PDA

View Full Version : Love/Hate the new OK models?



Lord Dan
03-08-2011, 16:37
There is another poll on the OK models here (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=312648), asking for your favorite OK model of the new batch. Please check that one out, as well.

As there was some negative feedback towards the models over in the rumors section I wanted to post a more broad poll to see what the general reaction from the community is. The models can be found in the first post of this (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=312627) thread.

So what are your thoughts?

Gork or Possibly Mork
03-08-2011, 16:47
lol @ poll option chimera bad.

I'd give them a seven overall if were lumping them all together.

Better than average for me but not outstanding.

My favorite is the scrapblaster kit.

Bloodknight
03-08-2011, 16:47
I'd rate the Chimera higher ^^.

loveless
03-08-2011, 16:48
7 if we're lumping them all together.

Also, I'd rate the Chimera a 7.5 or 8, so your scale doesn't work for me :p

SunTzu
03-08-2011, 16:51
Not without saving graces (I actually quite like the jawbone-and-tusk motif they've got going on) but in terms of what they represent and their overall artistic/representative appeal, I think they are the absolute nadir of GW model design. 2/10.

Beastlord
03-08-2011, 16:55
In my opinion GW never have made (and hopefully never will again) a model as bad as the Chimera, so it makes a good (1) option :)
I said 7, as an overall score, cat things i'd probably give 4, big beasts 7/9 sooo....
I think they have some great concepts and lovely details, but the design is pushing the cartoony thing toooo far - they look like they walked out of the kids film Iceage. That said I'm inclined to hack up the big beast kit to make a chaos mammoth (lots of greenstuff required I'm thinking.)
So... good. But not quite Warhammer as I know it.

Moopy
03-08-2011, 17:02
I gave the new models an 8 overall based on first impressions. They all look like very well sculpted, high quality models and Im hoping they'll look even better once we get more pictures (or see them in person).

I was planning on painting and converting my ogres in a pirate theme but I don't know how these new big gribblies are going to factor into themes/conversions just yet, but im still pumped.

dragonet111
03-08-2011, 17:06
I'm not an ogre fan but I quite like the new beasts. It's a 5 for me.

warplock
03-08-2011, 17:11
I love 'Chimera bad' for option 1! Let's face it, that thing makes the Lizardmen Cold Ones look like masterpieces of modelling. What were they thinking when they released that new Chimera model?

What were they thinking?

herald of kairos
03-08-2011, 17:14
Has to be a five. Stonehorn and Mammox are lovely but new rhinox and sabretusk sculpts really let it down i think. overall though shuld be good

Black_Omega
03-08-2011, 17:23
Stonehorn and to a lesser extent the titan cannon are fantastic, the rest are horrible.

Confessor_Atol
03-08-2011, 17:29
I give em' a solid 8. I really like the new asthetic. If the book is balenced, this will be a home run for GW.:eek:

It feels odd saying that.....

grimkeeper
03-08-2011, 17:31
Well sculpted Tonka Toys:), Although Dumbest GW fig has to be the Canis Wolfborn followed by the Greyknight Nemesis Dreadknight and Tomb Kings Snake Riding Skellies ,Oh to be 5 years old again :(

Andy p
03-08-2011, 18:16
I love the new models and if I had the money I would be happy to start up an OK army to put them in.

wizbix
03-08-2011, 18:50
I like the model and also like the chimera quite a bit to be honest. I also dont get all the recent hate towards anything GW produce. Various people hated the Beastmen and Savage Orc models at first but soon warmed to them. Once they saw them painted up bu non eavy metal staff they hate died down sharpish. The same will probably happen with these. But incidently at present (at time of writing this) there appears to be more positive votes than negative.

Voss
03-08-2011, 18:58
Surprisingly at an 8. Some goofy aspects, but largely good. Most impressive 8th edition fantasy release so far, by large margin in my opinion.

If they don't bollix up the Necron release (ie, its like the Dark Eldar, and not the Grey Knights), GW just might be able to tempt me back. Though the OK book needs to be good as well.

Gonzoyola
03-08-2011, 19:01
There is no end of lawls to be had at people who keep saying this stuff isn't warhammer, and especially comments like "well sculpted tonka toys." If there's one bandwagon people jump on more than the new army bandwagon, its the hate bandwagon. I swear I see the same comments mirroring the first few comments I saw originally. "They look like they are made for kids." "It's not Warhammer as IIIIII know it." I don't know which one is more baffling to me. The fact that these are clearly not sculpts made for children, or to appeal to children, as I don't see many children with interests in seared flesh, rusted armor, and gruesomely modified animals.

Also the statement "It's not warhammer as I have known it for the past 20 years." I wasn't aware that Warhammer had some single identity for the past 20 years? I mean, maybe you are talking aesthetically with the models? Because I KNOOOOW everyone loves the old Dragon Ogre models, or how about the Chaos Ogres? Let's not forget Nagash, and the other terrible models that came out years upon years ago. You are telling me those are better than this?

Or maybe people are implying that all of these monsters make the game different than what it has been, which is a constantly changing set of rules. I have heard different editions referenced as HeroHammer, Magic-Hammer, MonsterHammer, InfantryHammer.



Point being, this game hasn't had one all encompassing identity no matter how long you have played it. The strength of numbers of man have risen and fallen, and the power of a single entity the same. Its time for people to drop the elitism. Chime in with why you dislike a model, point out the angles, use descriptive terminology. Its basic Psychology 101 that teaches us how to effectively argue something.

If someone says something is bad, and I ask why, and they say well look at it, it doesn't look good! or look at it, its made for children! that isn't an actual point, its someone being retarded and repeating themselves over again.




Back on Topic: Everything blew me away except for the following points.


The Stonehorn seems strange to me. Its face seems to either be made of stone, and covered in some sort of pelt, or the skin has been flayed from its face, to expose its stone skeleton. The latter would be a little too far for me, as I cant imagine these creatures living after having their faces ripped off, but the former could bring me solace.

And my second point, is the Thundertusk (Mammox as you all call it). Its huge pair of horns hanging seemed very counter intuitive. The "how does it eat" argument raged on as a by-product of this, but that wasn't my concern. Something just didn't look right. A few of us came to the conclusion that its possible they are modified like this. Having those horns grafted onto their bodies by the Ogres to make a more fearsome beast. This gave me all of the comfort I needed to rationalize it, as the horns do seem "bolted" on. This could still be wrong, but my main point through this is that, context can make or break the model.

No matter what the actual case, whenever a creature is made, a writer looks at it and says "How can I explain this?" and Fluff is born. These creatures will be given appropriate fluff and history, and all will be explained. Whether it will be satisfactory or not, we will see, but at least there will be answers.

Rick Blaine
03-08-2011, 19:14
I gave the ogres a 9, and I agree the Chimera is a 1.

grimkeeper
03-08-2011, 19:18
its a poll that asks us to rate the overall look of the new OK models from 1 to 10. in OUR opinion and its MY opinion that they look just like the Tonka Toys that i bought for my children .In person they may be fab but from the pics they wont be making it into my army.

loveless
03-08-2011, 19:20
Honestly, if Tonka Toys have gotten that detailed and barbaric, I'm going to go hit up the toy store after work and check them out :D

grimkeeper
03-08-2011, 19:29
I have been known to Exaggerate at times :)

Dryaktylus
03-08-2011, 19:33
The models are okay, though I don't like the cannon. The Mammox looks like a really poor elephant... trunk removed by a bunch of evil sumo wrestlers, massively deformed for a single purpose.

Does it feel like Warhammer? Sure, why not. These creatures are not from the Old World. Temple dogs, Apemen... there're weird things behind the World Edge Mountains.

Murdoch
03-08-2011, 19:34
Stonehorn stomps all over the others.... 10!

Vazalaar
03-08-2011, 19:40
Honestly, if Tonka Toys have gotten that detailed and barbaric, I'm going to go hit up the toy store after work and check them out :D

Very true!

russellmoo
03-08-2011, 19:41
I really like the look of these models- it is what ogre kingdoms should be in my mind-

Had to take a look at the chimera- not sure where all of the hate comes from, that is how the chimera has always looked-

With the exception that, I have one that has track guards on it- and it looks a lot better this way then with the fully exposed tracks- so my guess is people were probably upset because the chimera had a lot of potential to be really cool- and as it is it is just blah- but then again it is also the ubiquitous transport for the armies of the Imperium and maybe they were going for blah-

Back on point- the Mamox is awesome- the rest not as much but still good-

Vazalaar
03-08-2011, 19:47
With 61 votes, I came on an average of 6.7, so rounded up a 7. Not bad;) I gave the models a 8. I am amazed some people gave it a 1, they are probably blinded by hate ;).
8 is a bit high;), but come one a 1? I guess those people also don't like any of the current ogre range.

loveless
03-08-2011, 19:48
With the exception that, I have one that has track guards on it- and it looks a lot better this way then with the fully exposed tracks- so my guess is people were probably upset because the chimera had a lot of potential to be really cool- and as it is it is just blah- but then again it is also the ubiquitous transport for the armies of the Imperium and maybe they were going for blah-


The Fantasy Chimera (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440005a&prodId=prod1250012a), russellmoo, not the 40K Chimera (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440249a&prodId=prod630023a).

Though I have to admit, I'd have a lot more fun binding an Imperial Chimera to ferry my troops around than a 3-headed flyer :p

Bloodknight
03-08-2011, 19:54
I am amazed some people gave it a 1, they are probably blinded by hate .
8 is a bit high, but come one a 1? I guess those people also don't like any of the current ogre range.

Well, some people gave them a 10 ;).

And yeah, I voted 1. I think it's the worst release since the pumbagor, and that wasn't as bad as the big gribblies and battlehamsters (seriously, couldn't they at least sculpt some better riders? Not only do the cats look stupid, the riders don't fit and look like the standard bulls, no sense of motion as riders).

In hindsight I should have voted 3, the stonehorn isn't as bad as the rest.

Vazalaar
03-08-2011, 20:01
Well, some people gave them a 10 ;).

And yeah, I voted 1. I think it's the worst release since the pumbagor, and that wasn't as bad as the big gribblies and battlehamsters (seriously, couldn't they at least sculpt some better riders? Not only do the cats look stupid, the riders don't fit and look like the standard bulls, no sense of motion as riders).

In hindsight I should have voted 3, the stonehorn isn't as bad as the rest.

A 10 is too high I agree, but a 1;)

Sylass
03-08-2011, 20:03
I'm not collecting Ogres but I quite like the new releases. They certainy look different than other recent GW releases (Warmachine/Hordes sculpting/painting style anyone?) but still fit.
The Sabrethingriders do look a bit wrong, but maybe that's just the picture? There seems to be some sort of saddle you can't really see properly...

I'm sure -the harder/longer you think about it- one should find a way to include one (or two) of the big beasts into a Beastmen army, right? :)

SunTzu
03-08-2011, 20:08
The four people who voted 1 are obviously just blinded by hate, but the eight people who voted 10 are obviously expressing a rational, well-balanced, objective viewpoint untainted by outside influence or prejudice. Because everyone knows that negative opinions can't possibly be genuine opinions.

Also, observe the bandwagon of hate - "bandwagon" in this case consisting of "the minority". That's right! People who dislike the models are only saying that to be popular! ...by going against popular opinion. I'm sure that works somehow, just don't think about it too hard. But anyway, they probably actually like the models and are only pretending to dislike them to look cool on the internet. So if you ignore all the scores below 7, everyone rates these models as 7 or above!!!

Sigh.

RevEv
03-08-2011, 20:09
Voted average as they are, and also it's all subjective - I like the Chimera model!

EmperorNorton
03-08-2011, 20:11
I'm happy to get a Scraplauncher in plastic and I think it looks alright. The cannon, too, I guess.
I kinda like the Stonehorn, too, although the forelegs look weird.
While I don't hate the cats, their riders and especially the way they are placed on their mounts, looks very bad. And the Mammox is ridiculously bad IMO, although there seem to be a few nice bitz in that kit.

I gave it a 5.
Some of these will probably find their way into my army, other choices I'll pass on or maybe convert my own.

Vazalaar
03-08-2011, 20:18
The four people who voted 1 are obviously just blinded by hate, but the eight people who voted 10 are obviously expressing a rational, well-balanced, objective viewpoint untainted by outside influence or prejudice. Because everyone knows that negative opinions can't possibly be genuine opinions.

Also, observe the bandwagon of hate - "bandwagon" in this case consisting of "the minority". That's right! People who dislike the models are only saying that to be popular! ...by going against popular opinion. I'm sure that works somehow, just don't think about it too hard. But anyway, they probably actually like the models and are only pretending to dislike them to look cool on the internet. So if you ignore all the scores below 7, everyone rates these models as 7 or above!!!

Sigh.

No 10 is also unrealistic, the same as 1. But you could say there is a tendency that the people who say that they don't like the new ogres, are mostly the same people that don't like any of the latest GW fantasy releases.... Also I really dislike the kids comment. It's sounds you all try to pretend you are all superior hobbyists and the ones that like GW's latest mini's are childs or brainwashed fan boys or yes men...

DarkMark
03-08-2011, 20:21
Space wolf players will like their new mounts for converting. I suspect OK players will be thrilled.

Bloodknight
03-08-2011, 20:34
are mostly the same people that don't like any of the latest GW fantasy releases

Well, the SoM stuff was pretty cool (I like that Chimera, the Manticore is a bit naff), especially the terrain, the Cockatrice and the Black Dragon. Tomb Kings were good apart from the snake surfers. And while I like the old Ogre range (except for the gorgers), these don't click.

Niibl
03-08-2011, 20:38
While the size of stonehorn and mammox is ok, the size of the other beasties isn't (I haven't seen THAT since alternative armies).
And the Ironblaster simply is horrible.
Not everything is good just becuse it has a big gun (http://i41.servimg.com/u/f41/13/61/08/23/hook_210.jpg).
Well, it's not Tonka Toys but it goes in that direction.
The scrapa launcha might be better to build as it's metal counterpart though.

As i don't like the style of the beasts at all, i think i'll end up with just a stonehorn which might be saved with green stuff.

Maskedman5oh4
04-08-2011, 03:27
I think it is a good direction- cav models for the ogre players, a replacement for the nightmare scraplauncher with another option and heroes on mounts. I gave it a 7.

Schmapdi
04-08-2011, 04:09
Hmm. I'll definitely be grabbing a scraplauncher, though I like the current model better, plastic wins out here given all the horror stories I've read. I've wanted one of those for a while - it's the only model of the current OK stuff that I want and don't have. If the kit is fairly cheap (say doomwheel/plague catapult pricing) maybe, (a big maybe) a second for the cannon. Though I'm not really big on the idea of Ogre artillery in general.

Definitely no ridiculous cat riders/scraggly, starving, mammoth. The stonetusk is so/so - I'll have to wait and see if any good painters can find a way to make it's head look good and not made of rock. If they do - then it's another big maybe.

The artillery pieces are decent, but unispired - I'd give them 6s, the cat riders are terrible - 3s there. The mammoth likewise a 3, with the Stonebeast a solid 5.

Alltogether on average I'd say a 4. I'm a pretty dissapointed OK collector :/ Here's hoping they get nice *shudder* finecast kits. Or *super-fingers-crossed* plastic character kits.

ihavetoomuchminis
04-08-2011, 09:48
Well, some people gave them a 10 ;).

And yeah, I voted 1. I think it's the worst release since the pumbagor, and that wasn't as bad as the big gribblies and battlehamsters (seriously, couldn't they at least sculpt some better riders? Not only do the cats look stupid, the riders don't fit and look like the standard bulls, no sense of motion as riders).

In hindsight I should have voted 3, the stonehorn isn't as bad as the rest.

I don't agree with you in the pumbagor thing, and i think that you're blinded by hate. I don't know against what...but hate. The pumbagor was a bad sculpt, in terms of quality. Illogical muscles, crazy eyes, and all the things usually associated to trish morrisson sculpts. That's not the case of OK models. They can like you, or not, but the quality is way better than the pumbagor. The sculpting is neat, clear, and the parts and details of the model are easy to identify. Qualifying it as "the worst release since pumbagor" is hate ad infinitum. Even more when you insist on that in every thread you can. We get it, you don't like the models.

Bloodknight
04-08-2011, 10:35
I get it, you like them. I like the old Ogres, too, that's why I have half an army of them.

I don't hate them (if I start actually hating plastic minis I'll get a rope and go into the shed because that means it's time to end my no-life), they're just really not worth my money in my eyes. And yeah, I'd be more likely to buy a pumbagor, that's at least a funny model.


The sculpting is neat, clear, and the parts and details of the model are easy to identify.

Don't care, the design sucks for me. I'd rather have a mediocre sculpt that has a good basis.


They can like you, or not

I really hope they don't. I couldn't stand looking in their sad, watery eyes.

the Goat
04-08-2011, 10:54
Well sculpted Tonka Toys:), Although Dumbest GW fig has to be the Canis Wolfborn followed by the Greyknight Nemesis Dreadknight and Tomb Kings Snake Riding Skellies ,Oh to be 5 years old again :(

I agree with your list of dumbest models and I raze you the pile of muscle with pointy toenail Minotaurs.

Warhammer models are looking more like toys every day. I want to see armies of guys in units not giant plastic fisher price toys on the table. Whoever decided every army should have a giant plastic monster should be shot.

ihavetoomuchminis
04-08-2011, 11:29
I really hope they don't. I couldn't stand looking in their sad, watery eyes.

But you must recognize it was a funny mistake. :p, just imagine how would you feel if they told about you the things you're telling about them (i'm not english, sorry mate, but i'm laughing now after realizing my mistake)

Odin
04-08-2011, 11:34
Difficult for me to give any one answer. The models are clearly very well-made plastic kits, and as such would score a 9 or 10. But stylistically I have reservations - exaggeration is fine and dandy, it's what I expect from Warhammer. But some of these (particularly the Mammox tusks and the sabre-cat things) just stray waaaaay over the line into cartoon territory. And that, for me, is not a direction I want Warhammer to go in.


There is no end of lawls to be had at people who keep saying this stuff isn't warhammer, and especially comments like "well sculpted tonka toys." If there's one bandwagon people jump on more than the new army bandwagon, its the hate bandwagon. I swear I see the same comments mirroring the first few comments I saw originally. "They look like they are made for kids." "It's not Warhammer as IIIIII know it." I don't know which one is more baffling to me. The fact that these are clearly not sculpts made for children, or to appeal to children, as I don't see many children with interests in seared flesh, rusted armor, and gruesomely modified animals.

Also the statement "It's not warhammer as I have known it for the past 20 years." I wasn't aware that Warhammer had some single identity for the past 20 years? I mean, maybe you are talking aesthetically with the models? Because I KNOOOOW everyone loves the old Dragon Ogre models, or how about the Chaos Ogres? Let's not forget Nagash, and the other terrible models that came out years upon years ago. You are telling me those are better than this?

Or maybe people are implying that all of these monsters make the game different than what it has been, which is a constantly changing set of rules. I have heard different editions referenced as HeroHammer, Magic-Hammer, MonsterHammer, InfantryHammer.

Yes, that's right, we dislike the models because we want to jump on the bandwagon. If only we had the capability to make our own minds up about such things. :rolleyes:

Yes, Warhammer has changed a lot over the years. Some things I have liked, others I haven't. But never do I recall it straying so far into cartoon style.

Personally I prefer it when things tend towards relatively realistic scale. The 6th edition chaos knights, with their almost realistically sized weapons are some of my favourites, and look far more threatening than the new plastics with their oversized bling weapons. I appreciate that's presonal preference, and that Warhammer has swung between those styles as long as I have been playing it. But for me, Warhammer style exists within that range but the new OK models are outside that range.


I don't see many children with interests in seared flesh, rusted armor, and gruesomely modified animals.

I'm guessing you don't know any children then! ;)

Bloodknight
04-08-2011, 11:35
@ihavetoomuchminis: I'd probably get sad, watery eyes in that case, too :D.

I'd like to apologize, picking on that error was nasty of me.

Rick Blaine
04-08-2011, 11:50
Group hug! :D

Anyway, now that the initial shock has worn off on both sides I hope we can talk like sensible people.

The fact is that, like it or not, we're all going to be looking at these models from across the table for at least the next 10 years, assuming the game stays around that long.

ihavetoomuchminis
04-08-2011, 11:50
@ihavetoomuchminis: I'd probably get sad, watery eyes in that case, too :D.

I'd like to apologize, picking on that error was nasty of me.

Don't worry. You did it in a very funny way.

warplock
04-08-2011, 12:14
I think the thing I don't like about this style can be easily discerned if you compare the new Ogres to the Dragon Ogre Shaggoth model. The Shaggoth is one of my favourite models of all. It looks 100% badass and is immediately recognisable and distinctive. It's fairly realistic too, for a giant-dragon-demon. In comparison, the ogres are over-exaggerated, cartoonish, and silly.

Belakor
04-08-2011, 12:51
Come on haters! You are trailing behind - rally your forces!

Oh yeah, it is not the same number of repetitive posts that counts in this poll, only one click does.

My mistake...

SunTzu
04-08-2011, 12:59
Oh no, more people voted 7 than 2, that means I'm factually wrong!

Oh yeah, it's not a poll that determines who's right or wrong, only gauges opinions.

My mistake... now excuse me as I'm blinded by hate and need to climb down from this bandwagon of popularity because it's not popular any more.

Sheesh...

Aluinn
04-08-2011, 13:27
Overall I'd rate them a '7', but I have fairly differing opinions of specific models in there.

The Stonehorn is quite amazing; the mammothy thing (Mammox?) is pretty nice; the Scraplauncher looks similar to the old one, which is to say cool if you like the junkyard look; the cannon is getting a little ridiculous for my taste (it would appear that the animal couldn't even come close to bearing the weight, and aside from that, both beast and rider would be in trouble if the thing were ever actually fired); and the Sabretusk riders have some issues: Specifically, the riders look too large for the mounts, like humans riding wolves or something, and aesthetically their hindquarters are too low to make them look proper as mounts in any case.

So some great, some good, some "meh", and some bad :).

But this is all just opinion of course. Technically speaking, they all look well-sculpted, with a lot of nice detail.

malisteen
04-08-2011, 13:30
I love the style (I like cartoony monsters), but all of the monsters, their hind quarters are way, way too small. These are supposed to be elephants, rhinoceroses, and cats/wolves, not gorillas. It's just way awkward, visually, and lowers my rating to a 5 from what would otherwise be a high 8 or low 9 on styles, concepts, and the ogre riders.

katsumoto
04-08-2011, 16:13
i think the new models rock and add something that was really lacking from the first release.. AT LAST variety blessed variety

BobtheInquisitor
04-08-2011, 17:41
I gave them a 6, just because I think the large monsters would make great daemons when relieved of their bulky riders.

I would probably have gone higher, but that mammox is seriously disturbing. I look at it and all I can see are polygons and pixels...in the real world! How did it get off The Grid!?

Gork or Possibly Mork
04-08-2011, 17:52
the mammothy thing (Mammox?) is pretty nice; .

EB mentioned it's name is Thundertusk. Thunder...Thunder...Thundertusk...hoooo!!!

Although i think i'll refer to it as Snuffaluffatusk:D

zak
04-08-2011, 18:52
I gave them a 7. Everything is great except the sabre tooth riders who are more a 4. If they had just made the cats larger then it woud have worked. As is they look about the right size for a beastman Gor rather than an Ogre. Really love the Scraplauncha/Cannon miniature.

brightblade
04-08-2011, 18:57
I have no interest in buying/playing as OK at all but the models are just great.

I agree the chimaera is a total dog of a model but why did they release it next to some really gorgeous figures (the cockatrice and those great wizards)? To make it look extra poor? Someone up there must like it.

sulla
04-08-2011, 18:59
Sculpting is very good on the new stuff.

Personally, I don't like the larger than life horns on the beasts.

I only rated them a 4 because the style doesn't appeal to me.

macejase
04-08-2011, 21:06
Love the Stonehorn (just not sure what it's supposed to be exactly)

Like the mammoth, but it's a bit out of proportion towards the back end...

Hate the cat riders. Bad design. Back legs too small, teeth too big...

Not really a fan of the cannon... not too bad though.

Scrap Launcher is pretty neat.

malisteen
04-08-2011, 21:19
A bit out of proportion? It's like they just left off the entire back of the model!

sterbeet
05-08-2011, 07:16
i dont think theres many of there looks i dont like

TimLeeson
05-08-2011, 07:55
The rear ends of the beasts look weird to me..too small and the back-legs look weird to me - puts me off them, the riders look too big to carry them too - which make it cartoonish to me.

I think theres far too much detail as well - well for me I like models that are more simple and allow customisation (i.e. I like sculpting onto things, freehand painting ect) and theres none of that on these ....they look too busy.

It would be wrong to say they are "bad" sculpts though as it's obvious theres a lot of skill going on here - but as a matter of taste - not my thing at all.

WarmbloodedLizard
05-08-2011, 08:27
stonehorn: 8 (needs some conversions, though)
mammox: 5 (should never have 2 riders)
cat riders: 2 (ridiculous. maybe could be brought up to a 4 or 5 by removing the tusks and seating the ogre more to the front)
cannon: 3 (ridiculous. just because it's fantasy doesn't mean it has to be completely unrealistic.)
scrap launcher: 6 (still hate the wannabe-rhinox, but it's ok. worse than the old scraplauncher, though.)

so about a 5.

(If I buy either the cannon or the scrappie, I'll probably exchange the rhinox for a metal one)

Coldblood666
05-08-2011, 08:50
Stonehorn: Awesome. Coolest model I've seen in a long time. Will buy as many as I can fit into a 2500pt list :D

Ogre Cavalry: Good enough to grace my army. Will buy.

Scraplauncher/Cannon kit: Way too goofy for my taste. That rhinox is horrid. Won't buy.

Mammoth: Too goofy, too animated. Won't use.

malisteen
05-08-2011, 10:38
Stonehorn: hind quarters way too small. Rest of it's cool. I like the rider. 7.

Mammoth: hind quarters way too small, overall too small for two ogres. No trunk. 3

Catdog Riders: hind quarters too small, rider too big, really awkward overall. 4

Scraplauncher/cannon: I like the goofiness, but the rhinox is bad. 6

Overall assessment: still 5. Like the style. If the rules were awesome on one or more of these, I could bring myself to field one if I didn't want to convert - well, any of them other then the mamoth. But the proportions overall are really bringing the score down.

crandall87
05-08-2011, 10:40
I love the new ogre models! Very tempted to start an army

Lord Dan
05-08-2011, 12:24
I'm really happy to see that the general reaction to these models is positive. I can appreciate that there are some models that are much better than others, and that there are some specific issues with others that may require a bit of converting to remedy. Overall it seems this is a step in a positive direction, will open to door for some fantastic armies and impressive conversions, and will amount to a fun release.

Nubl0
05-08-2011, 12:30
I like them all tbh, however I will need to see the cat riders in person I think as these pictures make them look pretty bad. I wonder why the hell they couldnt have just stuck with rhinox riders, they actually look like the could carry an ogre!

AFnord
05-08-2011, 12:41
I think they look quite alright. Not the best models ever, but overall not bad. Out of the lot, I don't like the riders, and I think the Mammox with the two ogres on top looks cluttered, but apart from that I can't find anything that I really dislike about these models. Technically they seem to be very good, art direction is ok.

And I don't understand the Chimera hate either. Sure, it is not the best model ever, it seem to be ok from a technical point of view, and the art direction is also ok (but not much more than that). The paintjob GW gave it is horrendous though (it did of course take a lot of skill to pull it off, but the end result is not nice).

Lord Dan
05-08-2011, 12:56
And I don't understand the Chimera hate either. Sure, it is not the best model ever, it seem to be ok from a technical point of view, and the art direction is also ok (but not much more than that). The paintjob GW gave it is horrendous though (it did of course take a lot of skill to pull it off, but the end result is not nice).
I actually feel that there are a few technical problems with it. First, the body does not seem built to accomocate 3 heads, and as a result the model looks front heavy and the heads appear "stuffed" in. The top/middle head is particularly bad, as it is up too high and at an angle that contrasts too sharply from the body. This error is further exaggerated by the arms, which appear to be too short due to the overall bulk of the models front end.

I have issues with some of the art direction as well (mouth-tail?), however nothing as glaring as the structural problems.

AFnord
05-08-2011, 13:36
The mouth tail is actually quite common on chimeras. Usually it is in the form of a snake though sometimes it looks more dragon like (like on this model). Actually, having some form of animal as its tail seem to be more common than not having one when it comes to chimeras.

I do agree that the middle/top head looks a bit odd and out of place though. They should probably have made the model slightly wider, to make the head fit in better. And yes, its front legs do look slightly too short. Overall, I still think that this model fits into the "okay" category, it works, but it is hardly anything to write home about.

Lord Dan
05-08-2011, 14:13
That' fair, and I'm glad you brought up the point about the snake for a tail, as it does change my opinion about the mouth-tail slightly.

How do you feel about the cannon/scraplauncher?

nightgant98c
05-08-2011, 14:46
I think they're very good, but not the best they've done, so I said 7.

Fuzzymoldyork
05-08-2011, 15:10
I gave them an 8 for one very specific reasons, no designated character models.

First, don't get me wrong, each kit is beautifully well done, everything is appropriatly huge for ogre mounts, but I just feel like some of the actual ogres are lacking. For some reason they just seam a little bland to me.

Plus, if there is any army that you should be able to make an amazing character kit for I would expect it to be ogres.

Maybe in a later release.

Hellebore
05-08-2011, 15:30
IMO this is analogous to computer games and the film industry using CG to hide behind. GW have let their 3d CAD designing capacity go to their head. Now they can produce kits that fit together precisely and with more complexity, they are resting on that to sell their minis.

Some of those animals just look really WEIRD in a 'what were they smoking in biology' kind of way.

That they are going to be technically excellent kits is beside the point - many MANY movies and games have had technically excellent 3d design only to absolutely suck.

IMO these aren't bad kits, they've just chosen a really weird, out of left field direction to go in that isn't immediately engaging precisely for that reason.

hellebore

AFnord
05-08-2011, 16:54
That' fair, and I'm glad you brought up the point about the snake for a tail, as it does change my opinion about the mouth-tail slightly.

How do you feel about the cannon/scraplauncher?
I quite like the cannon. It has a good amount of clutter without it getting overboard. I would have preferred it if they used a wooden or metal support structure over the tusks, but it is not a dealbreaker for me. The ogre on top looks "nice". The animal dragging the contraption is a bit "meh" though. I don't like it, but I don't dislike it either.


I think the scraplauncher is worse, but not bad. There is a bit too much going on on it, with no real focal point, which drags down the overall score. It does have an impressive amount of detail though, and I think the animal fits better into its overall structure than it does for the cannon.

Dark Aly
05-08-2011, 17:21
The rear ends of the beasts look weird to me..too small and the back-legs look weird to me - puts me off them, the riders look too big to carry them too - which make it cartoonish to me.

I think theres far too much detail as well - well for me I like models that are more simple and allow customisation (i.e. I like sculpting onto things, freehand painting ect) and theres none of that on these ....they look too busy.

It would be wrong to say they are "bad" sculpts though as it's obvious theres a lot of skill going on here - but as a matter of taste - not my thing at all.

sums up my thoughts exactly. Also, why do the horns look like they're carved from stone rather than real horns? doesn't make sense to me.

Lord Dan
05-08-2011, 18:03
sums up my thoughts exactly. Also, why do the horns look like they're carved from stone rather than real horns? doesn't make sense to me.

I assumed it was because the beast is supposed to have a skeleton made of stone, rather than bone (which you can see both in the face and exposed area on the rear left leg).

Lord Dan
05-08-2011, 18:35
I quite like the cannon. It has a good amount of clutter without it getting overboard. I would have preferred it if they used a wooden or metal support structure over the tusks, but it is not a dealbreaker for me. The ogre on top looks "nice". The animal dragging the contraption is a bit "meh" though. I don't like it, but I don't dislike it either.


I think the scraplauncher is worse, but not bad. There is a bit too much going on on it, with no real focal point, which drags down the overall score. It does have an impressive amount of detail though, and I think the animal fits better into its overall structure than it does for the cannon.

Sorry, I missed this in the first pass. Yeah I agree about the cannon, I'm actually looking forward to the conversion potential more than the model itself. Your assessment of the support structure is spot on, the tusks look far too "flintstones".

I actually like how chaotic the scraplauncher looks, however I think a wooden frame would have done well here too.

Gork or Possibly Mork
05-08-2011, 18:50
IMO this is analogous to computer games and the film industry using CG to hide behind. GW have let their 3d CAD designing capacity go to their head. Now they can produce kits that fit together precisely and with more complexity, they are resting on that to sell their minis.

Some of those animals just look really WEIRD in a 'what were they smoking in biology' kind of way.

That they are going to be technically excellent kits is beside the point - many MANY movies and games have had technically excellent 3d design only to absolutely suck.

IMO these aren't bad kits, they've just chosen a really weird, out of left field direction to go in that isn't immediately engaging precisely for that reason.

hellebore

I don't know if GW solely uses CAD as it's modeling software. Im sure they use other software as well.

There are many different sculpting programs on the market that allow for extremely organic modelling and sculpting at a very, very high level of detail.

However i don't know much about what they must do to cut it up and put it on a sprue so maybe they have to be a little more simplistic than they'd like.

Some thought has to go into how they design thier kits for mass production. Im pretty fascinated by what design decisions they have to take to get thier 3d sculpt to physical product because i know nothing about the process and it's interesting since i've done 3d modelling/sculpting quite a bit.

Some advantages are
A. Makes it easier on the customer to paint in most cases.
B. The more generic the design the easier it is to customize generally. Example>

I've 3d modelled/sculpted humans before. Design wise i modelled them very generic because it allows you more flexibility when sculpting new shapes for character morphs from a generic base rather than a really defined character. I've found it to be the best approach for one model that can be various characters. If you can sort of find the midpoint for all variations and tone down detail it makes the base character extremely flexible.

I think this is sort of the idea there going for sometimes. There's more possibilty and therefore people will buy it and use it for various things because it is more generic and easier to convert into other things.

Im not really saying that's the case with these models as thier pretty unique and detailed.

More recently on some things i kind of see them taking the opposite approach.

I do think thier "weird unique design" recently is more ip based than anything else.

Beastlord
05-08-2011, 19:30
There is no end of lawls to be had at people who keep saying this stuff isn't warhammer.


What a wonderfully adult response :rolleyes:




Point being, this game hasn't had one all encompassing identity....If someone says something is bad, and I ask why, and they say well look at it, it doesn't look good! or look at it, its made for children! that isn't an actual point, its someone being retarded and repeating themselves over again.


You are correct - Gws sculpting style has evolved over time. Slowly. For me the style of these new figures (including some of the tomb kings stuff, and other recent releases) is too big a change in direction to blend in with what has come before - GW is still selling models from 5th edition or before remember. This is what I mean by "Its not Warhammer as IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII know it" (since you picked that one out) - the "designed on a computer" look is much cleaner, smoother and more 'sterilised' than the previous hand sculpted look of GWs miniatures. Its not bad, but for me it is so different that I am in two minds about buying a lot of these recent releases. The cartoony look detracts hugely for me from the grim, black humour of Warhammer.
I hope that is sufficient explanation for you. I genuinely didnt know I hated GW minis until I was told so on these boards! Imagine my surprise! Well you live and learn.

Oh, and I happen to love the old dragon ogres. Hater.

Liber
06-08-2011, 08:36
7.

would have been 8 if not for the "cat" rider things, and the second pair of smaller tusks on the otherwise unique mammox model.

grimkeeper
14-08-2011, 07:57
Just seen the new pics in Darnoks Ogers 3, and (although i still dont like the monsters)
Golgfag,Firebelly and Braggthegutsman have given me new food for thought :0 very nice.

Numero-Uno
14-08-2011, 11:30
If there's one bandwagon people jump on more than the new army bandwagon, its the hate bandwagon.

Just on off topic, but that sentance gave me a great idea for a Chaos Warshrine for my new army. Thanks!

All onboard the hate bandwagon! :skull:

The bearded one
14-08-2011, 11:54
There is no end of lawls to be had at people who keep saying this stuff isn't warhammer, and especially comments like "well sculpted tonka toys." If there's one bandwagon people jump on more than the new army bandwagon, its the hate bandwagon. I swear I see the same comments mirroring the first few comments I saw originally. "They look like they are made for kids." "It's not Warhammer as IIIIII know it." I don't know which one is more baffling to me. The fact that these are clearly not sculpts made for children, or to appeal to children, as I don't see many children with interests in seared flesh, rusted armor, and gruesomely modified animals.

Also the statement "It's not warhammer as I have known it for the past 20 years." I wasn't aware that Warhammer had some single identity for the past 20 years? I mean, maybe you are talking aesthetically with the models? Because I KNOOOOW everyone loves the old Dragon Ogre models, or how about the Chaos Ogres? Let's not forget Nagash, and the other terrible models that came out years upon years ago. You are telling me those are better than this?

Or maybe people are implying that all of these monsters make the game different than what it has been, which is a constantly changing set of rules. I have heard different editions referenced as HeroHammer, Magic-Hammer, MonsterHammer, InfantryHammer.



Point being, this game hasn't had one all encompassing identity no matter how long you have played it. The strength of numbers of man have risen and fallen, and the power of a single entity the same. Its time for people to drop the elitism. Chime in with why you dislike a model, point out the angles, use descriptive terminology. Its basic Psychology 101 that teaches us how to effectively argue something.

If someone says something is bad, and I ask why, and they say well look at it, it doesn't look good! or look at it, its made for children! that isn't an actual point, its someone being retarded and repeating themselves over again.




Back on Topic: Everything blew me away except for the following points.


The Stonehorn seems strange to me. Its face seems to either be made of stone, and covered in some sort of pelt, or the skin has been flayed from its face, to expose its stone skeleton. The latter would be a little too far for me, as I cant imagine these creatures living after having their faces ripped off, but the former could bring me solace.

And my second point, is the Thundertusk (Mammox as you all call it). Its huge pair of horns hanging seemed very counter intuitive. The "how does it eat" argument raged on as a by-product of this, but that wasn't my concern. Something just didn't look right. A few of us came to the conclusion that its possible they are modified like this. Having those horns grafted onto their bodies by the Ogres to make a more fearsome beast. This gave me all of the comfort I needed to rationalize it, as the horns do seem "bolted" on. This could still be wrong, but my main point through this is that, context can make or break the model.

No matter what the actual case, whenever a creature is made, a writer looks at it and says "How can I explain this?" and Fluff is born. These creatures will be given appropriate fluff and history, and all will be explained. Whether it will be satisfactory or not, we will see, but at least there will be answers.

Listen to this man, he has the right idea.

I like almost all of it. I think it's quite an achievement that, at least in my mind, they made the stonehorn and thundertusk/mammox look so differently merely by headswap. The stonehorn looks like a big tiger/cat creature, whereas the thundertusk looks like a mammoth'y creature. All by just a headswap and the very same body.

The scraplauncher-cannon kit is great. I like how the scraplauncher still looks incredibly similar to the old one.

That cavalry.. mhmm.. not that much of a fan, sorry. They just look a bit too impractical to me, like the ogre will fall off any second. The creatures could've been a bit bigger for my taste, at the very least the back could have been, which looks a bit puny.

I'm actually not perturbed by the smoother, or more "cartoony", as it is called, look. I think it looks better. Everything is well defined and clean to look a and distinguish the different parts. Apart from that increased smoothness I do not really see that much difference between old and new mini's.

TheWarmaster
14-08-2011, 12:36
I gave them 2 out of 10. They don't look like they belong to ogre kingdoms. Well, except the riders. Only thing that looks like the ogres I know is that guy with a chain-scythe. I can't even describe why I don't like them... Maybe it is because they look nothing like what I've heard and read about ogres, maybe because they look like they have been ripped out of WoW.

eldargal
14-08-2011, 12:52
The aesthetics of an ogre army have never appealed to me, but these are impressive models in their intricacy and on a technical level, with the firebreather being one of the most technically accomplished models I've seen from GW. I gave them an 8, I've no interest in collecting them but they are magnificient kits.

EmperorNorton
14-08-2011, 13:00
After seeing the character models I'd have to change my original vote of 5/10 to 6/10.

Wesser
14-08-2011, 13:14
Stonehorn is the only workable one.

Thundertusk looks disproportioned and the mournfangs look too small (rules-wise they should always count as moving in dangerous terrain to represent the risk of the mount breaking their backs).

The cannon is a downright terrible concept... and uhm i forgot the other ones.

Its not awful, but Im charitable in giving a "4"

Urgat
14-08-2011, 17:14
I dislike the two rhinox variants (the previous rhinox -the beast itself- looked way better, and those new warmachines are two times too big for it, imho) and the sabertusk riders (lame poses, silly tusks), but the other kits I think are great. I'd have liked the thundertusk to have a trump, though, if I ever want to get one to give to my chaos warrior pal to play as a mammoth, it's going to require sculpting, and not of the most exciting kind. Anyway, it's a solid 7 for me, because Golgfag is amazing, the executionner is cool as hell and the flame breathing sorcerer is at the very least a very interesting sculpting challenge, and well executed.

Jarakin
15-08-2011, 15:37
I think the sculpts look amazing tbh, rated 8. :)