Author Topic: Q2/17 New Releases - Final Box Arts 170602  (Read 3136 times)

ultravanillasmurf

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,069
    • View Profile
    • Blog:
Re: Q2/17 New Releases - Final Two! 170523
« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2017, 03:44:12 PM »
On the subject of plastic, I was looking through my figure boxes yesterday and my British rifles have suffered 30-40% casualties, which is a bit irritating. Hopefully the ABS would be stronger.

Not sure if I will have to scrap them.

tyroflyer

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
Re: Q2/17 New Releases - Final Two! 170523
« Reply #31 on: May 28, 2017, 05:41:09 PM »
My observed experience with plastic figures mirrors uvs' casualties. Broken extremities. Metal figures are so much better at absorbing battle damage.

Chimaera

  • Cadet
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Q2/17 New Releases - Final Two! 170523
« Reply #32 on: May 28, 2017, 09:52:08 PM »
Cannot agree about metal vs plastic being better, my experience has been the opposite and since advancements in plastic moulding the detail and poses are right up there now and easily supercede their metal or resin counterparts. As for breakage, none of my plastic 40k minis have ever broken anything on a drop, which wasn't the case on the metal ones I had prior, the slightest drop or knock on a thin extremity usually resulting on it bending badly or snapping off. I don't think GW would have gone down the plastic route (or any of the main minis producers for that matter) if there wasn't demand or indeed it was the better long term material for gamers or the company concerned. Customisation options are also way higher on plastic. Still I understand some may prefer metal for their own reasons/preference. Personally I think any minis company who produces all their range in plastic is a serious player in the market. The others can ignore it but like any company who ignores or resists change to market requirements, it usually ends in their demise, especially when a serious disruptor enters the same market offering a stronger product suite.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2017, 10:22:44 PM by Chimaera »

ripley

  • Sergeant
  • ***
  • Posts: 702
    • View Profile
Re: Q2/17 New Releases - Final Two! 170523
« Reply #33 on: May 28, 2017, 10:34:16 PM »
Metal vs Plastic vs Resin , the debate  has been going on for ever  ;D Some guys have luck with one regarding ease of build and non breakage  and horror stories with the other types . I don't play BA so I rarely transport my figures , but others do all the time . One guy puts his in a large plastic snap lid container with tissue paper layers and comes down to the LHS by city   bus  with no problems . And another guy , who has all those foam pull / pick trays custom made and labelled , arrives  with  a hand full of  broken and bent weapons everytime . Do the dice gods smile upon one and not the other ? I don't know ,  I've dropped plastic tanks with full crews and stowage , resulting in total destruction  or sometimes just  a broken radio aerial  wtf!. The same debate rages over multi part or one piece figures / or paint before or after assembly  ::) . We all find our comfort zone and thats how we hobby . Oh course MY way is the right way to hobby and YOURS is the wrong way  :o lol

elias.tibbs

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 191
    • View Profile
Re: Q2/17 New Releases - Final Two! 170523
« Reply #34 on: May 29, 2017, 04:19:52 AM »
I'd always prefer plastic, but I think something you need to consider before saying everything needs to be plastic is the time and cost aspect.

To make a mould takes a lot of time, which I think is one of the main reason there has been a bit of bottleneck in Rubicon's releases. A mould also costs a lot, you have to sell a lot of kits to make the money back and have the initial capital to produce them. Warlord's advantage is that they are the game and new players will see their kits. Rubicon on the other hand (despite being better for the vast majority of kits) are discovered either via word of mouth, advertising or at stores.

Metal and resin kits in the other hand, the moulds are relatively cheap and easy to replace. They're great for items you know aren't going to sell in huge amounts (which is a great sign for lesser know and rarer tanks done by Rubicon is resin). its why warlord's infantry are (for the most part) plastic, but all the teams are metal.

Rubicon have not confirmed if the infantry will be plastic or metal, but they have hinted something to do with metal in a previous post. They also showed their design for bases, which have dimples on to assist with gluing (why would you need these for plastic?).

 You could put good money on some tank crews and infantry being metal and not plastic. For a company with experience in making plastic tanks, an initial plunge into infantry in metal would probably be better for them. Making plastic infantry is a whole different ball game than tanks.

Does metal put me off? A bit. I'm not a fan of painting metals, but if I could get US infantry in a Perry Miniatures scale I would use them. No more melon heads and gorilla arms!

But as ripley said, metal vs plastic vs resin... it'll always be debated and no one will be right or wrong whatever you think. It's just your preference. 
« Last Edit: May 29, 2017, 04:32:48 AM by elias.tibbs »
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
A (Cam)Bridge Too Far - A UK based Bolt Action Tournament

tyroflyer

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
Re: Q2/17 New Releases - Final Two! 170523
« Reply #35 on: May 29, 2017, 07:53:44 AM »
A thoughtful response elias. Chimaera and I obviously have our minds made up and whatever we see reinforces our opposite opinions on the metal versus plastic debate.

By the way a decent primer on the metal should make them as easy to paint as anything else.

ultravanillasmurf

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,069
    • View Profile
    • Blog:
Re: Q2/17 New Releases - Final Two! 170523
« Reply #36 on: May 29, 2017, 02:57:10 PM »
Elias makes a number of good points.

I love Crooked Dice and Hasslefree metals, they are my standard for metal figures, they are clean castings, the multipart figures go together easily and are a joy to paint.

Other ranges in metals seem to suffer, possibly due to continuing to use moulds past their sell by date, nice figures but poor castings (a Weird War range springs to mind).

Plastic multipart figures are fun to build (and I build many more than I get round to paint).

Some ranges (Gates of Antares being the obvious example) I am only buying the plastics (subject to change).

The entry point for plastic infantry does seem to have lowered, the number of non game tied figures (promoted via Kickstarter etc) indicates the market is there, whether it is long term is another matter.

On the subject of survivability, it is only the Warlord British that have suffered, the Perry British are fine. I need to add some additional padding to stop the figures moving within their individual cells.

elias.tibbs

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 191
    • View Profile
Re: Q2/17 New Releases - Final Two! 170523
« Reply #37 on: May 29, 2017, 06:43:32 PM »
"Consider the Lilly. Ahhhh."

I always prime models before painting them no matter the material, the metal phobia is just a hang over from when I was a kid and never varnished models because I wasn't allowed a spray and painting varnish on by hand was boring. So many hours wasted when stuff got scratched. Add into that the sometime horrendous 1-2mm mould slip you get with some companies that you can fix no matter how you try!

When Rubicon release their infantry I will get some (whatever material). If I like it, then I would consider replacing all my current infantry as I have never been happy with the Warlord (Italieri) plastics. I would prefer it if it was plastic or resin, but metal wouldn't put me off especially as it would be quicker for me to get them to the table!
« Last Edit: May 29, 2017, 06:45:39 PM by elias.tibbs »
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
A (Cam)Bridge Too Far - A UK based Bolt Action Tournament

ultravanillasmurf

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,069
    • View Profile
    • Blog:
Re: Q2/17 New Releases - Final Two! 170523
« Reply #38 on: May 29, 2017, 09:01:01 PM »
Until recently I had not worked with many resin figures, Forge World mainly (I have no completed Finecast).

elias.tibbs

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 191
    • View Profile
Re: Q2/17 New Releases - Final Two! 170523
« Reply #39 on: May 29, 2017, 09:48:43 PM »
Finecast was ok, as long as you got a good one. You could definitely see more details. The issue was they were using the same techniques as when they made metal mould and the material was too soft. We had a model on a Horse in the front cabinet of our store (Gandalf I think) and one sunny day he just flopped over!

Now there are companies out there that have proven that you can spin cast resin really wel. (looking at raging heroes with toughest girls in the galaxy. Some of the best resin model IMO. If Rubicon haven't made their mind up yet, I would seriously recommend they make contact and have some dialogue. They're technique and material would be perfect. And raging heroes CAD design everything as well.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2017, 09:52:00 PM by elias.tibbs »
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
A (Cam)Bridge Too Far - A UK based Bolt Action Tournament

ripley

  • Sergeant
  • ***
  • Posts: 702
    • View Profile
Re: Q2/17 New Releases - Final Two! 170523
« Reply #40 on: May 30, 2017, 02:11:27 AM »
The thing with resin is all the sprue parts are garbage after removing , while you can shred / chip up plastic into pellets and reuse it . Which is more cost effective  in the mold design and plastic / resin materials , I don't know

Pinky

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,336
    • View Profile
Re: Q2/17 New Releases - Final Two! 170523
« Reply #41 on: May 30, 2017, 10:06:05 AM »
Elias - Rubicon have a lot of experience with resin.  I think anything they did with resin would be of the highest quality.

I agree with Chimaera's views on this.  I also don't think we need another metal figure manufacturer in the mix.  I don't like using metal components on plastic vehicles either.  I hope Rubicon stays focused on vehicles and specialised figure sets (in plastic).  We know they are planning some resin releases, and it would be fine if they used resin for more obscure subjects, and maybe conversion kits and even terrain.

tyroflyer

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
Re: Q2/17 New Releases - Final Two! 170523
« Reply #42 on: May 30, 2017, 11:04:31 AM »
Just to clarify. I am not advocating Rubicon become a manufacturer of metal figures. I would just prefer they concentrate on the vehicles. Preferably in plastic but agree with Pinky resin has a place for subjects that might not sell well, or for conversions. Terrain is another possibility but as with the figures I think this is a diversion from Rubicon's core talents. In the event they ever reach saturation point with WWII vehicles I would prefer to see them expand into vehicles of other periods instead of figures and terrain.

Chimaera

  • Cadet
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Q2/17 New Releases - Final Two! 170523
« Reply #43 on: May 31, 2017, 05:11:04 AM »
Thanks for some of the insight guys and all points are well met and respected.

Would still hope Rubicon would stick with plastic for everything though :(

Maybe they could use Kickstarter to bring some tanks to plastic life quicker? Sure if they did a Sherman V/Firefly kit or a Churchill kit they would both be successful if promoted correctly. Would maybe take some of the design/production expense away from their cashflow and allow them to bring some tanks to their range quicker, may even work for Infantry sets if they get to that point. How much would the design/production of say a Sherman V/Firefly kit cost. Would be interesting to know as I am not in the know. Would then allow you to work out the amount of backers required and pledge level. Maybe as bonus targets they could have 4 crew (possibly 2 for tank & 2 standing) and then maybe a Allied stowage set 2? Plenty of possibilities if it was well backed. Say for example it cost 50k then you would only need 1700 backers at £30 to make it work, surely the global community would have this amount of backers. Anything over this would be bonus territory i.e maybe 2000 backers you got the crew and 2500 you got the stowage set. The 30 quid spent would then be great value. Anyway just throwing it out there, doesn't have to be the Sherman V or Churchill, may work for other tanks/kits, Tiger 2 may be another good candidate.

I see numerous companies using kickstarter on the DakkaDakka.com forum under news and rumours but Mantic sticks out as a prolific user of Kickstarter to achieve their aims. No reason why Rubicon couldn't, they just need to come with the right offering. This could even be an equipment/terrain offer, doesn't have to be vehicles. Mantic did an interesting one on plastic dungeon terrain recently (see link below) and no reason a WWII couldn't be done?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1744629938/terraincrate-plastic-affordable-fantasy-terrain?ref=hero_thanks

« Last Edit: May 31, 2017, 08:01:48 AM by Chimaera »

Swamprat33

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: Q2/17 New Releases - Final Two! 170523
« Reply #44 on: June 02, 2017, 03:06:26 AM »
Anyway, back to the topic in question.
Rubicon, when can we hope to get these new Q2 releases?
Cheers
Tim