PDA

View Full Version : Beastmen Minotaurs and Ghorgon Worst Mopels Ever?



thrawn
02-02-2012, 13:42
Considering the quality of models GW has recently been putting out i am so shocked at how crappy the minotaurs and ghorgon/cygor look; and beastmen was an army i wanted to start!

from the waist up i think they're great, and the detail is good, but what's with the FEET?!?! they're suppose to be modeled after buffalo, they should have hooves, like the beastmen which are modeled after goats/rams. what's the deal? why couldn't they make them look more like the art work.

here are the models:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440033a&prodId=prod1390120a

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440032a&prodId=prod460008a

and this is art work that i think they should have used as their basis:

131292131293

are there any other examples out there where you loved the army, but the models turned you off from starting an army of them?

Lordy
02-02-2012, 13:52
They're pretty bad, the minotaurs especially, the Ghorgon is ok, legs just too skinny.

The Razorgor is the biggest abomination, someone actually gave that model the "ok" to produce too...

The entire Beastmen release was probably the worst in GW's history?

The Low King
02-02-2012, 13:56
I like the beastmen models. Not sure about the Razorgor but its ok.

The Mino's and Ghorgon i think look fine. The Mino's i think actually look like that art.


I was wondering how long it would take before another of warseers famed threds sprang up.

Righthandedtwin
02-02-2012, 14:00
:O!!1 Blasphemy!! The Doombull is a work of art...OF ART I SAY!! the Mino's are great too, the Ghorgon...okay I'm not a fan of the Ghorgon Hoof-hand but other than that the model is fine... =/

redben
02-02-2012, 14:00
Avatars of War do a nice minotaur though it'd set you back a bit to buy three of them.

I'm not a fan of those models. Nor am I keen on the Daemon Prince or the Vargheists. They seem to be part of a design ethic that's creeping into WFB minis which may be to do with switching to plastic or might just reflect new designers.

lbecks
02-02-2012, 14:04
GW made a conscious decision to make hybrid hoof feet for their minotaurs. It's from Greek Mythology where the minotaur is a man with a bull's head. So when they made the model they compromised by having man feet that were turning hoofy.

I have a few problems with the minotaurs. The muscles are strange particularly the overly muscled ankles and knees. Even on really big bodybuilders that doesn't happen so it makes it look off. The really stark paint job adds to that weirdness by accentuating how bulky the muscles are in those areas. The Savage Orcs have this too but since they're smaller it's less noticeable. But the anatomy is doing the paint job no favors and the paint job is doing the anatomy no favors. The Vargheist has a stark paint job too but it's not as jarring since the anatomy looks natural. The hair placement and design is also weird. It looks like fur carpets are draped over the minotaur rather than being part of the minotaur. They should have done skaven type fur where it's plausible that the creature is totally furry or it has patches of fur growth. And then there's the mane which ends abruptly at the base of the neck.

The Ghorghon for me is too skinny. It's too much like the current giant. And also the feet aren't consistent with the minotaurs. It should have come with extra feet. The big mistake in the kit though is for the Cygor. The arm anatomy for the overhead stone is really bad. It looks like that pose was tacked on at the end.

lbecks
02-02-2012, 14:10
For the Razorgor I think that model is just too busy. It has mutating skin, spikes everywhere, two mohawks, that bulging eye, and that tail which destroys the pig silhouette and doesn't make sense. It's just too much which makes it look like a cluttered mess.

The bearded one
02-02-2012, 14:15
Yes they're terrible Mopels!

But I think they're decent enough models, with a less cartoony paintjob anyway.

The Low King
02-02-2012, 14:24
Ahhh, it wouldnt be the same without TBO....

BigbyWolf
02-02-2012, 14:47
Even though the previous ones weren't the best, I much preferred them. Luckily, I ran an all-Mino army from the previous book, so I have loads of them. I just don't field it any more as I'm not a fan of the new lower Ld Minos/ Doombulls, and the fact that I have to take normal core. They make great proxy Chaos Ogres though.

As for the big boys, I don't like the Cygor or Ghorgon. For the Ghorgon they could have gone for something a lot more impressive and interesting, and not simply a giant with a few frills. Take the Jabber as an example, I love that one- it's weirdly ugly, but yet very nice. I would have liked to see them apply a bit of that originality to the Ghorghon.

I think the Razorgor was fine. Not the best, but certainly better than the Minos/ Ghorgon. Where they really messed up was with those awful conversions they did for the battle report.

Righthandedtwin
02-02-2012, 15:00
Even though the previous ones weren't the best, I much preferred them. Luckily, I ran an all-Mino army from the previous book, so I have loads of them. I just don't field it any more as I'm not a fan of the new lower Ld Minos/ Doombulls, and the fact that I have to take normal core. They make great proxy Chaos Ogres though.

As for the big boys, I don't like the Cygor or Ghorgon. For the Ghorgon they could have gone for something a lot more impressive and interesting, and not simply a giant with a few frills. Take the Jabber as an example, I love that one- it's weirdly ugly, but yet very nice. I would have liked to see them apply a bit of that originality to the Ghorghon.

It is in theory possible to run a "proxy" army of Minotaurs using the OK rule set since they have similar stat lines and most of the rules can easily be lifted such as "Bull Charge"...just you know...you'd be playing a much more controlled band of Mino's since you won't have Blood greed and also you'd probably need opponents permission or something..

Hawthorne
02-02-2012, 15:01
I would just like to say, for the most part one of my favorite model lines is the beastmen stuff especially the minotaurs (probably the biggest thing pulling me to the army...) (and if we include the Doom Bull in there; it's hard for me to even criticize at all)
The Ghorgon and Cygor are also just awesome to me...the only models in the entire range I'm not a fan of are the JabberSlythe (I know it's suppose to be ugly and what not just, ugh lol; but I think they did a good job) and the Bray Shamans; kind of sucks both of the main caster models look bad in my eyes. Conversions it is I suppose.

Morkash
02-02-2012, 15:03
As models themselves they aren't that bad. The Doombull is awesome (sitting on my table right now), the Minotaurs suffer more from their paintjob than anything else. Same goes for the Ghorgon. Take a look at this version of the Ghorgon for example: http://www.ogrestronghold.com/forum/index.php?topic=19001.msg309450#msg309450
I disliked the model, until I saw this version. Now I quite like it...

And as general advice, be careful with statements like "Worst...EVAR", just because that is your own opinion and stating it in this particular way will almost always lead to reactance and thus to very predictable (read: contradicting your opinion) answers.

BigbyWolf
02-02-2012, 15:09
It is in theory possible to run a "proxy" army of Minotaurs using the OK rule set since they have similar stat lines and most of the rules can easily be lifted such as "Bull Charge"...just you know...you'd be playing a much more controlled band of Mino's since you won't have Blood greed and also you'd probably need opponents permission or something..

Could do...but then what would I use my Ogre Kingdoms army as? :p

EDIT: @ Morkash- I agree about the new Doombull, I think he, and the previous Doombull are the best Minotaurs GW have done.

Righthandedtwin
02-02-2012, 15:09
I recall how everyone criticised the look of the Dreadknight due to a terrible picture GW took for it's website but once people saw it in person they were like "Oh...not that bad actually...I kinda like it".

decker_cky
02-02-2012, 15:12
Minotaurs have some issues, but are mostly pretty easily corrected (I don't like the 'mohawks' or the shin muscles, so I shaved off the shin muscles and sculpted a bit of fur).

They look much better in person though.

The bearded one
02-02-2012, 15:16
I recall how everyone criticised the look of the Dreadknight due to a terrible picture GW took for it's website but once people saw it in person they were like "Oh...not that bad actually...I kinda like it".

I still don't like that one ;) and I'm seeing it plenty, sometimes two at the same time :S

zak
02-02-2012, 15:38
I think the Mino's are good solid mini's. The GW paint job was just a horrible choice of shade. A darker colour hiding the over muscled legs really makes a difference. I believe there are far worse models out there than any of the Beastman range (although the Razorgor comes close).

AlphariusOmegon20
02-02-2012, 16:23
Yes they're terrible Mopels!

But I think they're decent enough models, with a less cartoony paintjob anyway.


As models themselves they aren't that bad. The Doombull is awesome (sitting on my table right now), the Minotaurs suffer more from their paintjob than anything else. Same goes for the Ghorgon. Take a look at this version of the Ghorgon for example: http://www.ogrestronghold.com/forum/index.php?topic=19001.msg309450#msg309450
I disliked the model, until I saw this version. Now I quite like it...

And as general advice, be careful with statements like "Worst...EVAR", just because that is your own opinion and stating it in this particular way will almost always lead to reactance and thus to very predictable (read: contradicting your opinion) answers.


I think the Mino's are good solid mini's. The GW paint job was just a horrible choice of shade. A darker colour hiding the over muscled legs really makes a difference. I believe there are far worse models out there than any of the Beastman range (although the Razorgor comes close).

This, this, and most certainly this. +1000.

Most of the Beastmen line suffers from bad paint jobs. That fleshy scheme may work on the Gors and Ungors, but little else in the line works with it. The razorgor takes the brunt of this criticism, with the Minos being a real close second, and the Cygor/Ghorgon bringing up the rear in third. All 3 benefit from darker brown paint jobs and actually look quite lovely when done this way.

The beastmen line is a definite case of when 'Eavy Metal tried to achieve something specific, and failed miserably at it with their execution.

Trust me, I own several razorgors and I still do not understand why people say it is the worst model GW has ever made, considering that Coco the Clown (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat500022a&prodId=prod1140299) is still running around. No paint job of any kind will ever help THAT model.

Vampiric16
02-02-2012, 16:38
Minotaurs are pretty good with a decent paintjob. I picked one up for my Path to Glory warband, and with a darker scheme it looked awesome.

I have to agree with the OP with regards to the cygor though, both variants look like someone tacked beastmen stuff onto a giant, and the ghorgon is nothing like the art. The arms are far to short, there's no belly maw, etc. It just seemed like a half assed job.

BeatTheBeat
02-02-2012, 16:46
Trust me, I own several razorgors and I still do not understand why people say it is the worst model GW has ever made, considering that Coco the Clown (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat500022a&prodId=prod1140299) is still running around. No paint job of any kind will ever help THAT model.

I suppose you haven't seen Harry's version of it, then...

loveless
02-02-2012, 17:07
As has been mentioned, the Beastmen range suffers from a god-awful paint scheme from GW. It has some sort of weird, cel-shaded look that over-accentuates every bit of organic detail on the models. The models themselves are on the average-to-good side of things (exception: Razorgor, never seen a "good" one based on the stock model) and I'd have several if I could stomach the rules (Gors have made an appearance as stand-in Marauders, and Minotaurs have done well as Chaos Ogres for me).

Skullking
02-02-2012, 19:20
I completely agree that GW's paint scheme for the beast men is what really makes them look terrible. That being said, I am a bit appalled by the sheer amount of skulls all over the Ghorgon/Cygor. In fact I left as many as I could off when I built them. I just don't think based on their fluff that they would keep skulls or even put any sort of ornaments on their bodies. I suppose the cygors might if the skulls glowed with magic power, but it seems a bit unlikely. And the Ghorgon is supposed to be a completely berserk slathering beast. It wouldn't have time to weave skulls into it's mane, or construct ramshackle armlets, and necklaces, and why would it care enough to wear a loin cloth (especially one completely coated in skulls!). I can't say there's much in the warhammer world that would be more terrifying than a GIANT NAKED 4 ARMED MINOTAUR SCREAMING and covered in BLOOD, knocking over TREES just to eat your FACE! but I digress... mostly because I own one, and I made him with his loin cloth on, and without gigantic (though tiny somehow be shockingly terrifying as well) genitals.

popisdead
02-02-2012, 19:27
Ghorgon and Cygor fit in the same vein as the HPA, etc.

The Minotaurs are terrible.

All suffer from the pale skin syndrome. Should be Bestial Brown skin not tallarn flesh. Then they look better.

thrawn
02-02-2012, 19:28
i guess i'm out numbered here . . . Wow! i actually can't believe people like those models, they're just so wrong! they're suppose to have hoof feet!

oh well, to each they're own i suppose.

loveless
02-02-2012, 19:41
they're suppose to have hoof feet!


Actually, if we go back to the source material, they should be human bodies with the head of a bull (and possibly the tail, I forget for sure), so they're "supposed" to have human feet :p

There's also a "backwards" or "centaur" interpretation that cropped up a few times between the Classical and Renaissance periods that had a man's head and torso mounted onto a bull's body...but I think people would be far more annoyed if GW had gone with that version than their "fooves" version :p

Harwammer
02-02-2012, 19:50
Trust me, I own several razorgors and I still do not understand why people say it is the worst model GW has ever made, considering that Coco the Clown (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat500022a&prodId=prod1140299) is still running around. No paint job of any kind will ever help THAT model.


I suppose you haven't seen Harry's version of it, then...

Did a quick google and found this image here (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?87490-This-week-I-have-mostly-been-painting/page161):

Lordy
02-02-2012, 21:03
That Nagash is awesome :O

Righthandedtwin
02-02-2012, 21:04
i guess i'm out numbered here . . . Wow! i actually can't believe people like those models, they're just so wrong! they're suppose to have hoof feet!

oh well, to each they're own i suppose.

They're Beast OF CHAOS nothing about chaos is as it should be :P

Commodus Leitdorf
02-02-2012, 22:09
Honestly the only beef I have with either sculpt is the fact GW choose to give them an ugly colour scheme. When painted differently they tend to turn out alright (though I'll admit they are not the best sculpts GW has ever released).

Sexiest_hero
02-02-2012, 22:21
That Nagash is what made me love the model so. When ever somebody calls him bo bo the clow I bring that paint job up.

Harwammer
02-02-2012, 22:26
Honestly the only beef I have with either sculpt is the fact GW choose to give them an ugly colour scheme. When painted differently they tend to turn out alright (though I'll admit they are not the best sculpts GW has ever released).
WINNER!

I also agree that GW has chosen poor colour schemes for the models.


That Nagash is what made me love the model so. When ever somebody calls him bo bo the clow I bring that paint job up.

It's not a real nagash model, the face (aka the most hilarious bit) has been swapped out, hasn't it?

The bearded one
02-02-2012, 22:34
It's not a real nagash model, the face (aka the most hilarious bit) has been swapped out, hasn't it?

Yeah, I wanted to remark that too. With this face he looks cool. I believe the sculpter sculpted the ridiculous clownface as some sort of protest, to allow him to sculpt him more seriously, and to his shock they approved it.

Original: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1440485_99110207002_ColNagashMain_873x627.jpg

lordfeint
02-02-2012, 23:03
The Razorgors remind me of Jim Carrey's dog from the Mask.
The Minotaurs have too much skin and not enough fur I think. But overall they look alright with a good paint job.

But the Razorgors look a bit derp.

Feefait
03-02-2012, 00:01
I think the issue is that Beastmen are a lower tier army by popularity and sales and the monsters came out well after people have already abandoned their use. Thus, when they should have had completeky separate models and not a combined kit they got sandwiched together. Im ok with the cygore, it should be like a giant. But not the gorgon. I think by trying to cut corners and save money they missed a great opportunity. I also wonder if the overall reception to the army and range didn't influence them not getting the best painters. there are plenty if people on here alone that could have done amazing things with them, nevermind GW house painters.

ArtificerArmour
03-02-2012, 07:33
I think the issue is that Beastmen are a lower tier army by popularity and sales and the monsters came out well after people have already abandoned their use. Thus, when they should have had completeky separate models and not a combined kit they got sandwiched together. Im ok with the cygore, it should be like a giant. But not the gorgon. I think by trying to cut corners and save money they missed a great opportunity. I also wonder if the overall reception to the army and range didn't influence them not getting the best painters. there are plenty if people on here alone that could have done amazing things with them, nevermind GW house painters.

Not even that, just a decent scheme. I've seen multiple pale skin schemes that do work. Mine's intentionally pale because they're albino, but I agree darker schemes work. Look at borzoni's midnight raiders - purples and blues - and his razorgor looks fantastic. Even the staffers in the recent bat rep made the razorgor look decent (though it was photoed from his good side...)

I think with the price tag as well the razorgor never stood a chance with fans.

Duke Ramulots
03-02-2012, 07:48
I rather like the Minos, the Doombull is one of the best moples ive seen.

valle
03-02-2012, 08:12
GW made a conscious decision to make hybrid hoof feet for their minotaurs. It's from Greek Mythology where the minotaur is a man with a bull's head. So when they made the model they compromised by having man feet that were turning hoofy.


Shouldnt it be the other way around? Hoofs turning into feet, standing on two legs with that huge body, it would be a giant handicap to walk around on hoofs not only for balance but also in the soft forest earth.

Bloodknight
03-02-2012, 08:22
I believe the sculpter sculpted the ridiculous clownface as some sort of protest, to allow him to sculpt him more seriously, and to his shock they approved it.


That's what he said here on Warseer, and I tend to believe him. People dislike a lot of his sculpts, but he wasn't that bad at his worst ;).

Lord-Caerolion
03-02-2012, 08:41
I can't believe this hasn't been brought up, but I have three words. Old. Metal. Possessed...

... I think a little part of my soul died inside when I mentioned that ancient evil... The Beastmen suffer from a horrible colour-scheme, but I do agree on the Dreadknight and Nagash (well, not Harry's version, at least). The old Possessed though... there was literally no way to make those lumpen excuses of models work.

Charistoph
03-02-2012, 13:12
I completely agree that GW's paint scheme for the beast men is what really makes them look terrible. That being said, I am a bit appalled by the sheer amount of skulls all over the Ghorgon/Cygor. In fact I left as many as I could off when I built them. I just don't think based on their fluff that they would keep skulls or even put any sort of ornaments on their bodies. I suppose the cygors might if the skulls glowed with magic power, but it seems a bit unlikely. And the Ghorgon is supposed to be a completely berserk slathering beast. It wouldn't have time to weave skulls into it's mane, or construct ramshackle armlets, and necklaces, and why would it care enough to wear a loin cloth (especially one completely coated in skulls!). I can't say there's much in the warhammer world that would be more terrifying than a GIANT NAKED 4 ARMED MINOTAUR SCREAMING and covered in BLOOD, knocking over TREES just to eat your FACE! but I digress... mostly because I own one, and I made him with his loin cloth on, and without gigantic (though tiny somehow be shockingly terrifying as well) genitals.

Who said that the Ghorgon put any of that on himself? The loincloth is probably there so the Bestigors don't feel the need to overcompensate with large weaponry (too late), and the skulls and other things could be fetishes to bind the monster to the herd's will.

Urgat
03-02-2012, 13:32
Giving minotaurs feet allows them to be shoehorned anywhere you want.
Do I get the worst-pun-prize yet?
I've been claiming since day one that those plastic minotaurs suffered from a bad paint job, many many models by the Heavy Metal team suffere from the same thing (savage orcs, etc). They're very nice models, and so is the ghorgon/cygor kit.

Mr_Foulscumm
03-02-2012, 14:35
Not by a long shot are they the worst ever.

The bearded one won't like me saying this but:

I'm looking at you plastic Dwarfs... *shudders*

warplock
03-02-2012, 14:45
Never mind plastic dwarfs, what about the metal ones! Specifically, Hammerers... :shifty: I hate Hammerers sooo much as they're pretty much the only thing stopping me collecting dwarfs. They're pretty much the best troops in the book right now so I'm sure they'll be good when dwarfs are re-done, but the current models absolutely prohibit their use. Some people convert basic warriors into hammerers but i don't want to end up with a redundant unit of samey looking hammer-guys alongside whatever awesome new models they eventually release for them.

Gdolkin
03-02-2012, 20:49
I've been considering starting a thread for the following observation, and i expect t'd get more attention if i did, but here goes: Does no-one else think the Ghorgon looks just like a Keeper of Secrets that's been turned/enslaved/whatever by Khorne? I realise the lore prohibits such a thing, but seriously, that's a Khornate Keeper of Secrets that is ;)
I actually love the model for this reason.. Paint it red and it could be an alternative Bloodthirster, and even though there's no in-game or in-background justification for it I kinda want one to stand behind my skull-covered blood-crazy Khainite Dark Eldar..

lbecks
03-02-2012, 22:34
I've been considering starting a thread for the following observation, and i expect t'd get more attention if i did, but here goes: Does no-one else think the Ghorgon looks just like a Keeper of Secrets that's been turned/enslaved/whatever by Khorne? I realise the lore prohibits such a thing, but seriously, that's a Khornate Keeper of Secrets that is ;)
I actually love the model for this reason.. Paint it red and it could be an alternative Bloodthirster, and even though there's no in-game or in-background justification for it I kinda want one to stand behind my skull-covered blood-crazy Khainite Dark Eldar..

Yes, it looks like the updated version of the old keeper of secrets.

http://wigan-wargames.co.uk/gallery/upload/Nezza/Keeper%20of%20Secrets.jpg

Kallstrom
03-02-2012, 23:45
[...] And the Ghorgon is supposed to be a completely berserk slathering beast. It wouldn't have time to weave skulls into it's mane, or construct ramshackle armlets, and necklaces, and why would it care enough to wear a loin cloth (especially one completely coated in skulls!). [...]

This threw me off as well when I was putting the models in the Beastmen Battalionbox together. Several of the gors had braided hair. Why did they make them that way? It completely ruined the whole feel for me! It's one thing that dwarfs get together in musky and dusty bars and braid each others beard... but a couple of beastmen sitting in a line braiding each others ponytails? Hell(pitabomination) no! Beastmen are supposed to be wild beasts! I call this whole braiding business a bunch of Minotaurfeces. :rolleyes:

The bearded one
04-02-2012, 00:28
Not by a long shot are they the worst ever.

The bearded one won't like me saying this but:

I'm looking at you plastic Dwarfs... *shudders*

ey!

They're not that bad. I'm quite happy how my own are turning out:
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/edgarschippers/warhammer%20dwarfs/DSC06662.jpg
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/edgarschippers/warhammer%20dwarfs/DSC06663.jpg

If anything the battle for skull pass dwarfs are worse :p

AngelofSorrow
04-02-2012, 01:18
All the beastmen models are spectacular. The Ghorgon is just awesome. Once I'm done with my Cygor and jabberslythe I'm getting 2 Ghorgons to run along side my minobus.
These are great models and the subject of their appearance has been discussed to death.


Ready for eternal war!

Gdolkin
04-02-2012, 10:11
Yes, it looks like the updated version of the old keeper of secrets.

http://wigan-wargames.co.uk/gallery/upload/Nezza/Keeper%20of%20Secrets.jpg

Cheers Ibecks, it's not just me then.. No-one else got any remarks on this bizarre design choice by GW? Apart from the Ghorgon having it's top two arms end in hoof-scythes rather than crablike claws, and not having a hermaphroditic boob, it's just a very angry Keeper of Secrets covered in skulls guys!

lbecks
04-02-2012, 14:05
This threw me off as well when I was putting the models in the Beastmen Battalionbox together. Several of the gors had braided hair. Why did they make them that way? It completely ruined the whole feel for me! It's one thing that dwarfs get together in musky and dusty bars and braid each others beard... but a couple of beastmen sitting in a line braiding each others ponytails? Hell(pitabomination) no! Beastmen are supposed to be wild beasts! I call this whole braiding business a bunch of Minotaurfeces. :rolleyes:

The beastwomen braid their hair.

wizbix
04-02-2012, 17:48
I rather like the minataur models and no this does not make me a GW fan boy.

When they came out there was a silly long discussion about it that got quite heated and if I recall right it was closed by a mod. Lets all agree now that both points of view are equally vallid as beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If I did buy some though I might green stuff a bit more fur on them, I dont know, but those leg muscles work okay for me.

stiltjet
04-02-2012, 18:12
Personally I think the GW minotaurs do not look like proper minotaurs at all. I really do not like them. Somehow the change to making most things plastic just seem to have cartoonised (is that even a word?) a lot of their line of models. Prefer the old ones, or other model makersī versions. I hope GW will make new ones that actually look like proper classic minotaurs.

Night Bearer
04-02-2012, 19:36
I agree that the 'Eavy Metal team does the minotaurs no favors, but even in person they are underwhelming models.

While most people complain about the musculature - which I can "buy" as being Chaotic in nature - to me the two things that really sink them are the fur and hooves. The fur is way too neat, shaved-looking, and cartoony - they look like some weird combo of Jersey Shore goon and Disney barnyard villain. And while I prefer hooves to feet, I'd prefer feet to the hybrid GW used - just my personal opinion, but trying to 'compromise' and blend both options is never as good as just manning up and going with one or the other. Or even better, actually use the advantage of a plastic kit and offer both.

Also, while the over bulk of the minotaurs is a bit much for my tastes, I have to admit that the old metals did suffer from having heads that were a bit over-sized for them, even accounting for them being bull-men and likely accurate proportioned for that.

mrtn
05-02-2012, 16:35
Considering the quality of models GW has recently been putting out i am so shocked at how crappy the minotaurs and ghorgon/cygor look; and beastmen was an army i wanted to start!It should be a good thing then that neither the minos nor the ghorgon or cygor is very good in the game, and it's perfectly possible to run a beastman army without them.
I love the fact that big blocks of infantry is one of the best ways to run beastmen, my army looks much better now than in 6th ed.

I agree that the fooves are ugly, but the gors, ungors and bestigors are some of the best models there is. :)

zak
05-02-2012, 17:22
I agree. The rest of the Beastmen models are really nice sculpts. So if you don't like the Mino's/Big guys then your perfectly able to run a good army. Shame the points make the Cygor/Ghorgon a very expensive choice.

Gdolkin
06-02-2012, 14:07
Still surprised that no-one but me and Ibecks seems to find it remarkarble that the Ghorgon is just a Khornate-lookin' old skool Keeper of Secrets.. :eyebrows: I'm not sure what else there is to say about the fact, but it just intrigues me that GW have done this and 'got away with it', so to speak.. Imagine if the new Vargheist troop type for VC just looked exactly like large Bloodletters but without swords, y'know..?