Dear Wyrd

[Math Mathonwy]

21 hours ago, tmod said:

I believe they tried to outsource stuff some years ago, but stopped due to panic over pirated copies... I might have this wrong, but it does seem to fit in with GW's thinking the last decade.

I believe that they outsource terrain and have done so for quite a while. Their terrain sets are different from their minis sets - lower-quality but generally cheaper (in that you get more plastic).

[tmod]

On 27.2.2016 at 7:13 PM, Omenbringer said:

Again GW has a few decades of plastics experience on Wyrd and has their own production facilities. What I am interested in however (especially in regards to Tmod's post above) is if GW is in fact still producing their own product or if they are now using a third party as most of the industry seems to be doing. I had heard a store owner mention in passing that some GW kits (particularly the terrain kits) are being outsourced now.

I believe they tried to outsource stuff some years ago, but stopped due to panic over pirated copies... I might have this wrong, but it does seem to fit in with GW's thinking the last decade.

Also remember that it's a long while since GW had to develop technology themselves, hips plastic production is a pretty big industry, miniatures notwithstanding... There probably was a bit of a learning curve turning hand-sculpted masters into moulds, but GW has been using digital design for some time, with the software available to anyone. I'm not going to pretend there's not a learning curve as to what transfers well from screen to plastic, and the skill of the sculptor is as important as ever. But was is new is that the know-how is more available. CAD is a medium I suspect most designers are educated in using, green stuff and toothpicks is rather more niche. Similarly, there are probably thousands of companies worldwide struggling with how to transfer the small, detailed CAD sculpts into plastic. This means there are going to be solitions on the market for this as well!

Oh, and great post by the way!

5 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

I believe that they outsource terrain and have done so for quite a while. Their terrain sets are different from their minis sets - lower-quality but generally cheaper (in that you get more plastic).

That is certainly true, but I remember it as pretty solid intel...

Either way, they still keep a sizeable part of the production in-house, whereas everybody else use third party manufacturers...

[tmod]

It seems most people tend to be so much in agreement it's almost starting to become embarrassing (this is supposed to be an Internet forum after all!!), but I had the opportunity to illustrate my earlier point with a nice photo, so here goes:

On the left is a wyrd hog wisperer, with one foot in the air, leaving a single contact point with the base. On the right is a khorne bloodreaver body in a somewhat similar pose that I'll convert into a possessed mordheim character. The pose is similar, but instead of leaving the model with a single attachment point GW has added a shrub (or similar) connected to off-ground foot, thus leaving the model with two solid contact points. I think this perfectly illustrates different approaches to realism, detail, dynamism and robustness.

From a purely aesthetic point of view I think the hog wisperer is superior. While it's true that there could be exactly one shrub on the entire battlefield, it's a little too convenient it's located exactly next to the raised foot. This gets worse if you have more models in the warband were they've used the same trick, which is often the case with GW kits! To be fair, GW have improved here, using much natural connection points than earlier. My brother used to collect Bretonnians in the 90s, and those plastic horses had huge plastic tufts of "grass" supporting galloping hooves...

From a robustness perspective it should be equally obvious the bloodreaver will be able to stand much more abuse than the hog whisperer, and that is certainly an objective quality. Furthermore in GW's defence, it's easier to cut off the shrub if you don't like it than it would be to add something similar to the hog whisperer. That said, I think the wyrd approach has a more premium/display quality to it, whereas GW has a more utilitarian quality. This utilitarian design philosophy is also obvious in some of the oldest and most persistent criticism of GW models: the oversized heads, hands, feet and weapons, in short the 'Heroic scale'.

'Heroic scale', or a scale where some parts are oversized, often to a ridiculous degree, has two major advantages: easier to produce robust models (thicker weapons shafts, etc) and easier to paint details.

Apart from different scale types (heroic vs realistic) I think the two models in the picture highlight a key difference between the companies, namely where they're willing to compromise. GW won't compromise robustness, so they add a shrub to the raised foot. They are however willing to compromise on aesthetics. I'm thinking specifically of the khorne icon on the left thigh. Because it doesn't follow the contour of the leg (naturally) it varies a lot in thickness, and the back sort of "melts" into the thigh. It's a small thing, but it doesn't look good. Wyrd would have included this as an annoying separate piece, and after a lot of filing and cursin (and possibly a fight with the carpet!) the end result would've been better on purely aesthetic grounds. For it makes no difference, I'll file it iff anyways, but I find it's a good illustration of the different approaches.

I think quality is a problematic term when comparing gw and wyrd. I think wyrd in many respects surpases in aesthetic qualities, the details are at least as sharp on the hog whisperer (and you don't get the compromises due to wanting fewer parts!). GW is clearly ahead when it comes to robustness, but is that what people have in mind when they mention "high quality plastics"? It's more fair to say gw has it's distinct style, which it does pretty well (though aesthetically ot does seem to be changing for a more Blizzard influenced style), wyrd have another style which it also does pretty well. GW's weakspot has always been realism, I feel wyrd's weakspot is robustness and ease of assembly. Where gw goes doesn't really concern me, but I hope wyrd keeps improving their weakspots, but on the tradeoff between dynamism and realism on the one hand and robustness and ease of assembly on the other I vastly prefer where Wyrd are at the moment to where GW are...

[LunarSol]

I find contact points to not be hugely detrimental to plastic models.  The material is so light, it holds to the base quite well on a single, solid contact point (and then there's Vanessa....)

[Bengt]

3 hours ago, LunarSol said:

I find contact points to not be hugely detrimental to plastic models.  The material is so light, it holds to the base quite well on a single, solid contact point (and then there's Vanessa....)

What's the problem with Vanessa? She has one boot fully on the ground and half the other boot, and no stilettos.

[LunarSol]

It's not awful, but its a very linear contact point, meaning she's a little tippy to either side.  She's technically better than say, the Librarian, but the big magic energy bit in the air in front of her is a lot of weight for that small of a contact point.

[Bengt]

But the plastic gob on Vanessa has negligible weight, I'd be more worried about say VikA (to pick a related model), since she has heels her total contact area is smaller. 

[LunarSol]

27 minutes ago, Bengt said:

But the plastic gob on Vanessa has negligible weight, I'd be more worried about say VikA (to pick a related model), since she has heels her total contact area is smaller. 

They're all similarly problematic to be honest.

On a related note, I have VikA/Librarian/Vanessa all sitting on my workbench right now, daring me to attach them to their bases.  I have yet to successfully pass the horror duel and remain quite paralyzed on the matter.

[Bengt]

8 hours ago, LunarSol said:

They're all similarly problematic to be honest.

On a related note, I have VikA/Librarian/Vanessa all sitting on my workbench right now, daring me to attach them to their bases.  I have yet to successfully pass the horror duel and remain quite paralyzed on the matter.

You'd love one of the December Acolytes. Not only is she standing on one foot, that foot is off to one side with a lot of material sticking out in the opposite direction giving great leverage to stress the contact point/ankle if you should accidentally swipe the model.  

[RaguRagla]

GW robustness also has the advantage of being easier to work with when it comes to conversions. Wyrd models usually require little to no conversion to look agile, dynamic, impressive... what you like. GW on the other hand produces a good amount of kits that look fairly static. BUT can look amazing with a little conversion. So far, I have found little no reason to convert any of my Wyrd minis.

But look, I'm currently "three or so boxes into the the game". I have Misaki, Yan Lo and Kirai. All of these kits had parts that were a nightmare to put together. Why does that Ashigairu have to have his spear come in two parts? With a tiny surface to glue them together and arms/torso needing allignment? Or Yan's beard... really? Really?! Blood pressure very high. (I actually just assembled the guy and felt the need to post here).

I also don't want to assemble heads that come in three parts no more. And if they come in so many parts, it would be great if their connections to the sprue could be in a place that won't be visible on the final mini (yes, I'm looking at you, Kirai's cheek). And don't even get me started on the Misaki box, I assembled this from looking at the renders and images on the web and it was a complete and utter nightmare. I'm also afraid to have these dudes break really fast, be it from transportation or bad handling by either myself or friends who "just want to hold it quickly to look at it". Not intending to rant, it's just... that beard made me really angry. I just hope that Wyrd keeps looking into the 'ease of assembly' aspect and try to improve there without sacrificing on the aesthetics.

 

 

 

[-Loki-]

I don't consider easier conversion work to fix a boring model as an advantage, personally. Mostly because I won't buy a model I don't like the look of in the first place. If the pose is boring enough for me to want to convert it, I'll go find something better.

[Tawg]

5 hours ago, -Loki- said:

I don't consider easier conversion work to fix a boring model as an advantage, personally. Mostly because I won't buy a model I don't like the look of in the first place. If the pose is boring enough for me to want to convert it, I'll go find something better.

No one said it was easier because it was mandatory.  They simply design models with a modular frame of mind.

You may think they are not that thrilling, or think that converting models is an effect of disliking the original, but the two items are not inherently linked.   I would also like to point out that many people (Such as myself) rather enjoy the aspect of building and modeling, even to the point that attempting to alter models further than their designed degree of variation by sculpting or cut-fitting pieces, is one of the most fun aspects of the hobby.

 

All I'm saying is, "If the pose is boring enough for me to want to convert it, I'll go find something better." seems to be a misguided sentiment stemming from an apparent lack of interest in the act itself.

And I love Wyrd's models, make no mistake.  But they are presented in a smaller scale (Not really heroic, AKA exaggerated feature sizes [Hands//Heads]) and with such great quality, that it makes it far more challenging to successfully integrate non-intended features.  Unfortunately, at least until I become a much better sculpter, it's a slight hindrance.  Luckily their game does not demand having multiples of most models to the point that having repeat models is an issue.

 

As for the original topic?  I haven't put my Insidious Madness together yet, but I fully accept the challenge to do so without instructions.  I doubt it could possibly be that hard.  However, I will say that Wyrd is the first company that produces models which have inspired me to think "Man, hobby tweezers might actually be a good investment.."

[Math Mathonwy]

5 hours ago, -Loki- said:

I don't consider easier conversion work to fix a boring model as an advantage, personally. Mostly because I won't buy a model I don't like the look of in the first place. If the pose is boring enough for me to want to convert it, I'll go find something better.

If you take part in official tournaments you might wish to use certain models despite your aesthetic inclinations (general 'you', mind) based on their in-game abilities.

[-Loki-]

I... get that? I wasn't trying to disparage other peoples hobbies, just add my opinion to the thread. My brother frequently takes Infinity models, his Dremel, and makes entirely new units out of them. Personally, I don't see it as a selling point. But, I'm not a converter. I have a Tyranid army I started in 5th, and couldn't even bring myself to buy those Tervigon conversion sets. I just played without Tervigons. And they were simply bits you glued onto a Carnifex.

[Math Mathonwy]

1 hour ago, -Loki- said:

I... get that? I wasn't trying to disparage other peoples hobbies, just add my opinion to the thread.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as rude or anything. It really was meant as highlighting another point of view in the discussion. Nothing wrong with not converting (I rarely convert myself)!

[LunarSol]

7 hours ago, Tawg said:

Luckily their game does not demand having multiples of most models to the point that having repeat models is an issue.

They honestly kind of have the opposite problem.  Most boxes contain way more unique models than anyone should ever really be fielding.  I actually recently went through my unpainted bin and picked out my favorite poses to focus on and get painted up.  I'd gotten way too far behind worrying about getting all 3 of something I only really ever want 1 of painted.  I suppose in a way that's Wyrd's method for putting options in the box these days.  Certainly more dynamic than an arm swap (though things like Miss Anne Thrope are pretty cool). 

[tmod]

I think the conversion issue is interesting here. I think GW models tend to be boring and static enough (or you need more of eache!) that you need to convert some in order to have interesting units. The flipside is that they tend to be pretty easy to convert.

Wyrd minis tend to be much harder to convert, but it's extremely rare that I find myself wanting to change the appearance of Malifaux minis. The problem arrives when you need more than five Bayou Gremlins, more than three Witchling Stalkers, or similar. I've solved this using metals so far, but with time this will cease to be an option, and conversions might be needed...

All in all I'd consider this in Wyrd's favour quality-wise, but I see how one can appreciate how GW does this as well...

[Tawg]

8 hours ago, -Loki- said:

I... get that? I wasn't trying to disparage other peoples hobbies, just add my opinion to the thread. My brother frequently takes Infinity models, his Dremel, and makes entirely new units out of them. Personally, I don't see it as a selling point. But, I'm not a converter. I have a Tyranid army I started in 5th, and couldn't even bring myself to buy those Tervigon conversion sets. I just played without Tervigons. And they were simply bits you glued onto a Carnifex.

I didn't think you were.  It was more of a knock at GW model ranges from the sound of it.  Which, I get that it's an opinion, I just wanted to delineate the fact that they are not making "easy to convert models" as well as "boring models" because they are hand and hand.

They happen to both be your opinions, which is fine.  I think many GW models are fairly well off with no conversions, despite the ease of changing out a weapon or giving them new arms or heads.  Then there are models which I hate the look of in their designed poses, so I fiddle with them much more.  But GW didn't make them easy to convert knowing they were making plain or boring things.

[-Loki-]

Yeah, I've got no issues with GW's models at all. I still think the Tyranid range is the best realized insectoid range of aliens any company has done. I just have the standard issues with their pricing and rules (especially as a Tyranid player, where I've lost simply by my army choice these days).

[Omenbringer]

The only thing I will add to this discussion is that a lot of the GW models that are so called "boring" also happen to be those that are intended to rank up in massed regiments or uniform units. The realities of that make excessively dynamic posing a hindrance to the play of the game. Malifaux models are intended to be played singly (yes even the numerous Bayou Gremlins), the rank and file GW models are fielded in tightly packed units of 10+ usually. This is one of the main reasons I restricted the pool of comparison models to the Lords, Heroes, and Elite models (that are fielded in numbers similar to Malifaux) as opposed to their entire line. Additionally, much of the robustness of the GW line is due to simply the desired aesthetic. That Khorne Berserker for example is supposed to be a roid raging, psycho path who's entire existence has been dedicated to the pursuit of war, blood, and death, as compared to the Wyrd Hog Whisperer who is intended to be a wiry, poorly fed, drunken hill billy.

Aside from the distraction of Aesthetics discussions, I dont think anyone is asking Wyrd to degrade their product. Quite the opposite actually, universally (I feel safe in summarizing the primary arguments in this thread and many of the other similar ones that have run their course sense the move to plastic) we want the product to improve thru better "cut" decisions and more thought to how they will be assembled, transported, and played. These items shouldn't be a barrier to entry for the game, leave that for the Nightmare models (which should come with a certain expectation of difficulty).

[tmod]

5 hours ago, Omenbringer said:

The only thing I will add to this discussion is that a lot of the GW models that are so called "boring" also happen to be those that are intended to rank up in massed regiments or uniform units. The realities of that make excessively dynamic posing a hindrance to the play of the game. Malifaux models are intended to be played singly (yes even the numerous Bayou Gremlins), the rank and file GW models are fielded in tightly packed units of 10+ usually. This is one of the main reasons I restricted the pool of comparison models to the Lords, Heroes, and Elite models (that are fielded in numbers similar to Malifaux) as opposed to their entire line. Additionally, much of the robustness of the GW line is due to simply the desired aesthetic. That Khorne Berserker for example is supposed to be a roid raging, psycho path who's entire existence has been dedicated to the pursuit of war, blood, and death, as compared to the Wyrd Hog Whisperer who is intended to be a wiry, poorly fed, drunken hill billy.

Aside from the distraction of Aesthetics discussions, I dont think anyone is asking Wyrd to degrade their product. Quite the opposite actually, universally (I feel safe in summarizing the primary arguments in this thread and many of the other similar ones that have run their course sense the move to plastic) we want the product to improve thru better "cut" decisions and more thought to how they will be assembled, transported, and played. These items shouldn't be a barrier to entry for the game, leave that for the Nightmare models (which should come with a certain expectation of difficulty).

Well said! :-)

[tmod]

On 2.3.2016 at 8:43 AM, Tawg said:

As for the original topic?  I haven't put my Insidious Madness together yet, but I fully accept the challenge to do so without instructions.  I doubt it could possibly be that hard.  However, I will say that Wyrd is the first company that produces models which have inspired me to think "Man, hobby tweezers might actually be a good investment.."

I finally got around to the Insidious Madnesses in my pile of unassembled plastics, and naturally had to do it without instructions. I also threw away the box, so didn't have the renders/pictures available. It went slower than it would have with instructions/pictures, and there was a moment of frustration when fitting the tentacles to the bottom of the fattest one. Otherwise uneventful...