Prejudice against GW?

[redzed]

well painted Space Marines are two-a-penny, so it's no wonder people may not vote for them.
I never vote for GW not matter how good the paintjob.

[Sangennaru]

gw has really nice stuff (just some of them), but the point I think it's another:

when choosing the minis to vote, I use some criteria: the painting job, the Idea, and the originality of the miniatures... using GW stuff seems a bit boring... I've seen them hundreds of times yet, and I'm not really stimulated on seeing them, even if the painting job is good...

[Malebolgia]

Personally I believe that GW has some very good painters on its staff and in the golden demon competitions. When ever you see GW stuff for sale in a shop or in a magazine it is always extremely well painted. I think this makes it very hard for us average painters to get a good reaction when we enter a GW team, people have always seen better before.

I disagree for nowadays GW. The paintjobs Gw does nowadays are a lot less than they used to be. Sure they're better than most people can do, but I expect better from the biggest company in the miniatures business.

When it gets down to voting I don't care at all what the subject is. I personally don't care at all for pure historical miniatures...it's not my thing at all. Pulp, Cthulhu and other weird things are nice, but pure historical  games bore me enormously. That said, I have voted many times for historical settings. It's a painting league after all. If the painter presents a terrific story, good paintjobs, good photos he deserves my vote. I have voted for entries I found personally boring in terms of miniatures and setting but the paintjobs were fantastic. Same goes for GW. If someone paints GW miniatures very well, then he deserves my vote. In the current round, Mancha's Space Wolves and Pil's Aliens are excellent examples (okay, Pil lost my vote...but those Jedi kids are brilliant ).

[Braxandur]

I'm not specifically in favour of or against GW models, I just like miniatures and collect everything that I can get my paws on.

However, as far is the voting is concerned. It's not only the quality of the original GW paintjobs that makes it difficult to make your models look good, it is also difficullt to get a original paintjob. Seeing a model with a similar paint job over and over again, kinda kills your enthausiasme when you see it again, while the models you haven't seen (painted) before have a larger impact.

A well, I have voted on some 40k entries. And off course entered quite some 40k entries, knowing very well they would have less of a chance versus pulp. Then again, they do have a (good) chance against historical models

[Lowtardog]

I think it depends on the subject matter to be honest. I have noticed a lot more GW figures in this season fo the LPL than ever before.

I am not prejudiced and there were some very nice Eldar in this weeks competition which caught my eye.

However with it being a LAF competition I am sure I am not alone when looking at the subject matter e.g. some nice pulp gangsters vs GW 40K stuff would in most instances have the edge for me, however I would also look at the composition, painting skills and so on.


What I would say is that there are a lot of very well painted GW stuff on the web/magazines etc so the bar is set high before anyone starts and this could cloud expectations for some

I dont think it is prejudice as I would also assume with the forum "history" and member profile/interests you would be up against it if you chose not to enter with 28mm+ scale figures, so those chaps would need to pull off a spectacular diorama or as with the Samurai stun us with painting skill and the spectacle of massed troops

[Keir]

The GW entries did fine in Round 8 so far as I can tell.

[Calimero]

I prefer historical or pseudo-historical over "pure fantasy" so it might be why I generally vote "against" GW stuff…

[dodge]

I prefer historical or pseudo-historical over "pure fantasy" so it might be why I generally vote "against" GW stuff…

There is something nice in twisting historical conflicts, and making up your own stuff 

[Calimero]

I prefer historical or pseudo-historical over "pure fantasy" so it might be why I generally vote "against" GW stuff…

There is something nice in twisting historical conflicts, and making up your own stuff 

Especially if you have a very broad range of what "pseudo-historical" is … I happily put Pulp, Weird World War II and VSF (an others) in this category. 

[Mancha]

You're right.

[Uncle Mike]

I was a little worried about most of my entries being G.W. figures...that said, I'm doing O.K. points wise and people seem to like them. Also, I will use most of them for personal gaming as some of them are brilliant models. I'm not a huge fan of the multi-tentacled corporate beast that G.W. has become but in the past (and occasionally nowadays...) it has excreeted some cool-ass models. In the end, I myself will vote for any entry that tickles my fancy, for whatever reason...and so should all o' you all.

[Froggy the Great]

While GW has a lot of really cool figures, and I personally like quite a lot of them, I see GW everywhere I go that's gaming-related.  I really like LAF because it shows me lots of small-name yet equally or more cool figures - that's why I come here.

[D@rth J@ymZ]

I personnally prefer independant manufacturers (Pulp Figures, Copplestone, Hasslefree, Heresy etc.) to GW but a fact of life for me is that the lead mountain contains many GW figs.  This is most likely because when the mountain was but a hill, GW was one of the only manufacturers available to me. Since exposure to different product lines in the LPL and other influences, I now find I prefer many other lines to GW.  For example, until the LPL, I was not a fan of historical minis at all; I have seen many entries from some extremely talented folks here that have won me over.  I may try to enter some in Season 4 if the stars are right...
I tried to limit my 10 LPL entries for Season 3 to a MAX of 3 GW entries (Weeks 1, 5 and 8 were GW figs and from 3 different lines within the GW quagmire - WH, WH40K and Mordheim). Two of these seemed to do okay, but one sure got pasted.  For me, its painting first, story/theme a close second, photo quality third and model line last.

[Westfalia Chris]

I´ll risk sounding like a broken bell by chiming in with the others in that I consider GW not as innovative as they used to be.

On the "physical/model side", it is hard to create something truly evocative and new with GW figures since one has seen them so often in so many variations, whereas the "offbeat" miniatures are in many cases more interesting. As well as that, I always like seeing people recreate background stuff not served pre-packaged (not that I dislike the GW fluff, in fact, they were quite ingenious and assiduous in creating "worlds" some twenty years ago, but have been milking that cow ever since.

[dijit]

Well I wasn't expecting such a huge response to this topic when I started it, but its certainly interesting reading. I personally look at the painting and basing and vote based on that. I have been surprised to note that since GW features so little on the boards that there have been as many GW entries as there are. I like the older GW stuff and their newer Inquisitation stuff, there's much more imagination in them and the modelmakers have much more freedom. I prefer not try to make my judgements not on the model, but on the painting.
But on a different note a great respect to those painters that churn out models week after week.