Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Future Wars => Topic started by: NickNascati on 01 March 2015, 11:32:37 PM
-
All,
So yesterday I received my long awaited boxes of Dreamforge Valkir troopers from the Warstore. Eight hours later, I managed to finish 24 figures. I discovered 5 figures into the Heavy Trooper box, that the figures MUST BE assembled strictly according to the directions. Why then make them multi-part?? The time required to assemble these figures is longer than should be required. If there is no actual variation, then the main body at least should be one piece!
Nick
-
could be a casting issue.
undercuts etc. cause problems, so if there are any of those you need to make two pieces or lose detail.
-
Should I have clarified? This is a set of multi-part plastics.
-
My Robotech Kickstarter is still sitting in their boxes. TOO MANY PIECES. Sure pose-ability and cast-ability were the two main reason cited when many were vocal after preview pics, but it doesn't help that I am sitting totally demotivated to assemble what was probably my most anticipated project in a very long time.
Other peoples assembled and painted pics look lovely, but I just can't seem to muster up because of the piece count.
-
I put together some GW Necrons for a friend. I am not kidding- there was a single neck vertebra that has to be glued to the skull before you could glue the skull to the body. And when it was done you couldn't even see the neck vertebrata! It was totally nonsense.
-
What is the myth you are referring to, precisely?
I enjoy building models, so it isn't a problem for me. I have been having a lot of fun assembling my Robotech stuff.
I think jamesmanto gave a good response.
-
Personally, I hate plastics and I would always buy metals in preference to plastics in any given situation. The only thing worse than plastic is resin.
I remember when multi-part plastics first came in. Everyone (me included) though it would be so wonderful in terms of variety and individuality, but actually it was rubbish. They take ages to put together and no matter how hard you try you always miss a few mould lines. Even worse, everyone's armies look exactly the same. The individuality was the myth. From my experience professional miniature sculptors are better than 99% of people when it comes to posing a miniature. Most people's poses achieved with plastics are, at best, pedestrian and often significantly worse than having a limited amount of metal poses.Also, plastic figures always look like a bunch of bits that have glued together. They are, of course, but when assembled they just look like a bunch of bits. No-one, not even the Perrys, has managed to make plastics that look natural at the shoulder join (except for fully armoured figures).
When metal figures were the norm, effort went into conversions so everyone's commander figures at least were totally unique. Otherwise the attention went on the paintjobs, which were lavish and imaginative where everyone was trying to make several versions of the same mini all look different. Now a huge proportion of hobby time is spent on assembling the models rather than converting or painting.
As a result one army of plastics is basically impossible to tell from any other.
The only advantage of plastics has been that there is a huge supply of spare bits and pieces for conversions. That being said, I actually prefer the days when I would an arm or a head or whatever off a metal model and pin it to another metal model. Often bits would have to be sculpted yourself to cover the grievous injuries done to your toy soldier. All plastics "conversions" these days are actually just kit-bashing. The days of converting stuff seem to be somewhat fallen by the wayside from what I can see.
As you can see, I passionately hate plastics!
Just my thoughts though..... ::)
-
I think people are missing a key indicator here!
There is multi-part and multi-pose. Multi part simply means that there are different pieces that need to be assembled to make your models. Multi pose means that they are to some degree poseable eg space marines.
Some miniatures are overly complicated. Most mult-parts are so created to take the miniature beyond the realms of the flat and limited pose of lead casting. But there is always the choice and variation that plastic gives you.
Separate heads, choice of weapon arms etc. In metal it would simply cost too much to the consumer to buy all of those options on top of a multi part metal miniature.
It is a faff, but I do like building miniature - although not if they are wargames factory skellingtons - whose idea was it for separate feet?
-
I think people are missing a key indicator here!
There is multi-part and multi-pose. Multi part simply means that there are different pieces that need to be assembled to make your models. Multi pose means that they are to some degree poseable eg space marines.
Some miniatures are overly complicated. Most mult-parts are so created to take the miniature beyond the realms of the flat and limited pose of lead casting. But there is always the choice and variation that plastic gives you.
Separate heads, choice of weapon arms etc. In metal it would simply cost too much to the consumer to buy all of those options on top of a multi part metal miniature.
It is a faff, but I do like building miniature - although not if they are wargames factory skellingtons - whose idea was it for separate feet?
The voice of clarity and sense!
-
Personally, I hate plastics and I would always buy metals in preference to plastics in any given situation. The only thing worse than plastic is resin.
I remember when multi-part plastics first came in. Everyone (me included) though it would be so wonderful in terms of variety and individuality, but actually it was rubbish. They take ages to put together and no matter how hard you try you always miss a few mould lines. Even worse, everyone's armies look exactly the same. The individuality was the myth. From my experience professional miniature sculptors are better than 99% of people when it comes to posing a miniature. Most people's poses achieved with plastics are, at best, pedestrian and often significantly worse than having a limited amount of metal poses.Also, plastic figures always look like a bunch of bits that have glued together. They are, of course, but when assembled they just look like a bunch of bits. No-one, not even the Perrys, has managed to make plastics that look natural at the shoulder join (except for fully armoured figures).
When metal figures were the norm, effort went into conversions so everyone's commander figures at least were totally unique. Otherwise the attention went on the paintjobs, which were lavish and imaginative where everyone was trying to make several versions of the same mini all look different. Now a huge proportion of hobby time is spent on assembling the models rather than converting or painting.
As a result one army of plastics is basically impossible to tell from any other.
The only advantage of plastics has been that there is a huge supply of spare bits and pieces for conversions. That being said, I actually prefer the days when I would an arm or a head or whatever off a metal model and pin it to another metal model. Often bits would have to be sculpted yourself to cover the grievous injuries done to your toy soldier. All plastics "conversions" these days are actually just kit-bashing. The days of converting stuff seem to be somewhat fallen by the wayside from what I can see.
As you can see, I passionately hate plastics!
Just my thoughts though..... ::)
I pretty much feel this way myself.
However, I will concede that the WHFB and 40k "Big Starter Box" models are lovely, and a fantastic example of what plastics should be. They are in few pieces, easy to clean, easy to assemble, well-posed, well-detailed, and relatively cheap. So, like metal but lighter basically. The GW single figure blisters are generally also decent examples, although some figures are rather better than others!
But all the points you raise -about pose, work, time, etc- are spot on. Additionally, the sculptors have to make a lot of allowances for multi-part mixable kits, which results in odd anatomical kludges to make them work.
-
I pretty much feel this way myself.
However, I will concede that the WHFB and 40k "Big Starter Box" models are lovely, and a fantastic example of what plastics should be. They are in few pieces, easy to clean, easy to assemble, well-posed, well-detailed, and relatively cheap. So, like metal but lighter basically. The GW single figure blisters are generally also decent examples, although some figures are rather better than others!
But all the points you raise -about pose, work, time, etc- are spot on. Additionally, the sculptors have to make a lot of allowances for multi-part mixable kits, which results in odd anatomical kludges to make them work.
Indeed! The days of the 40K boxes of single pose marines and orks were the high point of plastics really... They haven't done much better since then and most of the boxes that are released, I agree with the exception of AoBR etc, suffer from the mentioned defects.
Some miniatures are overly complicated. Most mult-parts are so created to take the miniature beyond the realms of the flat and limited pose of lead casting. But there is always the choice and variation that plastic gives you.
Separate heads, choice of weapon arms etc. In metal it would simply cost too much to the consumer to buy all of those options on top of a multi part metal miniature.
I don't disagree but I would still buy metal if the option were there. Though, I have yet to see the multi-part troops that couldn't have been done better and simpler in metal single casts (for instance, this may be heresy, but I would never buy the Perry WotR plastics when Front Rank metals are readily available...). Plastic multi-part characters ---yes I can see the argument -- there is not much worse than buying a metal miniature and finding it actually consists of a separate torso, head, hands, arms, and legs.... plastic would have been better for ease of gluing and weight if nothing else. The GW character plastic kits are nice, really nice, except the price!
-
I'm kinda between the two camps. I started wargaming with GW so plastics are almost the norm, in my view. I do like the ease of switching parts in a multipart set, and the idea of cheaper minis for unit building. (pity GW didn't see see the latter that way)
But I agree wholeheartedly about the awkwardness of multipose minis. Arms just swivel up or down from the same point, rather than raise or lower shoulders. Particularly clunky and odd on bare-armed models like GW Orcs and Chaos marauders. What with the number of kits in a 'dynamic' or 'menacing' hunch, turning the head piece usually means tilting it on it's side like a dog cocking it's head, rather than looking to one side. There are a lot of quizzical bloodthirsty fighters in the Warhammer world.
I think that applies more to older GW kits, tho. I agree that they seem to be getting better, and I think part of that is in dropping a lot of the multipose aspects in favour of getting a well-posed, well-detailed, well-cast mini.
The latest starter box minis, as mentioned, are a good example. Especially the skaven, IMO. Compared to the previous clanrats with separate head, torso, legs, arms, tail (and which were horribly designed monkey-dogs anyway) the new ones just need a weapon arm plugged in. Simples. Clanrats in the regular regiment boxes have just one extra bit - separate shields. I personally think the only improvement would be a separate left arm, but it's debateable. Then there's the slightly older example of plastic ogre bulls, leadbelchers, ironguts etc. One big lump of plastic for the body, and a new method of arm attachment: A wedge-shaped cavity in the shoulder fits over a wedge on the upper torso. Not very multipose-friendly, but pretty neat, and for the most part doesn't torture the concept of shoulder anatomy.
It's all possibly a lesson learned from the LotR plastic minis, some of which are even single piece where possible, and still look great.
Not to mention that I think some of the new plastic characters, cut up for the mould in a way that's almost anti multipose, are brilliant. The nurgle champion and wight king especially. If you ignore the price, of course.
Outside of GW, I agree experience of plastic production is a factor. Gripping Beast Saxons broke me of my preference for plastic troops (it was almost like oldschool clanrats all over against, but more ill-fitting) but Captain Blood's conversions and kitbashes are perhaps the best advertisement the Perry bros. have right now.
-
Indeed! The days of the 40K boxes of single pose marines and orks were the high point of plastics really... They haven't done much better since then and most of the boxes that are released, I agree with the exception of AoBR etc, suffer from the mentioned defects.
The 2nd Edition three-part mono-pose marines were dire, and the Orks and Gretchin were only slightly better. Really poor, and really boring. Sorry to say, but that's just how feel about them.
The plastic kits with separate swivel-arm joints just remind me of Lego or Playmobile figures. You have awkward-looking models that you accessorise, rather than actual sculpts that resemble real poses.
What I was getting at were the kits in AOBR, Dark Vengeance, BFSP, and Island of Blood. Painted up, they look nearly indistinguishable form the much more complex separately-sold kits, and the low parts count is actually better for certain models as there are fewer joins which makes for a more resilient figure.
Very little effort has been made to do more of this though, and most companies want the high modularity in order to cover multiple units and therefore offset the high investment costs. Pity. :(
-
I have always enjoyed multi-part multi-pose plastics if they don't have too many silly intricate parts. I loved the old RTB01 box set (the beaky marines), and the IG, Squats and orks that followed, and have enjoyed others since. Some have way too many parts as noted or as the OP states, have to go together a certain way, and this I dislike. i find plastic easier to convert or as someone said kitbash (sorry, to me it's still conversion - who says you have to cut a part off of a metal figure and re-sculpt your own replacement for it to be a conversion?). Plastic as well, for at least rank and file or models you'll have multiples of is (or should be, GW I'm looking at you) cheaper than metal, and only idiots would commision a plastic model and mold for single figures as it's not cost effective (again, GW this is you - £15 for a single plastic miniature? talk about extracting the urine). The only restic stuff I can comment on is the Warzone stuff, I bought the Mishima started box. Once I opened the box my heart sank with the amount of flash everywhere, let alone stupid slim little parts that are bendy and should have been done as metal components. I like a lot of the new Warzone stuff, but given the quality of the product and the amount of work I've had to do just to get the pieces off the sprues and cleaned up, I cannot see myself investing in any more. >:(
-
Though, I have yet to see the multi-part troops that couldn't have been done better and simpler in metal single casts (for instance, this may be heresy, but I would never buy the Perry WotR plastics when Front Rank metals are readily available...)
Beauty is, as ever, in the eye of the beholder :)
Personally, whilst I like some Front Rank figures - notably their late C17th figures - I find the FR WoTR figures distinctly clunky and stiff alongside the Perry range.
There again, I find the Perry plastics far superior to the Perry metals in the same range - which to my mind, is testament to the power and potential of plastic.
But, as with metal figures, I don't think one can really generalise. There are some brilliant metal figures out there which can't be bettered in plastic, and there are some excellent plastic sets which (to my mind) are infinitely superior to their metal counterparts. You can buy crap plastics, you can buy crap lead. Quality will out, whatever the medium. And vice-versa of course.
I also think a lot of it comes down to your attitude to plastic kits. If you like building things and enjoy that part of the process, then you will probably like plastic figures.
If your idea of hell is building things, and you just want to get your figures ready-made and straight onto the table, then obviously one-piece castings are for you.
It's just down to personal preference.
Like everything :)
I grew up with Airfix then went over to metals for many, many years. Plastic is all a relatively recent delight to me, since I never did GW. I predate it :D
-
I'm with the "I enjoy putting the figures together" camp as I like to see what variations I can build. Hence having bought half a dozen of the orignal Perry WOTR box so far and trying to get a big variety out of them. Although, I must agree with the comment made earlier - the Wargames Factory skeletons are a serious PITA. If I hadn't already hinted that there would be skeletons to fight in my next game, I might have binned the whole lot in frustration. :D
-
Yep, you pay your money and you take your choice.
There are pros and cons with all types of miniature... but a single posed, modular miniature is easier to convert than a single piece one so if conversion is your thing, it is better (in any type of material).
I like single piece miniatures and modular ones (even single posed, modular ones) so assembly isn't an issue for me but it is all down to personal choice.
I am sure that a lot of the reasons for multi-parting a single pose model will revolve around manufacture.
-
Personaly, I just think that metal minis are more "precious" than plastic or resin ones. For me metal minis are collectible pieces, plastic minis are gaming tokens.
From my own experience, I never thought that plastic minis needed less preparation work, or were easier to work with than metal minis, if you have the correct tools.
I also think that both worlds can be equally converted and customized (see for instance my last works on plastic and metal 20mm historical minis).
Plastic minis have essentially one interest : the price, usually cheaper than metal.
Long story short, I own plastic minis, but when I can afford, I always go for metal minis. 8)
-
My favorite material is resin. It's light and can hold the most detail. Sure, it's more fragile...but I'm careful with my miniatures. Plastic or metal...don't care that much. Only thing I don't really like is Restic/Resin Plastic. Only good side of the material is its price. Other than that, it just sucks.
-
Warburton, I think that you are viewing things through nostalgic lenses.
Having been in this hobby for nearly thirty years, I recall things differently.
You mention mold lines? Mold lines and slipped casting were always a problem with metal miniatures and could really ruin the look of a model. It was far more common "back in the day" than it is today with metal or plastic miniatures. Instead of simply clearing with a knife, you frequently needed a file and good luck with not taking off detail.
Identical looking armies? LOL. Everyone had identical looking armies because you had, in most lines, only a handful of poses (if you were that lucky) and a limited number of manufacturers. If your chosen period allowed individuality in paint jobs then this wasn't too bad, but anything uniform looked the same. That squad of ten guys would have many duplicate poses and if you weren't chopping them up to alter arm/hand/head/leg position to create differences then you just went with it because it was what we had and our imaginations made up the rest.
Lavish paint jobs to make up for lack of variety? People had the same varying degrees of painting skill that they do today and unpainted miniatures hitting the table were always a problem.
Gaps always needed filling and miscasts needed fixing. This never changed with any difference of materials.
Multi-part metal models were usually ill-fitting and needed pinning.
Conversions were fun if that was your thing. However, it wasn't for most people. It was a harder task to complete, frequently needing a saw, a drill, wire and putty. It was much easier to do badly for the inexperienced and then one ended up with a tossed-away model or something that didn't look quite right even when painted and would break when dropped.
Plastics offer more for the consumer's dollar in terms of volume and variety.
Plastics are less difficult to work with, rarely need pinning, are designed mostly so that parts fit together well with just glue. They are easier to convert, with quick cuts that fit well together, requiring little or no pinning and putty.
Plastic may be more fragile, but being lighter they don't break as often when dropped.
I like using both for different reasons. I certainly am not going to take the "back in my day" and "get off my lawn" approach to things changing because I remember exactly how it was. The challenges haven't changed, the different approaches people take haven't changed.
What has changed are that the overall quality of products on offer has increased significantly, more people are enjoying themselves in this hobby and we have greater variety in manufacturers, periods, scales, systems and mediums than ever before.
If plastics play a part in that growth then it's a good thing.
If you don't like them, buy something else.
For fun, here's some anti-metal ranting from 2005: http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-177833.html
-
A quick example.
Perry's Napoleonic Riflemen - a pretty basic multi-part plastic set of two sprues, with two torso and leg options, two arm options and separate heads and backpacks.
Forget the paintjobs, just look at the variety of poses.
(http://www.myalbum.co.uk/Photo-7EITO48C-D.jpg)
(http://www.myalbum.co.uk/Photo-R7TUYTI7-D.jpg)
(http://www.myalbum.co.uk/Photo-CK7FBFJK-D.jpg)
(http://www.myalbum.co.uk/Photo-FCH6JA3N-D.jpg)
(http://www.myalbum.co.uk/Photo-CVBVQYEN-D.jpg)
Conversion was minimal - tiny bit of greenstuff here or there, for things like the scarf and ripped trousers, that's it. If you want more complex conversion, the plastic makes it so much easier to carve stuff up as you want.
(http://www.myalbum.co.uk/Photo-IOE7WQPD-D.jpg)
Now look at what could be achieved from the Line Infantry sprues. Show me the shoulder joins there or the awkward poses.
(http://www.myalbum.co.uk/Photo-MYMC3ULE-D.jpg)
And those are a small example of the multitude of poses you can achieve.
If you put the time and effort in, and buy good quality sets, you have a lot of top quality miniatures available.
If you don't have the time or inclination, or you buy poorer quality plastic stuff, that's fine, but you can't expect it to be any good either.
-
I have to admit this where the internet comes in handy.
If you want to buy a kit, read reviews, have a look at the sprues and if you feel that they have too many parts or arent very good pose wise, you can search online for variant kits.
You can also find all sorts of tutorials to help build those pesky models.
I have to admit, for me, I enjoy putting the kit together so lots of pieces isnt an issue for me, even with those damn single pose ones haha.
-
What I was getting at were the kits in AOBR, Dark Vengeance, BFSP, and Island of Blood. Painted up, they look nearly indistinguishable form the much more complex separately-sold kits, and the low parts count is actually better for certain models as there are fewer joins which makes for a more resilient figure.
GW have definitely mastered plastic production in the past couple of years, and are really getting the most from the medium. The Chaos Space Marines and Terminators in Dark Vengeance are very cleverly engineered to build them from a small number of parts, and they still have a great sense of movement. Single pose, but they don't look like multipart models.
The Mirkwood elves use the same techniques. Barely a mould line on them too.
And some of the new GW plastic character models do things you'd struggle to do in metal. Thin flowing cloaks, fine details like separate keys and pouches, realistic 3D poses.
And like Vermis, I love the new clanrats.
Shoulders? Gripping Beast and Conquest have one or both moulded onto the torso and Conquest makes the weapon arms separate at the elbows. It works.
Plenty of fantastic conversions showcased here as well.
I'd think of plastic as another material in your arsenal. If you want quick clean-up, deep detail and durability, go metal - just remember it doesn't travel well. Resin holds the best detail, allows you to reshape bits in hot water, but is most fragile. Plastic often needs multiple parts which means more assembly and clean up, but it converts easily and allows you to go mad mixing sets and genres. It doesn't chip, makes a strong bond and is quickly repaired.
-
I see what the OP means about the multipart/multipose myth of plastics though. It has been mentioned here that they are two different things but I do feel that manufacturers use these terms interchangably, to mean the same thing.
Multi-part seems to be promoted as a good thing, especially by GW but to be honest I think it is just an excuse to short sell you in their case, You can buy one model for silly money but don't worry about the price, as we have given you a few extra bits and bobs worth a pound to compensate for our over-charging kind of thing. You are basically buying one or a few, minis and a bits box.
I like the Perry plastic sets, as overall they are good to work with and truly are (with exceptions) multi-pose, multipart models although I have found that the example poses they show you on the leaflets are sometimes a faff to do.
I loved my RT beakie plastics back in the day, and the mark seven plastics too (remember them?) I hated the mono marines and Orks in the RT 2nd Edition though. I agree the AOBR marines are really good too, but I have to say I don't like the seperate torso parts of the 'normal' sets of Marines. Its not a fun building task, its a waste of time. I prefer plastic to plastic rather than the plastic arms metal body thing of the late Eighties and Nineties.
I agree however that many sets say 'multi-pose' on them and this is not really true. A good example would be the Warlord ECW Infantry. I have to put certain arms on certain bodies as some just won't fit together.
Some metals are awful, some are lovely. Both plastics and metals can be a real arse to clean up in certain situations.
-
The 2nd Edition three-part mono-pose marines were dire, and the Orks and Gretchin were only slightly better. Really poor, and really boring. Sorry to say, but that's just how feel about them.
Yes, if you hate plastic armies that all look exactly the same, the 2nd edition 40K plastics are about the most egregious example of that I can think of.
-
I agree however that many sets say 'multi-pose' on them and this is not really true. A good example would be the Warlord ECW Infantry. I have to put certain arms on certain bodies as some just won't fit together.
Totally agree with that. Very little versatility in that set.
-
A shame to hear that about the Dreamforge Valkyries... I was actually looking forward to getting those, I like their design and had hoped to do some conversions with them. But if they're really that locked in to certain poses, I may be wasting effort on them.
-
Warburton, I think that you are viewing things through nostalgic lenses.
Having been in this hobby for nearly thirty years, I recall things differently.
[...]
For fun, here's some anti-metal ranting from 2005: http://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-177833.html
Oh, definitely! :)
There is definitely nostalgia and so on in my view. Don't get me wrong - I have bought plastics, and I will do again in the future!
But, I prefer metal. I agree, back in the day there was some pretty dire stuff in metal, and still is sometimes, in terms of slipped casts and whatnot, but give me good metal over great plastic any day.
Part of it is I feel passionately because production is overwhelmingly going towards plastic and I am sort of the advocate for the other side, fighting the losing battle, as the tide goes against me. That no doubt strengthens my opinions....
A quick example.
Perry's Napoleonic Riflemen - a pretty basic multi-part plastic set of two sprues, with two torso and leg options, two arm options and separate heads and backpacks.
Forget the paintjobs, just look at the variety of poses.
I have that kit, and I agree it is as good a kit as you could hope for in plastic, and a good kit in its own right; essentially an example of how plastics should be. (nice paint too :))
The 2nd Edition three-part mono-pose marines were dire, and the Orks and Gretchin were only slightly better. Really poor, and really boring. Sorry to say, but that's just how feel about them.
That was a bit tongue in cheek but the 2nd edition box was the high point of the concept, bettered obviously by later kits like AoBR and Dark Vengeance, whereas the standard box of tactical marines is just too many pieces and too hard to assemble. It is useful only for conversions, too me at least!
I also think a lot of it comes down to your attitude to plastic kits. If you like building things and enjoy that part of the process, then you will probably like plastic figures.
If your idea of hell is building things, and you just want to get your figures ready-made and straight onto the table, then obviously one-piece castings are for you.
It's just down to personal preference.
Like everything :)
Amen! I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just stating my own, strongly held, views! :)
-
I don't see this as a plastics problem so much as a manufacturer problem.
Resin is the best when it's done right. Most of the objections against resin are the fault of manufacturers cutting corners or not knowing the material. When resin is done right, it has better detail than either metal or plastic, and is more durable than metal. Many resins are also reposable if you heat them. There's basically no objective reason to prefer metal over good resin, only subjective stuff like "I like the weight of metal", or bad impressions garnered from experience with bad/half-bothered casters (which to be fair, are legion in the gaming mini world).
Biggest problem with resin is the desire to make resin figures cheap. Resin is the most expensive of the three, hands down, and you're never going to get them as cheap as metal without making them s**t quality, so I wish manufacturers would STOP TRYING. SERIOUSLY: STOP TRYING. YOU ARE NOT HELPING. YOU ARE THE REASON RESIN HAS A BAD NAME.
Plastic is the easiest to assemble. If you're using a good solvent cement (i.e. dichloromethane based, none of this MEK or citric acid rubbish), assembly flies faster than it would with metal or resin. No need to pin, or even true the mating surfaces. If I had to assemble a lot of figures at on time, I'd MUCH rather they be plastic than metal or resin. Sooooo much faster and easier. If you hate assembling plastics, ditch the CA and/or MEK, and get some of this: http://www.amazon.com/Weld--Acrylic-Adhesive-Applicator-Bottle/dp/B0096TWKCW/ref=sr_1_1?s=industrial&ie=UTF8&qid=1425344787&sr=1-1
Plastics do suffer from rigid molds that can't tolerate any undercuts (or even non-drafted straight sides), so rubber mold stuff like resin and metal will always have a better detail ceiling. Though to what degree this is actually exploited varies a lot, see also: Sturgeon's law.
Metal's main advantage is it's the cheapest for small runs. Also sub-par casting isn't as bad as it is with resin, so it can get away with "good enough" casting methods better.
Most of the difference between the three comes down to the manufacturer rather than the material though. There's a lot of Sturgeon's law going on in all three, so you can't really get an accurate perception just by averaging your experiences. A lot of plastics manufacturers are aggressively oversimplifying their patters in the wrong ways, resulting in minis that are both much less detailed and more complex to assemble than they actually need to be. A lot of resin makers use bottom-of-the-barrel resins cut with fillers, and don't know how to properly mold and cast with the stuff anyway, and/or use "shortcuts" that actually don't offer that much labor savings at the cost of significantly worsening their casting quality.
My main things would be:
If MSRP is an issue and you're working in small runs, go with metal, NOT RESIN. If you're a big outfit moving lots of units things may work out in plastic's favor instead, but plastic has a monstrous start-up cost, so it needs big runs to balance out. DON'T DO RESIN IF YOU WANT TO SELL BIG ARMIES/SQUADS CHEAPLY. Resin can't be done that cheap without screwing everyone, yourself included.
If you're going for higher quality and aren't afraid to charge a little more, go with resin, not metal. Just make sure you and/or your caster know what you're doing first, and are not learning on the customer's dime. Resin is for characters and skirmish teams, not armies.
If you're doing either figures larger than 50mm, or stuff that need a flying base (spaceships, winged creatures/characters, etc), go with resin. I still sometimes see people trying to make huge stuff in metal (I'm looking at you, Heresy), and it's just such a terrible idea due to weight, casting shrink, etc. Flying bases are basically levers, so making the unit top-heavy is bad, especially if it's got wingspan or length.
And if you're doing resin vehicles, for Gods sake, stop using open-backed molds! Your short sighted desire to keep the casting simple is screwing you on material costs, and screwing your customers on part fit.
-
Bloody hell, that's informative.
I feel cleverer already. If I can remember any of this, I will certainly trip it out at a later date and pretend it's all my own work.
-
A quick example.
Perry's Napoleonic Riflemen - a pretty basic multi-part plastic set of two sprues, with two torso and leg options, two arm options and separate heads and backpacks.
Forget the paintjobs, just look at the variety of poses.
(http://www.myalbum.co.uk/Photo-7EITO48C-D.jpg)
(http://www.myalbum.co.uk/Photo-R7TUYTI7-D.jpg)
(http://www.myalbum.co.uk/Photo-CK7FBFJK-D.jpg)
(http://www.myalbum.co.uk/Photo-FCH6JA3N-D.jpg)
(http://www.myalbum.co.uk/Photo-CVBVQYEN-D.jpg)
And just to add to the above, those Napoleonic spruces are great fodder for other periods as well: here are two converted to 18thc sailors:
Officer a conversion of Eureka AWI ensign plus Conquest pistol, ratings are Warlord Napoleonic and ECW plastics; the added tricorn is one of my own casts
(http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g22/imagebucket_2006/wargaming/boat_crew_wip_04_a.jpg)
Two Eureka AWI ragged artillery and a Warlord Napoleonic with WGF zombie arms
(http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g22/imagebucket_2006/wargaming/boat_crew_wip_06_a.jpg)
-
There are a lot of long comments here, which I haven't read, so this could have been covered already! Excuse my ignorance, but let me just talk about it from an 'inside' perspective.
Plastics for a consumer are about several things.
1) Reliability - All plastics are seen to be fairly similar, therefore many think there are no miscasts in plastic.
2) Multipart - Plastics are limited, so must be in multiple parts.
3) Multipose - a lot of people get this mixed up with Multipart. Multipose is nice, but, unless made by really skilled people, it can result in odd looking poses. I am still a little cynical about Malifaux multipose, for example - yet their multiparts are stunning, if assembled well.
4) Cost - Consumers often connect plastics to a low cost. It's not always the case though.
Plastics for manufacturer have different points.
1) Volume - If we know we are selling several thousand of this single kit, it's worth putting the effort into plastic. If you are selling thousands, you can keep the end consumer cost low, which increases sales of volume. However, for smaller kits such as character models, you often have to charge proportionally more. A good example is our Aliens sprue (Approx 3-15 per customer), it will sell more than the Predator Sprue (Approx 1 per customer), therefore, it will cost less than the Predator sprue.
2) Product Identity - All the 'big' companies use plastic. Therefore, to be considered 'big' an easy way is to use plastics. It's a big investment though!
3) Speed - Once the tools are made, printing plastic sprues does not require a lot of time.
So there are a LOT of reasons a manufacturer will choose to make plastics and, quite often, one of these points will be ignored. For Malifaux, it is 'multipose'. They know what they do well and that is making nice figures. I would assume it is the same for your plastics from Dreamforge/Dreamblade/Whatever (I forget their name!).
It's gonna be the same for us, for the Predators to look great, they cannot be multipart. The Aliens, however, are a bit easier to do this with. Again, the Colonial Marines, to look great and not like generic Imperial Guard, have to be multipart, but not multipose.
-
Totally agree with that. Very little versatility in that set.
Things do get a little better if you combine the storming party set with the infantry set and steal the drummers arms- then you can get some a few conversions going...
Back to the topic.
-
Plastics however are insanely expensive , 5 - 20 thousand dollars for a single mold is not what I would call affordable. Regardless how cheap the casting material is I still do not see most companies ever making their money back unless they are one of the few rare big seller companies. Which is perhaps why you see very rarely companies come out with plastics.
We would have to run a kickstarter just to get the funding for the molds alone. We would end up having to cast with someone in China because the currency exchange rate between Canada and the Euro or the Pound is unrealistic for such a large price ( example : 5,000.00 GBP = 9,594.43 CAD and that is not including VAT and shipping ) Their is also no casters in North America that cast in this material as well so China would be the only option.
I wish the market would stop being so focused on plastic being the most highly wanted material. Casting costs are just not reasonable and unrealistic for 99% of miniature companies. Resin and Metal are fine, we will be using Metal for our squad packs and most of our miniatures and our big units will be done in Resin this ensures we can crank out the product we need for demand and avoid any form of product delays.
When it comes too plastic, I myself still have yet too see plastic casted miniatures that beat the current Resin and Metal offerings in terms of Detail, so I do not view plastic as a good material for miniatures. I wish Restic turned out well and worked however sadly it failed. However we need innovation in the casting industry we need someone too try out new compounds and new ideas. Sculpting has advanced to such a high level were casting has not changed at all for decades.
I want too see some innovation in casting, I want too see a new method that combines the strengths and qualities of metal, resin and plastic without the negatives. Plastic is just way too high in cost , Metal is affordable but material is in shorter supply and hence costs more, Resin is great for details and all but it takes an awful long time to cast a good amount of supplies and molds don't last too long.
This is my view on this area I would love to see someone innovate a new casting method that can replace all 3 of these, perhaps one day but for now very few casters have tried anything new which we need more to do, their is a golden solution out their somewhere and a great opportunity for whoever finds it ;).
-
Johnny of Megaminis/Johnnyborg has a nice article from a businessman's perspective on the cost to the business of doing figs in metal vs resin.
http://johnnyborgcastings.blogspot.com/2015/01/my-dog-ate-my-ks-funds-part-3-of-10.html
As to the main subject at hand, I posted to a similar topic elsewhere something like this.
Dreamforge is targeting a market heavily populated by GW and ex-GW fans. Such gamers were raised on multipart plastic kits. They are the de-facto standard and the expectation is that foot figures will be:
-Plastic
-Multipart (no underside flat spots)
-Poseable. No two figs alike
-Customizable. Even one-pose figs are multipart for the benefit of possible conversions.
Dreamforge is hitting this market pretty hard and their choices seem to be paying off if the steady flow of new kits is any indication. The irony is that if you buy the extra kit to give your infantry figs the number of options in a GW kit, you end up spending around the same $ as a GW kit. Still, the figs are undeniably good looking.
-
I think you're right that people raised on GW expect multi-part kits. Probably why the Perrys and Warlord have gone that way (all ex-GW).
I am just one of the few raised that way who has rebelled against it!
:)
-
I think you're right that people raised on GW expect multi-part kits. Probably why the Perrys and Warlord have gone that way (all ex-GW).
I am just one of the few raised that way who has rebelled against it!
:)
I understand your point of view. I've never seen a multi-pose plastic that looked quite as perfect in pose as a well sculpted metal. Still, it's not just GW that drives Perry and others to plastic. It's also the ability to sell ALOT of very good looking figs at a price lower than all but the most discounted (and not as nice looking) older metal figures.