That's a very subjective matter, I can agree that they are on the high end. But the quality of models (and game) that I get for the money to me is very reasonable. But again, it's very subjective. You're absolutely right though that you wouldn't necessarily need 8 extra arms to get 8 different loadouts/stances
Didn't know that. Still a 3d printing service offers so much benefits. Print on demand, no storage costs, no sku needed. You would still have to buy the body and the weapon, so that is more money than not selling a model no one wants. Plus there is always a collector who wants every loadout available. For instance I got the tunguska starter. Selling me a Feuerbach for one of the securitate is more money than just selling me the starter.
It's been a few years, but I still remember going to a convention and meeting a guy who worked at a game company. His job was to scrape and sand the 3D printing "print lines" off of a model to prepare it for "convention" mold making. When they don't need to hire that guy is when the industry is going to have to deal with switching over.
I also hoped against hope that the Securitate box would include extra arms... Such a missed opportunity. Especially as there is precedent now with Grey and Taskmaster. The BSG Securitate really should have been in the starter pack. I thought they were moving away from "three basic guys with Combis" in every starter, as evidenced by Varuna, Caledonia (Paramedic, but still counts; and old starter had Chain Rifle), Bakunin etc. But Tunguska comes out and it's 3 Securitates with Combis. One of them could have easily been a BSG one. I now hope that new Corregidor and NCA starters have one of the WIldcats/Bolts with BSG, but I wouldn't count on it.
If it really wastes as much time as he says (several days to a week) it's an incomprehensible organizational failure and waste of creative manpower, especially in a company as starved of it as CB. Come on, it's not a huge corporation where you have to check with 3 separate departments before you even get to the one whose job is to determine if this thing is worth 5 minutes of your manager's time, they have people in one place! Does it actually go for days without a short sanity check of "continue/needs changing/kill it now" somewhere in between?
I think there's a bit of confusion there, Bostria does concept art, not poses, so when he says designs are rejected it's like the examples in the Art book where some models went through several iterations before the final design was given to a sculptor (one rejected Tohaa design had them as tentacle headed Chibis, for example).
What was that term for a thing that's not profitable in itself but drives the sales of other products? Because I'd certainly buy more blisters just to convert the extras into missing loadouts if I had the weapons and didn't have to make them myself which is a hassle. Hell, I did that with the Spec-Ops sprues.
There's no confusion, that's exactly what I meant. If anything, this should either have even more attention paid to (because a mistake will affect a whole unit/sectorial/faction instead of just one model that people might ignore or convert).
I don't understand what you're trying to say, sorry. Rejection and revision is an inescapable part of the design process. That all concepts should be used? That they should have just gone with the original chibi Tohaa because it's the one they had and not developed it into the current design (which was 5 or 6 different revisions IIRC) Or that all concepts should be perfect the first time? That they should hire someone so brilliant they are able to create perfect prototypes that never need any revision or alteration?
See, it's important to remember that PanO keeps getting these crummy "experimental" starters. We got NCA(three new models in the forms of the Bolts, three crummy old sculpts in the form of Swiss ML, Aquila MR, Hexa Spitfire). Then we got the Shock Army starter, which was bloated as hell for SWC. Now we get Varuna, another bloated SWC monster.
Actually I even mind them as gameplay pieces, since they represent non-interactable markers, it clutters the board and makes things more confusing. Here you have a figure on a base which you are now wondering about its line of sight, can it trigger a mine, can you move through it, does it have a ZoC effect, etc etc. I get the motivation that they are cute and funny and...cute! But you have fast pandas, crazy coalas, etc for that!
He's saying that there is no reason for the approval process to take days or weeks. Not when everyone is working in what is effectively a closed community with few members that have input.
Would you have the same issue with Tinbots if they were made to be on the same base as the model they come with? Not saying you're wrong, just curious.
No not really, I wouldn't mind it at all. The HVT with the pig is a great representation of a good way to combo models! Altho, still having 3 models in a box then effectively would be kinda lame. I have nothing against tinbots in principal if they didnt "intrude" on the rest of the contents.
But that's not what Bostria said, he lamented that he'd work hard, maybe for several days, and then have it rejected. No mention in the video was made of how long the rejecting takes. Hence my confusion here.
This is so far from my intention that I'm wondering if we're even speaking the same language. I'll try to make it as unambiguous as possible: Sane process: 1. make rough concept sketches, with variants if possible 2. get a rough sanity check - quick, of the "good, continue this / needs major improvement / terrible, kill it now" variety (literally those 3 answers, not a discussion or anything more, just pruning of the bad branches) 3. make detailed concept art 4. get a final check (with possible iterations of steps 3-4 if needed/feasible) ...and presumably lose less work (which translates to less time and money lost by the company) because the obvious rejects do not suck up effort. Process as suggested by Bostria's video: 1. make detailed concept art (multiple days' work) 2. get a final check - result might be good, might be bad, might be unbelievably shitty, no idea until this stage And if the concept gets binned, the whole effort is wasted.
I literally don't see the difference between using a boring marker you have to drag around a token pig/doll/whatever. Also, they are actually interactable. It becomes relevant when they are subject to Fire Ammo. The token/model is removed with the Burnt state.
If you look at the artbook it's clear that they do steps 1-4, but just step 3 can be several days work.
I truly hate any model on the table that represents something I can't shoot at. In that case, it should just be a token or just another blurb on the army list. So a pox on Tinbots and whoever thought that was a good idea
