Toy soldiers or model kits?

[Gabbi]

Ok, it's friday, my mind already drifts toward the week-end and it seems php is making fun of me, so let's take a break to start another "philosophical" discussion

I was thinking how miniature making has evolved since I first jumped in this hobby (very late '80s I would say).
 
We moved from mostly single-piece metal models to (in some case) very complex and intricate plastic kits in very dinamic poses.

Now, what I was wondering: are these still to be considered "toy soldiers" ?

Don't get me wrong: I love many of currently produced miniatures. For example: WarCry offer a range of great models, very detailed and in very dynamic poses.
Link: https://www.games-workshop.com/it-IT/Warcry-IT-2019
Besides their style, that one could like or not, these are objectively gorgeous kits.

But... I don't know... they do not feel as "toy soldiers" anymore. Some of them need instructions to be properly built. Old GW miniatures, the ones I used to choose from the b/w "catalog" pages in WD first, and actually buy in store later, if I had managed to collect enough money had a totally different feel. They were simpler, but they showed the ingenuity of the sculptor in posing the model in such a way that it could be cast in a 2-piece mold AND look not so flat. I really appreciated some of the solutions they came out with.  It seems today models can't be produced unless they're divided in multiple pieces, even if in metal.

I'm not discussing here how much easier they were to transport (a sheet of egg crate foam and you were good to go. Today models are a pain to bring at the palce where you play) or how metal is (supposedly) superior to plastic. I love working with plastic much better than metal, I'm happy with today's miniatures and love them. But... don't know... it seems to me that something has been lost in the process. Maybe it's computer designed models, maybe it's the overabundance of details that often I find tedious to paint ...maybe it's just me not being 18yo anymore.

[disclaimer] Obviously, I'm aware there's still plenty of manufacturers that produce models "the old way" and even some that deliberately follow an "oldhammer" style. But once this kind of production was not just the norm and the "apex" in quality, it was the only one. It seems to me that now the "bigger manufacturers" of miniatures lean all toward new materials and tecniques (digital sculpting, multi-part models, metal is not so common anymore).

[Daeothar]

I must concur with your standpoint. One only needs to open an old catalogue, and it's blatantly clear that there is a huge difference in models between then and now.

But there are a few points to consider when comparing them:

I think it would be safe to say that, would the sculptors of yesteryear have had access to (and proficiency with) contemporary techniques and materials, I'm sure they would have jumped on them like a hungry cat on a plate of fish fingers. Instead though, they were limited by the materials and techniques that were available at the time. And none of those involved digital sculpting!

Furthermore, the evolution in materials is also a factor. back in the day, they were working with a rather soft metal for the end product. It did not hold sharp edges or details well, and as a result, a lot of the products were 'soft' in the detail. part of this was due to the fact that traditionally, miniatures were cast in lead and/or tin, simply because those metals had melting temperatures that could be achieved on a kitchen stove, since back in ancient days, most hobbyists bought moulds instead of readily cast miniatures.

So when 'the industry' began to emerge (halfway through the seventies?), this material was initially used. Of course, GW (and others) then wanted to get rid of the lead content, first because of the mandatory warning label on the packaging (preventing them from cornering the kids market) and later because of the complete lead-ban.

And once pewter was thrown into the mix, it was discovered that it held detail much better, could hold sharper angles and thinner elements. So then miniatures could be designed that were slimmer, since the material was harder. And this sparked another evolution in sculpting, as it was discovered that the new metal could also be used to cast single arms or weapons, in good proportions and strong enough on their own. And this gave sculptors the freedom to pose their miniatures truly in 3D. Enter the multipart metal miniatures.

At the same time, GW stuck out its neck big time by introducing actual plastic miniatures, such as the famous RTB01 Womble Marines and the Landraider and Rhino tank kits. This was a huge risk because at the time the relative investment in injection moulding was a magnitude larger than it is nowadays. But it paid off in spades as they were a huge success and paved the way for many more kits and sets to be produced in plastic.

Other companies followed suit of course, but the miniatures themselves were quite limited in their appearance, since they needed to avoid undercuts, and miniatures were initially still sculpted by hand (although I think they sculpted 3-ups and then pantographed them down to regular size) and it shows. Here too, the nature of the materials used was a factor. GW started out with a rather hard plastic which was quite quickly changed for a much softer, easily cut and melted/glued plastic. It was this plastic that most of us have come to know as the standard for plastic miniatures.

Years later, GW (and many others) moved production to China, and the plastic changed again. this time it became a bit harder, but still easily glued/melted. But the hardness also made it possible (again) to create sharper edges and smaller, thinner bits.

This more or less coincided with the move from hand sculpting to digital sculpting (around the time of the WHFB Battle for Skull Pass box I believe?), and that allowed for much more freedom in creating parts and eliminating undercuts.

And sculptors all around the industry went bananas!

Fiddly details became the norm, not because the customers wanted them, but because it was simply possible. It was/is an almost baroque era, with all sculptors seemingly suffering from very severe Horror Vacui. Think of the sometimes simply ridiculous parts count on Malifaux plastic minis. It's quite over the top, and can, in my opinion, actually work as a deterrent to beginning hobbyists. Heck; even seasoned veteran hobbyists are cursing left and right about this unnecessarily complicated way of producing miniatures.

In my opinion a clear case of 'The fact that you can, doesn't mean you have to'.

So, especially for those of us who started out in a 'quieter age' of miniature design, it's not strange to nurse a sort of nostalgia for the older, plainer aesthetic. I know I do...



Disclaimer: I may have some of the minutiae of my points slightly off, but the overall message should still be valid...

[Keith]

FWIW GW plastic production (apart from scenery items) is still based in Nottingham ;-)

[Daeothar]

FWIW GW plastic production (apart from scenery items) is still based in Nottingham ;-)

Then I suppose I must stand corrected.   Although I distinctly recall piracy issues with plastic 40K Knight models in China. That was one of many models being offered on dubious 'pop-up' sites, for a fraction of the price. Maybe, because of its size, it was lumped in with scenery items?

[Aerendar Valandil]

If my old hinchliffes and minifigs were 'toy soldiers' the new ones are as well. You stick them together if necessary and play with them, rolling dice and yelling 'phew phew'!

Same difference.

[joe5mc]

I must admit, I recently bought the new Three Hunter's pack for The Lord of the Rings from GW.  Aragorn came in 9 pieces! That was more modelling than I wanted to do, so I shipped it off and got myself some nice single-piece casts instead.

[black hat miniatures]

The "complete" lead ban is a myth...

There was a lawsuit in New York to do with lead figures which was thrown out, but a major East Coast distributor took fright and demanded that all figures be lead free, so GW and other big players switched to pewter.

A lot of other manufacturers still use lead in their mix and produce figures with as much details and sharpness as pewter figures.  I use a 20% lead mix for my toy soldiers as it flows better and has some weight behind it for the moulds which were designed for a 75% lead mix!

I also find it weird that a lot of the multi-part plastic miniatures being produced can only be assembled one way (without looking weird and awkward) and could easily be cast as one piece in a convential metal mould...

Mike

[Gabbi]

Thanks for all the replies and infos!

These days, as a big part of my gaming is played with rulesets-with-associated-model-line (such as WarCry or Warmachine) I am painting newer models more than older kind. And I love these a lot (well, unless they're poorly engineered and divided in parts in stupid ways), but at the same time I am fascinated by the older sculpts, like my old metal GW (and Heartbreaker) Orcs. You just have to fit them in a slotta base and eventually stick a shield to them, and you are good to go. And there are lovely sculpts among them, and some are quite dynamic too. Also, some were sculpted to be placed diagonally in the square base, this helps hiding the "flatness" of the sculpt. Love the ingenuity in this. Or the Shadow Knight from RoSD I recently got from Northstar. It's a lovely (well... ) figure and it's single piece.

Don't know what I wanted to say with this discussion. Maybe just discuss. While I generally feel like Aerendar Valandil (they are all toy soldiers and I enjoy them all) I sometimes feel like joe5mc and long for simpler miniatures and a simpler, "quieter" hobby time.

[Gabbi]

I also find it weird that a lot of the multi-part plastic miniatures being produced can only be assembled one way (without looking weird and awkward) and could easily be cast as one piece in a convential metal mould...

I think we need to make a distinction. There are multi-part models that are made to be built in just one way (leave aside conversions) and models that are multi-parts because they have multiple opitions (weapons, heads, etc).

The first kind are made this way to allow for more dynamic pose and to allow for more intricate detailing (and also to circumvent the undercuts limitations of casting plastic in steel moulds). In such cases I often wonder if the count of parts couldn't be kept a tad lower. Especially for metal casts that are a pain to assemble if divided in too many, too tiny parts.
I mean, these are 8 or 9 parts each, all metal, and fight in units of 10:
 https://privateerpress.com/warmachine/gallery/cryx/units/bane-knights
Assembling a unit is a hobby project in itself. Gorgeous models, love them, but not any better than the aforementioned Shadow Knight by Northstar.

The second group (models with multiple options) could not be in single piece. Also, dividing parts even if unnecessary for casting purposes (i.e. torso and legs could be single piece, and in some historical kits they are) allows for more variety in large units. This could be useful just in some kind of troops (i.e. less militarized ones, like Vikings, while Roman Legionaries are all dressed the same).
One pitfall in these kits, is the risk of having figures with the "MotU look".
Look at the old Chaos Marauder kit by GW, for example: https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Chaos-Marauders-2016

[mcfonz]

Both.

I think you'll probably come to hate me for not really understanding why stuff has to be one or other.

My true wargaming roots was set deeply in 1:72. Airfix, Matchbox, Revell, Italeri, Escii, Tamiya etc. Now, the figures were not always multi-part but they could be.

Just for clarification, I think the diferentiation you are looking for is between multi-pose and multi-part. Multi-pose is as it suggests and means you can assemble a piece in multiple poses and ways often with an array of different weapons and details to pick from. Multi-part tends to mean that options are not the same and that usually only one pose can be assembled.

So back on point. Wargaming with 1:72 stuff was a thing long before I was born in the early 80's. As such, for me, kits have never, ever been a problem in terms of either or and very much 'both'. My first wargaming army was space marines. I loved the metal character figures and terminators etc as much as the plastic generic marines etc. Then you had the tanks.

So for me, the two are inseparable and equally important to our hobby. I am building an Anglo-Saxon army that features two different plastic manufacturers and at least three different manufacturers of metals.

[Gabbi]

I think you'll probably come to hate me for not really understanding why stuff has to be one or other.

Because a model is either single piece or is it not.

Unless you think I want they to be just in one way, that is something I have naver said.

I'm aware that some lines mixed them or moved from one kind of sculpting to the other. Warmachine and Dark Age both had many single piece among  their initial releases and in the years moved to very complex and fiddly models, Malifaux moved from single piece metal models to very fiddly plastic kits.
Also I am aware that multi-part models always existed, where it was very difficult/impossible to get a decent result otherwise (cavalry are probably the most common one, but also dragons, or war machines), or where manufacturers wanted to give options/variety (i.e. Citadel's Greater Daemons).
But it seems that nowadays it's impossible to cast a single-piece model anymore (again: bar the companies that still do things "the old way").

The quest for "better looking" models has lead to models that are a nightmare to store, transport and play with. Just a few examples:
WarCry starter set has one warrior with a ball-and-chain weapon that's attached just at the hand, another with a whip that-albeit it has a second contact point, it's so thin that's begging to be snapped off.
https://www.games-workshop.com/it-IT/Warcry-IT-2019
One of the "illuminated" in one Malifaux crew is quite top-heavy and is resting on tip toe, a surface so small that's impossible to use the model as shipped. I had to add some support behinf his feet and hide a pin there.
https://gabbigames.wordpress.com/2015/11/01/malifaux-neverborn-dark-debts/
And the list could go on with models from Shadespire, Warmachine, Dark Age...

As the time passes, I have more and more models that I feel compelled to store in tin boxes with magnets under their bases because I don't feel confident in storing them in foam.

[mcfonz]

I still don't get why there is a choice of either / or.

Toy Soldiers AND Model Kits. Use what you want and be happy with it. After all, it doesn't matter what we call them, what types we prefer, only that we enjoy them and what we do with them.

[Gabbi]

I still don't get why there is a choice of either / or.

Toy Soldiers AND Model Kits. Use what you want and be happy with it. After all, it doesn't matter what we call them, what types we prefer, only that we enjoy them and what we do with them.

It's not a choice. Well for someone it could be.

Regarding how we call them, I used Toy soldiers and model kits just for brevity, to avoid typing every time single piece models and multi part models.

Besides this, I somewhat agree with you. I agree with what you say (enjoy them all. I do. Well assembling some is not a joy at all, but whatever) but I think you've missed the point of this thread. It wasn't "decide what's better and avoid the other" but "I was thinking about this in the late weeks, I want to share my thoughts with the community and hear back others' opinions if anyone has interest in the discussion". That's it, just for the sake of chatting about something I like.