Page 4 of 5
Posted: 3 Aug 2006, o 11:41
by Demi_morgana
Slawek wrote:
Great technology ......... great fluff
wonder of engineering ......... wonder of marketing
we have to remember gw had about 30 years now to make up the fluff - rackham is a "kid" compared to gw...
moreover - I haven't read any of rackham's games fluff yet but I can't say it's not great (or comperative to gw's...) without reading
Slawek wrote:funky looking shape ......... "normal" shapes
I would rather use "not as funky looking as rackham's" instead of "normal"
Slawek wrote:I think you should put a warning
Japanese dolls for adult perverted persons.
Whats wrong with those people?
Armed girl showing their white panties perversion.
hmmm... and what about gw's armed death dealing nuns showing their armoured bras?

or satanic figures of daemons?
every true catcholic in our god-blessed land should at least be offended...

Posted: 3 Aug 2006, o 11:55
by ToMaZ
No need to delete the post Nameless
I think too that mini's tend to get very big lately. This is a marketing strategie. On some points humans think, bigger is better. We like big stuff; Big cars, big buildings, etc So the manufactureres know that, and if they release something a lot bigger than the rest, it will sell. Remember that all of these big companies all focus on selling, control of the market and money.
Plus lately historical minis got more popular amongst the fantasy miniature gamers/painters. And some manufactureres play to this. Andrea released their fantasy line warlords, others release ever bigger miniatures. Magnificent egos is a nice example of fantasy style miniatures that require a painting technique used by historical painters.
Now on the picture you showed, I think that this is a big exaggeration. As nav said, the plastic one is gonna cost 25?. That's around the same price as the metal ones cost. So I think the size will be roughly the same too. (of course, I could be wrong

)
Posted: 3 Aug 2006, o 12:23
by Nameless
@Demi - I think, that we should talk aboot those dolls in the other topic
@Demi & Slawek - my opinion is that GW has got more realistic poses (usually), while Rackham has got better proportions - speaking of human minis.
@ToMaZ - yeah, it's easier to impress a client with a huge model, especiallu when he is used to small ones.
I'm of course fully aware, that every manufacturer is focused on income. This is completely normal and understandable. Still, it does not mean, that I have to agree with them or like such behaviour

Despite the sarcastic tone of my previous post, I do wonder where is the limit. Fantasy model are not so strictly in scale, so manufacturers can easily move with human sized models between 28-33mm, calling it 28 or 30mm scale. What about monsters? Here they can go wild - dragons, giants, abberations, demons, tanks (well, tanks are not actually monsters

).
Posted: 3 Aug 2006, o 13:01
by NAVARRO
what has happened here?
well rackham pushed scale up with their minis, most humans are a tad bigger than gw and lets not forget wolfen huge sizes... also i think GW accused touch there and minis got little bigger also ther...
Bigger is not necesseraly better and i think big beasts monster and dragons should be a lot bigger than 28mm
Nids are bigger than 28mm and i love them.
I think bigger models should be coerent with 28/30mm scale so even if a lot bigger the detail should be maintained at that scale.
And aberration prime is indeed bigger than their sisters.
Limits? well who cares for such things in fantasy miniatures
oh and i read rackham fluff and rocks!
Posted: 3 Aug 2006, o 17:11
by fullheadofhair
I have to admit that I like my models to have some semblence of scale and dare I say it "realism". That being said, there is nothing like picking up a model that is just huge that comes with wickedly long stabbing implements.
Also, realism for me is mainly in the body shape, which is one of the reasons why I particular dislike Warmachine Jacks - I mean, come on, those skinny legs supporting that top half weight!!
"Planet Paul" is mainly full of continents of the sci-fi genre, and when I look at the Aberation Prime I just imagine a character running through a corridor and opening a door ...... behind door number one is .... yep death in all its oversized glory. Some what like the Alien films, when the baddie is discovered and "escapes" only to die very shortly and painfully afterwards. For me, this model taps right into my imagination and easily finds a place there and truth be told, I find it more "realistic" in size that its baby brother.
Ref the Rackham background, it seems very rich and colourful but I find it difficult to get excited about it. The stories in Cry Havoc sometimes are just difficult to get through - they don't grip me imaginatively and seem somewhat dry.
Their painting on the other hand is just gorgeous!!
Posted: 3 Aug 2006, o 18:58
by mahon
fullheadofhair wrote:Ref the Rackham background, it seems very rich and colourful but I find it difficult to get excited about it. (...) Their painting on the other hand is just gorgeous!!
That's true. Despite all the variety in Rackham's universe I can't get excited with it. I think GW did its job much better in this respect...
Posted: 4 Aug 2006, o 09:18
by Slawek
Where I can found all that rackham background?
It will be interesting to compare it to GW fluff
Posted: 4 Aug 2006, o 09:49
by NAVARRO
i like reading cryhavok magazine fluff... and i really cant compare them both have completly diferent flavours... like the minis.
Posted: 4 Aug 2006, o 16:02
by Gareth
my opinion on the plastic Aberration Prime model is its fantastic.
Looks like one of the creatures straight out of resident evil. Very cool and evil looking. thumbs up from me.
I don't see the need to compare to rackham to gw.
Both companies offer fantastic models. Why has one got to be better then the other? If you don't like one of the companies, then respect the choice of the people that do like what you don't. We're all different.
Posted: 6 Aug 2006, o 08:19
by Nameless
Gareth wrote:I don't see the need to compare to rackham to gw.
Both companies offer fantastic models. Why has one got to be better then the other?
This is so true.