Reaper / GW comparison?

[Alex3]

Recently while talking to friends who play Warhammer, I was saying that Reaper has superior miniatures over what GW puts out. They say that I'm just a fangirl and that they actually prefer GW's sculpts to Reaper's. Now I've never seen a Warhammer mini I liked, and while I've seen some less-than-desireable older Reaper minis I'd say it's pretty much no contest.

 

However in the spirit of fairness I'd like to see some actual comparisons. I suppose what I'd need is images of the unpainted GW minis that fans of their products consider the cream of the crop, likewise for Reaper. I want to prove to these guys that Reaper minis are the best (not to mention lower priced and made of pewter.)

 

SO if anyone feels up to a little challenge, would you care to share with me your favourite Reaper minis? The ones that really show off the superiority of the sculptures Reaper sells and if possible the benefits of casting in Pewter as opposed to Plastic. If you happen to know of any GW minis you like, please feel free to post those. I'm going to try to get my friends to tell me their favourites and hopefully I can find images other than the painted ones on their site.

 

I don't think it's necessary but any bragging you'd like to do on reaper would also be appreciated. Why their paint is amazing, why their game is better, etc. I've got to win this argument.

 

 

Thanks!

[vejlin]

As for the miniatures, to be perfectly honest I think the sculpting is pretty much on par and that any difference is mostly down to style. Here I prefer the style of the reaper minis.

 

With regard to the games I have much stronger opinions though. GW games seem stuck in the 90's with regard to mechanics, and to be honest I'm having a hard time thinking of a game system that's been designed within the past 10 years (from ANY manufacturer) that would not prefer to GW games. I had a lot of fun with GW games as a kid, but IGOUGO games with half hour turns just doesn't cut it anymore IMO.

 

Have your friends tried a game from another manufacturer? My impression is that for a lot of people, giving ANY non-GW gaming system a fair shot is a major eye opener. Sadly GW has been pretty good at installing brand loyalty into their customers, so even that fair shot is asking much though, and a lot of people play GW games simply because that's what they can find players for... even if they prefer something else.

[Lars Porsenna]

...and a lot of people play GW games simply because that's what they can find players for... even if they prefer something else.

 

This is absolutely true.

 

The thing about gaming is: you can have the best, most finely crafted rules on the market today, but if no one else plays them, then are they really that good? This isn't a comment about perspective, but about actually getting a game. Simple fact of the matter is that I have played loads more 40K in the past year than I have any other game, simply because we have an organized club and I can be guaranteed at least 1 game a month. I can't say the same for FREX Battletech, which maybe I can get in a few games a year. I tried to get CAV going a few years ago -- despite being critical with how it is marketed -- and no dice. Often these "great" rulesets end up either collecting dust, paged through wistfully, or end up being solo games (which are not anywhere close to as much fun, and not as useful as a learning experience!)

 

So in the end I play 40K or (less frequently) Warhammer Fantasy because I can find people to play with. Don't get me wrong, I actually like Fantasy, but I would definitely be interested if the club decided to use 40K figures and setting but with a different ruleset.

 

On the topic of minis, I find Reaper's line to be good for RPGs, but not so good for wargaming. For the latter there is either way too much variety (i.e. lack of uniformity to make units from -- unless you like using the same figure for the entire unit, which I don't), armypacks are too mono-pose (last I looked, that is), or in the case of Warlord simply too expensive/don't care for the style (I only really play massed battles -- little interest in skirmish minis games).

 

GW OTOH despite having a reputation as being expensive, is a lot cheaper in the minis you need lots of: basic troops. Of course that's because they are in plastic. But even some of the remaining metals are competitively priced; it's only when you start getting into monsters/special characters that the prices really go off the rails, as well as a few "elite" plastic sets.

 

Whether or not one line is "better" than the other is wholly and entirely subjective. I've dropped large amounts of money on both companies, and enjoy them both. But a super-detailed Reaper figure is not going to be as much appreciated when you're painting units of 24 of them, but might work out well to represent your character in a D&D session...

 

Damon.

[joshuaslater]

Can't we all just get along? It's about taste, and there's no accounting for taste.

 

As much inspiration as Charlie Sheen has been lately, "winning" is not something attainable in an argument over who's better: Reaper or GW.

[kit]

As far as I'm concerned, Reaper wins when the industry stays strong. Play GW, Warmachine, Warlord, it's cool. We have tables upstairs for anyone to bring whatever system they like. As long as people keep playing and painting, we're on the winning team.

[joshuaslater]

Dig.

[Angorak]

As far as I'm concerned, Reaper wins when the industry stays strong. Play GW, Warmachine, Warlord, it's cool. We have tables upstairs for anyone to bring whatever system they like. As long as people keep playing and painting, we're on the winning team.

 

 

That's the key. Since neither Reaper nor GW are the only games in town so to speak both benefit from a healthy gamer population.

As far as the mini's go I think both companies have produced some pretty blah stuff and some really fab stuff.

I can say that because I don't play either game system while I paint models from both manufacturers. I only have the desire to play one or two

mini games and right now it's warmachine and looking at Dystopian Wars(sp).

[fieldarchy]

Personally, I do think that the Reaper minis, along with other lines, are better sculpted than GW minis. This is from a painter stand point. I also have more problems with having to fix things on GW minis than I do on Reaper minis. An entire toe missing from a lion on the Elven Lion Chariot for instance . . .

 

I've been a Reaper fan girl (now employee and painter) since I started gaming though. Dark Sword has also been of interest to me and Freebooter as well. All of these companies I feel are superior to GW but I am biased, after all.

 

Really, it does come down to taste. A lot of people think GW is the shiznit. I don't see it. But then again they don't see my fascination with Reaper minis. I also like RPGs, not wargames. Again, something that may influence who you prefer for minis. I don't just want 100 guys on a table. I want minis that will allow me to create a scene or something individual whether for the gaming table or a nice display piece.

 

I do think GW produces nice paints. I am partial to their metallics and have been using their paint for years versus other paints. Now my painting style is evolving a bit more and using different brands that have different properties. But that is a good quality product. The same could be said of any line though. Some people like Reaper, some like P3 and some even like the craft paint you get at the craft store.

 

Really, as long as we all keep the hobby alive that's my number one concern. We are already kind of a small population in the world, would hate to see it get smaller.

[kristof65]

When it comes down to who's miniatures are better, it's all a matter of taste and style - because anyone can find individual examples in both companies lines to "prove" a point of better/worse.

 

When it comes to companies, however, Reaper wins hands down over GW, for exactly the reasons Kit outlines above. Reaper is all about the miniatures and gaming hobbies as a whole, knowing that they will thrive as long as the market thrives. GW, otoh, spends lots of effort to divorce themselves from the rest of the hobby, by refering to it as "The GW Hobby", pushing out competitors from retail stores, and stuff like that.

 

And that one is easy to prove - try entering a GW figure in the ReaperCon painting contests versus trying to enter a Reaper figure in the GW Games Day painting contests.

[psyberwolfe1]

Everything Lars said is almost spot on. People are using GW stuff because everyone else is using it. I want to play games. If I must play what everyone else is playing then so be it. This has little to do with actually being better. Yes everyone is drinking GW Kool Aid and when they drink the Kool Aid from other companies they begin to realize that GW isn’t the only show in town. People in our town have sold off their GW stuff when they started playing War Machine and Malifaux because they’ve discovered something better.

 

So where does that leave Reaper? Their stuff is absolutely useable in wargames. If you want to play Warhammer Fantasy Battles with Reaper stuff you can. The price is no different. Yes GW is cheaper on the bulk rank and file but specialty units are equally priced to GW being far more expensive. In the end it the cost is a wash. The figures are actually priced pretty equally. The difference is in how many figures are needed to play a given system. GW’s game systems are priced at about $750 on the average to play a tournament sized army, while Reaper’s game Warlord is under $200.

 

Currently Reaper’s game Warlord has an image problem, and some of Lars’ comments play this out. People see Reaper’s products for being good for the RPGS but not good for wargames. Also the figures for Reaper’s game Warlord are always lumped together with the Pathfinder and Dark Heaven figures, so they are considered just RPG figures with their wargaming potential lost. This massive selection also makes the game appear daunting because no one knows where to start. The games by GW and Privateer are easier to get into to because they are well grouped together and they have starter sets.

 

Here is how the comparison boils down. GW and Reaper both have some awesome sculptors the difference is style. The in house painters are of equal ability (my personal opinion is Reaper’s are better.). Rules are a different matter because the two are different games and do well for what they are designed for.

[TollHouseGolem]

For my D&D needs, Reaper is at the top of my list. There are so many choices for PC minis, it's almost absurd. Every time my group rolls up a new set of characters, I KNOW that I will find a perfect Reaper mini for each party member. And same goes for stocking the monster boxes for my DM. I can find just about anything and everything in the Reaper catalog. If I really must have some pig-faced orcs, well, there's always Otherworld.

 

I've seen a few GW minis that I could use for D&D, but I haven't pulled the trigger yet. One thing I will say I like about the GW plastic multi-part minis is the flexibility to create a variety of units right out of the box. I've been putting together some zombies and skeletons for my son to paint, and it is a lot of fun to let him pick out which head, torso, legs, and arms to use for each model. And for customizing, I think it's a lot easier for the garden-variety modeler to mix and match plastic bits (along with some greenstuff) than it is to convert pewter models.

 

I think the best you could do would be to try and get your GW friends to use some Warlord or DHL minis as proxies for GW special characters, commanders, sergeants, that sort of thing.

[vejlin]

I've had some success playing warlord where people used their WHFB armies. Some armies such as chaos, orcs and lizardmen already come on bases that are the correct size for warlord (otherwise I just temporarily mount them on the correct size base with blue tac).

 

In general I find that I've moved towards using the models I have with the system I want to play, rather than be restricted by what the stuff was originally designed for. This means models that had been gathering dust also get to see table time now. GW introduced me to the hobby (for which I am thankful) and to be honest it did take a few years to unlearn the silly notion that only "official" models could be used. But once you get over that stuff it really just ceases to matter. You friends bring whatever models are in their collection and you bring what's in your collection. You play games, have fun and go home. That's what it's all about.

Edited March 5, 2011 by vejlin

[psyberwolfe1]

I've had some success playing warlord where people used their WHFB armies. Some armies such as chaos, orcs and lizardmen already come on bases that are the correct size for warlord (otherwise I just temporarily mount them on the correct size base with blue tac).

 

In general I find that I've moved towards using the models I have with the system I want to play, rather than be restricted by what the stuff was originally designed for. This means models that had been gathering dust also get to see table time now. GW introduced me to the hobby (for which I am thankful) and to be honest it did take a few years to unlearn the silly notion that only "official" models could be used. But once you get over that stuff it really just ceases to matter. You friends bring whatever models are in their collection and you bring what's in your collection. You play games, have fun and go home. That's what it's all about.

 

This is exactly what I do now. My GW Empire army doubles as a Field of Glory German States army, and I use them in Warlord as Mercs. Since my Empire army is magnetized the base issue for Warlord is handled by sticking them down to 25mm steel bases. The official model issue only holds water at events officially sponsored by the company.

[Dr.Bedlam]

I don't know anyone who uses GW miniatures for roleplaying games.

 

I do know of some games where Reaper figures are used as GW proxies, when permitted.

[Inarah]

I've played WFB and Warlord and have painted armies for both. I think when you compare GW's special characters and elites to Reaper it's pretty much an even match. Both are well sculpted with interesting dynamic poses and a plethora of detail. Where GW fails, IMO, is in the rank-and-file figures. You know, the box of 20 identical goblin warriors with the wide flat seam on the sides of each figure where there is no detail. However, the price per figure is much cheaper than Reaper in this instance, so it's a trade-off of detail vs. cost.