wildbill Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I'm a miniatures whore. Josh Slater. Star of "Pimp My Mini". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironhammer Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I've seen some GW figures I like, and certainly Warhammer has a certain almost comical feel to it that appeals to me to some extent. However, the biggest problem I see is that GW figures are all more or less the same style, generally kind of stumpy and tough looking. That's great if you happen to like that style, but if you don't or would like a little variety GW is not the way to go. I actually got my start in 28mm fantasy doing GW Lord of the Rings figures, are pretty good, but not any better than Reaper and a heck of a lot more expensive! That, and they're for the most part straight from the Peter Jackson film, which once again gives you a pretty limited scope in terms of style. It's interesting, I actually find GW figures to be harder to paint, if you will. I'm not entirely sure why that is. I think that the detail on Reaper figures is generally a bit crisper and easy to make out when you're painting. It might also be that the pewter recipe Reaper uses just takes paint better. I dunno. How Warhammer 40k has succeeded at all remains a mystery to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyberwolfe1 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 I've seen some GW figures I like, and certainly Warhammer has a certain almost comical feel to it that appeals to me to some extent. However, the biggest problem I see is that GW figures are all more or less the same style, generally kind of stumpy and tough looking. That's great if you happen to like that style, but if you don't or would like a little variety GW is not the way to go. I actually got my start in 28mm fantasy doing GW Lord of the Rings figures, are pretty good, but not any better than Reaper and a heck of a lot more expensive! That, and they're for the most part straight from the Peter Jackson film, which once again gives you a pretty limited scope in terms of style. It's interesting, I actually find GW figures to be harder to paint, if you will. I'm not entirely sure why that is. I think that the detail on Reaper figures is generally a bit crisper and easy to make out when you're painting. It might also be that the pewter recipe Reaper uses just takes paint better. I dunno. How Warhammer 40k has succeeded at all remains a mystery to me. Wow And I find Reaper figures more difficult to paint. LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaperbryan Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Bottom line of comparison: GW has, across all brands, thousands of products to choose from, with an array of talented artists designing, sculpting, and painting. Some models appeal to the aesthetics of gamers from Group A, some from Group B, and others from Group C, and a few even cross appeal to members of 2 or even more groups. Reaper has, across all brands, thousands of products to choose from, with an array of talented artists designing, sculpting, and painting. Some models appeal to the aesthetics of gamers from Group A, some from Group B, and others from Group C, and a few even cross appeal to members of 2 or even more groups. Yet, both companies visual style are distinct from each other, and some Groups like one company's aesthetic more than other Groups do. Apples to Oranges though, even comparing our fantasy figures to theirs - they design primarily with the intent of fulfilling a game need, and that game need has a specific, defined, visual style for which they are aiming. We design Warlord for a game need, but our aesthetic is different, and for DHL, we design for "grab bag use" (RPG, painters, tabletoppers looking for variety). I think there's not really a right or wrong answer here, but the competition, the drive for them to out-do our coolest figure, and the drive for us to out-do their coolest figure, will, in the end, result in a cooler overall level of miniatures out there for you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawndeanmac Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 If we're talking strictly the aesthetics of the human-looking sculpts, Reaper is far and away superior; GW really has no sculptors on par with Sandra Garetty or any of the others . Also, buying a $30 box of plastic pieces that comes with 10 torso-and-leg pieces, 60 heads, 80 arm and weapon combinations, and 200 fingers-and-toes is just annoying, not to mention time-consuming to assemble. Some people are into that sort of thing, I'm not. GW's become a lot better in their sculpts the last few years, but they still have a long way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.