in the 90s...
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
You didn't have an endless array of pro-painted models on the internet to compare everything to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
I unironically miss a lot of the mid to late 90s and early 2000s GW sculpts. Like, technically, no, they're not as good as the ones they have now, but there was a certain vibe they gave off back them. I still love looking at the dioramas and battle pictures in the 5th edition WHFB books. I recognize this is almost certainly due to nostalgia and if I was coming into the wargaming hobby with fresh new eyes, I'd think differently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
There is an argument to be had that the precision of CAD design can detract from the character of a sculpt, which I guess is dependent on if you like impressionist painting over photo realism. Hand sculpting can lead to exaggerated features that create a style, but the lines will probably never be as straight or crisp as in CAD design.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Yeah I feel that CAD designed minis somehow lose some of the artistry. Which sounds like a wanky thing to say akin to arguing for vinyl over digital but, certainly at the moment, the serene crispness of a CAD designed model somehow telegraphs that that is what it is in a way that the chunkier, flawed nature of a classic mini does not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
There were plenty of gorgeous miniatures in the 1990s. It's just that they were swamped by vast numbers of horrible poo poo miniatures too. But I have miniatures from as far back as the late 1970s that are OK to middling, and plenty of stuff from the likes of Grenadier in the 1980s that have nice crisp details and good proportions. I think a lot of it came down to technology and price. Tons of outfits were still spin-casting metal minis using aging two-piece spin molds as a way of being economical, and those minis mostly sucked. Bigger outfits like Citadel, Grenadier, and Ral Partha had better metal molding processes and GW pioneered high-detail hard plastic injection molded stuff, which was already starting to be available by 1989 or so. If you went into a Games Workshop you saw those nice minis; but if you went into an independent game store, you probably saw racks of minis from a dozen different companies, most of which had been there unsold for years, in addition to small displays of the better but more expensive metals and plastics from the big companies. But the lack of the Web was really the big thing. You saw minis in magazines and in your local store and that was it. And I think people were still thinking of them more as game tokens than as literal, exactly-as-depicted realistic representations of characters and fighters and monsters. When we played D&D with figures, you just used any dwarf to represent your dwarf, and when you played a wargame unless you were a greybeard fat grognardy historicals guy (who were in a tiny minority even in 1990) you just fielded five or six smallish units of basically similar dudes and it was fine. If your unit of 30 goblins were all identical sculpts, nobody batted an eye or even thought it looked bad, because they'd probably only ever seen one to three other units of 30 goblins in-person anyway. Unless you were lucky enough to go to one of the big conventions, that is: attending the second annual Golden Demon Awards in the UK as a teenager was quite eye-opening for young Leperflesh, just from peering at the contest entries, doing a quick painting workshop with a GW staffer, and trying to shove through the packed crowds surrounding every gaming table to see the fully painted terrain and scenery and armies fighting it out. But for the most part we were slopping thick craft store acrylic paint or sometimes model shop enamel[/] paint onto blobby 1980s third-party miniatures with #3 paintbrushes and being really quite proud of our results because at least the drat things were [i]painted at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
ineptmule posted:Yeah I feel that CAD designed minis somehow lose some of the artistry. Which sounds like a wanky thing to say akin to arguing for vinyl over digital but, certainly at the moment, the serene crispness of a CAD designed model somehow telegraphs that that is what it is in a way that the chunkier, flawed nature of a classic mini does not. As someone who works in CAD I agree. CAD typically displays in an isometric view meaning there is no real perspective. In perspective modes it also doesn't look right. Having seen the things I've worked on built, there's also a size warp that happens. Things on the screen that you've spent a lot of time on seem bigger or smaller than the end up being in the real world. I think that a hybrid would be perfect. Create a basic skeleton on CAD, then sculpt on it. After that digitize it, and cut it up in CAD to create the molds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
ineptmule posted:Yeah I feel that CAD designed minis somehow lose some of the artistry. Which sounds like a wanky thing to say akin to arguing for vinyl over digital but, certainly at the moment, the serene crispness of a CAD designed model somehow telegraphs that that is what it is in a way that the chunkier, flawed nature of a classic mini does not. I think it is down to the nature of CAD itself, if you have easy access to identical digital components, you're less likely to spend time on the detail work simply because you can grab elements from the library. Whereas sculpting by hand meant that the detail work was done from scratch every time. Which would require more time and thought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
FrostyPox posted:I unironically miss a lot of the mid to late 90s and early 2000s GW sculpts. Like, technically, no, they're not as good as the ones they have now, but there was a certain vibe they gave off back them. I still love looking at the dioramas and battle pictures in the 5th edition WHFB books. I recognize this is almost certainly due to nostalgia and if I was coming into the wargaming hobby with fresh new eyes, I'd think differently. 6th edition WHFB chaos hit the nail on the head in terms of design and aesthetic, so I feel you on that. It was the right balance of detail and empty space, busy where it needed to be but not overflowing with a billion skulls and awful proportions. Except the plastic warriors around that time. Awful sculpts and terrible to try and rank up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:6th edition WHFB chaos hit the nail on the head in terms of design and aesthetic, so I feel you on that. It was the right balance of detail and empty space, busy where it needed to be but not overflowing with a billion skulls and awful proportions. The ones with a front piece, a back piece and two ball sockets for arms? I kinda liked the stolid, menacing "we're advancing and there is jack poo poo you can do" vibe from their static pose. But yeah ranking them was insanely bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
The 6th edition chaos warriors are still the current ones and are pretty good even today. Those hunchbacked fuckers that came before them? They were awful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Those were reboxed for 6th but a couple of editions old at that point iirc, hence why they brought out the chaos knight inspired ones with storm of chaos. Which are cool but monopose and lockstep as hell. The goofy hunchback fuckers could be customized a lot more and were properly Chaos instead of generic army of darkness dudes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
The Bloodletters in 6E were loving amazing. Whenever I can get my stuff to Asia, those are certainly finding a place in my Kings of War army. I'm also a huge fan of the 1997 High Elves. Those were some of the nicest metal sculpts GW did before the mass switch to multi-part plastic kits. And then right after that they did the Dogs of War range which was a good dozen unique units that all had excellent flare and character.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
I thought the old metal hive-tyrant was one of the coolest minis around. None of the new designs match it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
I thought all the old nid designs were bad until they got redone in 4th(?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
There were definitely good 'nids as early as 3rd edition since that's when I played them first and most of the models don't clash with stuff from when I stopped playing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Is there a website that shows 40k models through the years? Like it would be cool to see the squads side by side from Rogue Trader on up to now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
The 'nids started getting actual plastic kits in 3E with the new codex. I think that's when they more or less redid the whole range of large monsters. I think it's up for debate if the goofy old Hive Tyrant was better or worse than the more bug-like plastic one, but it didn't fit with the new range and the update was fine. The old Carnifex is clearly worse though. Or better. It depends on how much I've been drinking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Most of the line improved when they redid it the first time. When they re-redid it, it got more generic. I think they were trying to go for 'these creature are part of the same species/whatever', but it just ended up making them look samey-same to me. I went a little nuts when they updated it the first time. I think I had 10 carnifexes for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 05:42 |
|
|
Tommofork posted:The ones with a front piece, a back piece and two ball sockets for arms? I kinda liked the stolid, menacing "we're advancing and there is jack poo poo you can do" vibe from their static pose. But yeah ranking them was insanely bad. No, those are pretty fine to rank up. What I meant was... Safety Factor posted:Those hunchbacked fuckers that came before them? They were awful. Those. They were still current when the Hordes of Chaos book came out back in 6th; it wasn't until some time in 7th iirc that they got replaced by the ball-socket ones. Imagine trying to make sense of THIS clusterfuck: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 03:33
|
|