Author Topic: Prejudice against GW? (Read 26010 times)

Bugsda · « **Reply #30 on:** June 16, 2009, 10:45:55 PM »

Some of my best friends have worked for games workshop at one time or another, wouldn't want them marrying my daughter though

Bako · « **Reply #31 on:** June 17, 2009, 04:13:10 AM »

Quote from: Pil on June 16, 2009, 08:38:48 AM

I think there is prejudice towards subject matter that people favour. Usually this isn't a GW game or product. I personally prefer post-apoc models over historical models, for example

Likewise. Though I must admit I've a bit of prejudice towards Space Marines and Orks, bah!

. Though I still take the painting and scenery, and all those little doodads into account before voting. I'm not all evil after all.

Gluteus Maximus · « **Reply #32 on:** June 22, 2009, 07:42:45 PM »

Sorry, I'm a bit late as usual, but when I vote I take into account: Painting standard, basing, originality, team "coherency", scenic background/photography and manufacturer or period, in that order. So if two teams, of equal standard in all other categories, feature Orks and Perry Sudan figures, the Perrys will win.

I don't know how others vote, but my method seems best to me - and I'm never wrong, of course

GW's models are often very good, occasionally superb and sometimes dire, but I wouldn't vote against them because they are GW sculpts, just as I wouldn't vote for a bad Perry figure ( if I ever find one

).

meninobesta · « **Reply #33 on:** June 22, 2009, 07:48:13 PM »

Quote from: Gluteus Maximus on June 22, 2009, 07:42:45 PM

GW's models are often very good, occasionally superb and sometimes dire, but I wouldn't vote against them because they are GW sculpts, just as I wouldn't vote for a bad Perry figure ( if I ever find one ).

and what about the minis that the Perrys made for GW?

Grimm · « **Reply #34 on:** June 22, 2009, 08:11:28 PM »

so you mean that a few people vote aganst GW only to look at the painting figures ?
that is possible, I think.
So why not make a GW bonus round in the next season ?
I am sure we all have a few GW figures in our lead pile and If I look at the age of the LAF members I am sure we see some figures they have been long forgotten.

Grimm

dijit · « **Reply #35 on:** June 22, 2009, 09:05:48 PM »

A GW bonus round could be an interesting idea, I don't think there's a gamer out there who hasn't got some in the lead pile.

Heldrak · « **Reply #36 on:** June 22, 2009, 10:13:23 PM »

I think the purpose of the bonus rounds was to get people to paint figures from a genre/period/etc. that they might not otherwise visit. There doesn't seem to be an shortage of GW material, thus a bonus round seems rather... uneccessary.

leadfool · « **Reply #37 on:** June 23, 2009, 06:48:08 AM »

I vote for or against based upon the overall presentation 40% (backround, lighting, etc,) 10% Humor, 20% painting skill, and 30% historical accuracy. I will vote for a historical figure over Sci-fi, though not over VSF. The humor I have to understand so some of the Sci-fi stuff I might not get. If the figure started life as a GW figure does not enter into the equation.

Personally some of my favorite figures of all time are the old GW fantasy figures (especially the Norsemen) and most of the newer (Metal or plastic) Bretonian and Empire figures. I am just not fond of chaos, the new ogres, dark elves or space marines. They are not likely to get my vote regardless of what is against them.

Pil · « **Reply #38 on:** June 23, 2009, 06:53:17 AM »

I think a bonus tound based of figures of a single manufacturer is a bad idea because it might set the trend. Except for round ten the bonus rounds could be interpreted in a lot of settings (Germans, animal mounts) and I really like it that way. Saying: you can paint any figure as long as it's made by X is not the way to go IMO.

dijit · « **Reply #39 on:** June 23, 2009, 07:26:16 AM »

Quote from: Pil on June 23, 2009, 06:53:17 AM

I think a bonus tound based of figures of a single manufacturer is a bad idea because it might set the trend. Except for round ten the bonus rounds could be interpreted in a lot of settings (Germans, animal mounts) and I really like it that way. Saying: you can paint any figure as long as it's made by X is not the way to go IMO.

I've thought about this over the cross of yesterday, and I think you're right, it most likely wouldn't be good for the competition.

Reading all the different posts, I' rather surprised by some of things people say. There are a number of people that say the prefer some figures over others (period, historical/sci fi/fantasy/VSF) and will tend to vote for them over others. Is this in the case of a tiebreaker between two very good entries? Or as a first principle? I personally try and judge by painting alone, but made thats just me...

Hammers · « **Reply #40 on:** June 23, 2009, 07:37:46 AM »

Quote from: Pil on June 23, 2009, 06:53:17 AM

I think a bonus tound based of figures of a single manufacturer is a bad idea because it might set the trend. Except for round ten the bonus rounds could be interpreted in a lot of settings (Germans, animal mounts) and I really like it that way. Saying: you can paint any figure as long as it's made by X is not the way to go IMO.

Hear, hear. Stick to theme.

Pil · « **Reply #41 on:** June 23, 2009, 08:19:49 AM »

Quote from: dijit on June 23, 2009, 07:26:16 AM

Reading all the different posts, I' rather surprised by some of things people say. There are a number of people that say the prefer some figures over others (period, historical/sci fi/fantasy/VSF) and will tend to vote for them over others. Is this in the case of a tiebreaker between two very good entries? Or as a first principle? I personally try and judge by painting alone, but made thats just me...

For me it's gut feeling, when both entries look good but one is better painted I may still go for the other one if the setting etc. is nice. When the painting on one of them is rather bad I won't vote for it. Preference can bridge a gap but that gap can only be so large. More often than not though there are two entries, both very nicely painted but in very different styles. In such instances one might technically be better (or take more effort) but that doesn't automatically mean it looks better too.

Gluteus Maximus · « **Reply #42 on:** June 23, 2009, 09:09:02 AM »

Quote from: meninobesta on June 22, 2009, 07:48:13 PM

Quote from: Gluteus Maximus on June 22, 2009, 07:42:45 PM
GW's models are often very good, occasionally superb and sometimes dire, but I wouldn't vote against them because they are GW sculpts, just as I wouldn't vote for a bad Perry figure ( if I ever find one ).

and what about the minis that the Perrys made for GW?

Very good point! In that case, Perry Lord Of The Rings would beat Warhammer, which would beat 40K.

Either way, figure choosing the manufacturer/sculptor would be a last resort if everything else was perfectly equal, which is extremely unlikely

Orctrader · « **Reply #43 on:** June 23, 2009, 09:56:56 AM »

Quote from: dijit on June 23, 2009, 07:26:16 AM

I personally try and judge by painting alone, but maybe that's just me...

And me

And I don't actually care who has made the figures.

Hammers · « **Reply #44 on:** June 23, 2009, 01:00:47 PM »

Quote from: Orctrader on June 23, 2009, 09:56:56 AM

Quote from: dijit on June 23, 2009, 07:26:16 AM
I personally try and judge by painting alone, but maybe that's just me...

And me

And I don't actually care who has made the figures.

Neither do I as long as they are brought up Catholic.

News:

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Recent

Author Topic: Prejudice against GW? (Read 26010 times)

Related Topics