PDA

View Full Version : Gav, take a look at this mini and tell me GW makes the best ones



dodicula
17-05-2007, 22:06
I need a doom-bull for my chaos army
which sculpt should I use:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/6/postid/164774/view/topic/Default.aspx
or
GWs sculpt

Could you even tell me its a hard choice with a straight face?

p.s. its also a clue about what GW can do for us "veterans"

The game is afoot
17-05-2007, 22:16
Dodicula, what have you done to me ???
Have you NO shame...??:eek:

Slopes off to get hat and harmonica and heads to tube station entrance to begin busking to save pennies for beautiful Minotaur model...

Yes Dodi, you made your point.
One enormous Minotaur please sir...:cool:

Nurglitch
17-05-2007, 22:17
What, sell Rackham's miniature line? ;)

The Dark One
17-05-2007, 22:24
got to admit that is a really cool looking model. but i also really look gw's doombull

dodicula
17-05-2007, 22:24
TGIF

my stat line
M WS BS S T I A LD Shame
4" 3 2 3 3 3 1 8 1

So as you can see I have some shame but not a lot

Jon_Irenicus
17-05-2007, 22:26
Taking into account how outdated those particular minis in GW's range are, this isn't a surprise. Also, given GW's model range, you can't exactly hope they'll correct bad sculpts on short notice if the models weren't that popular to begin with. I remember that when the Minotaur Lord came out it was a very good miniature.

Likewise, I thought the first Archaon was nice back then.

Also, the sculpt you showed looks doesn't look that good. It's got rich detail, but some of it largely exaggerated. They put a half-face on top of the shoulder guard, and then slap on celtic imagery probably because it looks savage (the face evokes elements of the Greek civilization, to whose mitology the Minotaur belongs) making all that detail, while nicely sculpted, look like something that's there to feed the eyes. I have a gripe with this part, but that's just me ;)

But if you want proof that the sculpting is bad, compare the head to the rest of the body. A beast like this one would be able to walk as much as a 3 months old baby. Plus, the pose is awful. The middle picture in the right side shows how much it sucks.

Try taking a look at the Shaggoth miniature. Way cooler, way better, though lacks some detail. Also, don't forget that today's sculpting is much better thanks to advances in technology.

And you don't need to call Gav to the forum just because you like this one miniature :)

scarletsquig
17-05-2007, 22:28
Nah, don't like it... clunky armour plates and that over-etched armour style that Rackham plasters all over every bloody thing they make.

It just looks too clean to be a beastial creature - it looks like it's wearing elven armour.

There's even a smooth human face sculpted organically into the shoulder pad.. for no real reason. I'm always left wondering if the Rackham sculptors get models sent back when they have smooth areas on them and get told "add more unneccesary detail! 50 more engraved celtic knots all over the thing and it'll be perfect!"

Not a bad sculpt, but the GW minotaur lord still beats it - it's one of the nicest sculpts out of the whole 5th edition beastmen range.

The game is afoot
17-05-2007, 22:30
I love the face coming out of the shoulder armour.
It's a phenomenal sculpt, I have to have one.
When Rackham get it right they really get it right.
I'm wavering on who is doing the the best sculpts at the moment... I don't know if they are coming from Rackham or Gamezone.

dodicula
17-05-2007, 22:32
.
And you don't need to call Gav to the forum just because you like this one miniature :)

I could show him 20 or 30 but thought I'd break it to him slowly :cool:

dodicula
17-05-2007, 22:34
TGIF

The thing about rackham is the speed, the come out with 8-10 new sculpts a month one or two "fives" 4-6 "sevens or eights" and one or two that will absolutely floor you

Jon_Irenicus
17-05-2007, 22:38
I could show him 20 or 30 but thought I'd break it to him slowly :cool:

Fair enough ;)


TGIF

The thing about rackham is the speed, the come out with 8-10 new sculpts a month one or two "fives" 4-6 "sevens or eights" and one or two that will absolutely floor you

I donīt rate Rackham that high, some of the models are excellent and the nice painting of the Rackham studios also help them. Don't forget that they're a company with a much smaller game, so less miniatures, and most (if not 95%) are metal, so they handle detail a lot better. And the scale seems somewhat bigger than GW, though I could be wrong. GW is more on a squad level, while Rackham is more on a individual level.

Templar Ben
17-05-2007, 22:43
Nah, don't like it... clunky armour plates and that over-etched armour style that Rackham plasters all over every bloody thing they make.

It just looks too clean to be a beastial creature - it looks like it's wearing elven armour.

There's even a smooth human face sculpted organically into the shoulder pad.. for no real reason. I'm always left wondering if the Rackham sculptors get models sent back when they have smooth areas on them and get told "add more unneccesary detail! 50 more engraved celtic knots all over the thing and it'll be perfect!"

Not a bad sculpt, but the GW minotaur lord still beats it - it's one of the nicest sculpts out of the whole 5th edition beastmen range.

Sort of like 40k sticking skulls on everything?

Damien 1427
17-05-2007, 22:48
Frankly, whilst the Doombull looks like ****, that's not much better. I'd rather just convert my own, or buy the Heresy one, which I consider a nice model for a nice price sold by a great guy.

The game is afoot
17-05-2007, 23:50
I'm smelling fanboyism of the highest order.
Guys, that is a phenomenal sculpt, it destroys the poor old GW Doombull, which to be fair is a lovely model but it's not in the same league with this creation.

swordwind
18-05-2007, 00:32
I'm smelling fanboyism of the highest order.
Guys, that is a phenomenal sculpt, it destroys the poor old GW Doombull, which to be fair is a lovely model but it's not in the same league with this creation.

What he said.

scarletsquig
18-05-2007, 00:50
Yes, anyone that expresses an honest opinion about what they think of a particular model is automatically a fanboy.

You do realise the absolute hypocrisy of that statement, coming from you, TGIA?

I'd nominate you as the biggest fanboy on the entire forum with regards to AoA, and I don't think many people would disagree with me.

Dargon
18-05-2007, 01:04
Usually I'm not very impressed when threads like these link to a model, boasting how much better it is than GW's... but this one is definately something special. Simply stunning.:cool:

I agree with some of the criticisms expressed about the armour being too clean and well crafted for a Warhammer Doombull, but then this model isn't designed to fit into GW's world.

I don't get why Gav is specifically singled out though as needing to see this model, since he is not a sculptor, and "GW make the best models" is the company line spouted by all GW employees (it's hardly in their interests to admit otherwise and promote the competition is it;) ). It was only a couple of months back that Jervis devoted an entire two pages in White Dwarf on the history of Citadel Miniatures, spouting that company line the whole way.

Just a thought...

Minister
18-05-2007, 01:13
Whilst I far prefer the GW style of miniature (clunky, exaggerated proportions) to the Rackham one (thin, exagerated poses), I will readily concede that they do some very nice sculpts indeed.

Charax
18-05-2007, 01:34
News flash: Other company produces models!

Which sculpt should you use? Whatever the hell you like, but it's just plain rude to tell another member of the forum to look at your thread. And I doubt Gav has ever actually said "GW make the best models ever".

Woo, Rackham have a nice new sculpt. Big deal.
(personally I like it except for the armour patterning and the horns).

Don't antagonize Gav. We're lucky he bothers to post here, I doubt he does it so you can go "Hey, look, this company makes better stuff than yours does so there!"


I'd nominate you as the biggest fanboy on the entire forum with regards to AoA, and I don't think many people would disagree with me.
Indeed they would not. I have no love for the vast majority of GW's models, but I do like the Doombull. I bought one when I rolled up a minotaur for my Path to Glory warband (yes, some of us still play PTG).

The game is afoot
18-05-2007, 05:42
I'd nominate you as the biggest fanboy on the entire forum with regards to AoA, and I don't think many people would disagree with me.

AoA is a ruleset and I 'am' very fond of it, no question, however it does not make any 28mm miniatures so I have no bias when it comes to figure ranges.
I probably own more GW fantasy minis than anyone on Warseer (I'm being serious here for a change) , I also happen to own a lot of other manufacturers miniatures as well and I attend trade shows regularly.
If it's good, I like it, if it's very good I like it even more.
In pure sculpting terms, which is all we can really go on because the beast isn't painted yet, that Minotaur is sensational.
If it came out in GW packaging they wouldn't be able to make enough of them to meet demand in the first few weeks of it hitting the shelves.

angora
18-05-2007, 05:45
The beast of which we speak is meant to be a creature called an Archon (IIRC). It is part of the army of the Concorde of the Eagle, a force of neutrally aligned troops consisting of Centaurs, Dwarves, Orcs etc (who are neutral in Rackham's Universe) so he'd not be very savage in appearance and would, in fact, be quite refined.
To give perspective I generally prefer Rackham's models these days. GW used to produce the best but now I believe Rackham do. I prefer the weird and wonderful things they come up with - compare, if you will, the wood elf line and the Rackham Equivalent, the Daikinee. I believe (note the "I") that the Rackham models look both more ethereal and more savage. Some of the Daikinee do blow somewhat - but I think more of the wood elves do ;-)
On the flip side the mechanics of their models often suck (1mm joins that MUST be pinned in some cases) and their casting can sometimes be a bit naff.
I prefer the more dynamic poses Rack make but sometimes they do go overboard. GW models are by far easier both to construct and paint and are better suited to the gaming table.
When all is said and done it's a matter of taste and I would never criticise anyone for preferring GW. It'd be like bagging someone out 'cos they prefer Bourbon to Beer - they're just different.

Cheers

The game is afoot
18-05-2007, 05:53
I prefer the more dynamic poses Rack make but sometimes they do go overboard.

Thats because their models are for a skirmish game so they don't have the extra burden of being designed to rank up.


GW models are by far easier to construct ...

Oh really? Have you ever attempted to put a TK Screaming Skull Catapult together? Have a go at that sometime.


When all is said and done it's a matter of taste and I would never criticise anyone for preferring GW.

If it was simply a matter of taste I couldn't agree more, however some folk struggle to separate brand loyalty from taste if you know what I mean?;)

Jon_Irenicus
18-05-2007, 06:08
Thats because their models are for a skirmish game so they don't have the extra burden of being designed to rank up.

Precisely. Whereas Rackham can put a lot more love into a single miniature. And most of GW's sculpts need to serve a lot more interests, hence, they are more customizeable.


Oh really? Have you ever attempted to put a TK Screaming Skull Catapult together? Have a go at that sometime.

I haven't, the worst kit ever was the Landspeeder. Since I haven't tried other manufacturers, I wouldn't know.




If it was simply a matter of taste I couldn't agree more, however some folk struggle to separate brand loyalty from taste if you know what I mean?;)

I agree with you, but not all the way. While I've seen some fanboyism displayed (not on this particular thread, though) I've also noticed that the current trend is to label anyone who defends anything related to GW (not GW itself, or it's principles) as a fanboy.
It's a retarded argument, and bringing it up is like digging t. paper from the toilet. Used, old and smelly. Let's face it, you can only use it so many times (not meaning to pick on you, I just saw a good opportunity for a catch-phrase ;) ).

I don't like GW's Doombull, but it's an old miniature that shows it's age. This Rackham sculpt tries to be a bold statement and ends up being pretty bland. Picture it for it's lines only, and it's quite boring. Plus, it completely lacks any notion of proportion, and the only explanation for such atrophied pair of legs would be the complete failure of Mother Nature's law of Gravity to produce an effect on that 'orrible beasty.

The game is afoot
18-05-2007, 06:18
It's a fair cop.

Hellebore
18-05-2007, 06:55
I think it looks pretty cool. I'm not too keen on the small legs, but the shoulders and detail is excellent.

I've always thought that Rackham's miniatures were very arty, they look a little surreal. Their concepts are in a similar vein. Their scale also makes the miniatures much more imposing and detailed.

A nice series for a collection on the shelf me thinks.

Hellebore

Destris
18-05-2007, 07:29
I probably own more GW fantasy minis than anyone on Warseer

Yeah, you wanna bet? Deadley has a fair load if 40K counts, and if not you want to see the load of unpainted plastic and lead I have in the corner. :eek:

D.

The game is afoot
18-05-2007, 08:36
Yeah, you wanna bet? .

I'll take that bet, it's a bit unfair though, my mates call me GW Acton, I've got over 30,000 individual miniatures, yes, I am that sad.
I have flogged off several thousand 40K models and I am intending to continue shrinking my GW collection and to continue bringing in new models from the up and coming competitors like Rackham, Gamezone, Privateer Press, Freebooter, Avatars of War, Crocodile Games, Reaper Miniatures, Front Rank Figurines, Vendel, Eureka, Heresy, Westwind models, some Black Tree etc...

Thanatos_elNyx
18-05-2007, 10:01
It ain't all that. If I gots it I would have to convert the bottom half as those legs are far too small!

Jedi152
18-05-2007, 10:20
It's nice, but it doesn't suit the GW minotaur image. It needs more ramshackle armour.


Frankly, whilst the Doombull looks like ****, that's not much better. I'd rather just convert my own, or buy the Heresy one, which I consider a nice model for a nice price sold by a great guy.
If anyone wants the Heresy one, i've got one i don't want. And yes, the guy is great, my friend went to his house to talk minis - he lives in Derby.

Thommy H
18-05-2007, 10:24
It's almost useless to use Rackham as an example of 'better figures' than Games Workshop's - the style is too different. They're scaled differently, for a start (Rackham claims to be '28mm heroic', but anyone who owns one of them can see they're closer to 30 or maybe even 32mm) and the detail and posing is from a different school of design from GW figures. Plus they're all metal, and intended for a skirmish game, and are as reliant on the imagery of their own universe as GW's are on theirs. In other words, if you hold up any Rackham figure as something to aspire to, any GW fanboy/employee will just say "apples and oranges" - and he's right.

Now, if you were to link pictures of manufacturers who just produce better sculpts without relaying on distorted proportions or really excellent paint jobs (all that NMM on Rackham's stuff makes some of the figures look a lot better than they are...) then you'd have a point.

How about Kev White's http://www.hasslefreeminiatures.co.uk/

or Andy Foster's http://heresyminiatures.com/

There are dozens of others out there - Freebooter, Wyrd, Spyglass etc. etc. Hell, I'd even take a lot of Privateer Press sculpts over GW's current crop.

The point is not "wow, omg Rackham" here - you need less extreme examples of better figures if you want to make your point.

Morris
18-05-2007, 10:33
There is a reason you aren't allowed non-GW minis in tournaments :D

theunwantedbeing
18-05-2007, 10:39
Sorry....I fail to see the brilliance of that particular model.
Poorly proportioned...too much up top,not enough supporting it all.
Cant really see what sort of scale its at either.

Non-GW models are all well and good but that always look very out of place when placed next to GW models.....which does detract from the voeral quality of the model.

Bombot
18-05-2007, 10:41
Beast of Chaos aren't really my bag, but I do like this that Rackham model. That said, it does remind me of...

http://mag.awn.com/issue7.08/7.08images/wright01_johnnyBravo.gif

Revlid
18-05-2007, 10:44
Nic enough, I guess. Exaggerated proportions just don't do it for me.

Mikhaila
18-05-2007, 10:50
Not a bad model, and I would probably paint it up if I was doing minos, just to have another different model in the army. I don't see any reason for comparison. The GW model is years old, the Rackham one isn't even out yet, how can you compare them from a sculpting point of veiw?

Sleazy
18-05-2007, 10:56
tis quite nice, so is the GW Mino Lord tho.

Heresys beats the hell outta both of them, take a look

http://www.heresyminiatures.com/images/hm001_2.jpg

Jedi152
18-05-2007, 11:04
It also has the option of 2 axes.

And behind that loincloth it's ... err ... anatomically correct.

Agamemnon2
18-05-2007, 11:36
TGIF

The thing about rackham is the speed, the come out with 8-10 new sculpts a month one or two "fives" 4-6 "sevens or eights" and one or two that will absolutely floor you

GW has never released a 10. But one time, they released five 2's.

(And they called them... Possessed.)

Tyron
18-05-2007, 11:41
Does this count? http://coolminiornot.com/158378

KITS AND BITS
18-05-2007, 12:09
i love the top half of the body , the detail is great , the celtic work looks great and the face in the shoulder plate and the hair looks great , but i have to agree with others , the sculpter really should have bought more putty , it could have stood another 15mm higher maybe even 25 mm (hard to say without handeling it ) and its legs would need to be seriously thicker and well muscled to support that upper body .
its a great effort but unfair to compare it to the GW model which must be over 10 years old .
i would put money on GW being able to sculpt a better in proportion model that this rackham model if they wanted to , you only have to look at the likes of shaggoth and the plastic giant to see that gw can do monsters , and everyone always forgets forgeworld is part of gw and the three greater deamons are possibly some of the best sculpting do0ne by the hands of man IMHO.

yes i am a fan boy , but GW give me good reason.

Also it has to be noted that most of the new up and comming companies are delibrately producing models that people could use in FB/40K , some do have the balls to produce stuff for their own universes and others blatantly (avatars of war for example) are producing stuff that borders on breaking copyright law.

McMullet
18-05-2007, 12:17
Whilst this is indeed a nice model, I don't think it would fit with other WHFB models. Specifically, the rest of the beastmen models, which I rather like.

Also, it seems a bit over the top to use this forum to demand answers from particular GW studio staff just because they occasionally post here.

Jedi152
18-05-2007, 12:19
Also, it seems a bit over the top to use this forum to demand answers from particular GW studio staff just because they occasionally post here.
Indeed. Way to encourage other staffers to post here! :rolleyes:

Cepro
18-05-2007, 12:33
GW's Minotaurlord is somewhere around 6. I have always thought GW's Minotaurs were plain ugly. They look more like a troll with a bull's head. They don't even have hooves. Well, the lord at least has some more or less interesting details, so its's not just a 5.
Rackhams minotaur has a lot of interesting details, the pose is ok. But the head is a bit too big. In Rackhams universe minotaurs aren't originally from Arklaash and are supposed to be very intelligent and civlized. Only some of them have degeneratet from living on Arklaash for too long. So the clean look actually fits the miniature, since this specific minotaur is an Archont(?), so is one of the Minotaurs that have not degeneratet. I'd say the miniature is somewhere around an 8.
As to Heresy's Minotaur... sorry but it is even uglier than GW's. Would be a 4 from me.
But well, thats only what I think.

sheck2
18-05-2007, 14:27
News flash: Other company produces models!

Woo, Rackham have a nice new sculpt. Big deal.



Ditto...

I like both mdoels...comparing model to model is, IMO, a 'p@ssing' contest...let's not go there.

You might as well ask - Which is better Coke or Pepsi? Blonds or Brunnettes? Salt or Pepper?

:)

Captain_Wolverine
18-05-2007, 14:34
I so want one anyone know when it is released and I good UK based shop to get it from?


some do have the balls to produce stuff for their own universes and others blatantly (avatars of war for example) are producing stuff that borders on breaking copyright law.

The who does AoW use to work for GW, I believe his sculpts are the way he would have liked to sculpt for GW but they won't let him so that I believe on eof the reason s he is doing it, but don't take my word for it as I am not sure I am right.

I like GW sculpts but I prefer AoW more they put more character into the heroes, Like this Rackham Minotaur is great jammed full of character. The only problems I see (coming form a biologist view point) with its the legs are to small (needs to be more muscular) but hoofs are fine could be larger but bovine hoofs are retalively small any way, and the head is more equine than bovine (e.g. to long).

Dr Death
18-05-2007, 14:49
Back in the day, the GW minotaur lord was a veritable pin-up of a model and dont you forget it. It's still pretty funky today though the sculpt has aged. I can appreciate the sculpting prowess of Rackham's model and it certainly looks like it'll paint up nicely but it's certainly not my kind of model.

Dr Death

nanktank
18-05-2007, 15:24
I think GW are in a very dangerous position at least with the vets that I know as the tournaments we attend dont stipulate that ony GW miniatures can be used. Now that there is decent competition at a reasonable price, with fantastic sculpts like this minotaur coming out they will need improve things.

Bubble Ghost
18-05-2007, 15:50
Why is this addressed to Gav?

What the hell, while we're at it: Gav, who has scored the most hat-tricks in top flight English football?

Gav, can you tell me the maximum number of digits pi has been calculated to?

Gav, what are the fundamental differences between the three major Abrahamic faiths?

*crosses fingers*

Bloodknight
18-05-2007, 15:52
I donīt like that one. Far too topheavy and as most Rackham sculpts spindly legs. The GW mino lord isnīt great anymore, but this one isnīt more beautiful either. The pose and proportions are ridiculous.

Templar Ben
18-05-2007, 15:55
Ditto...

I like both mdoels...comparing model to model is, IMO, a 'p@ssing' contest...let's not go there.

You might as well ask - Which is better Coke or Pepsi? Blonds or Brunnettes? Salt or Pepper?

:)

Redheads are the best. Brunettes know better and blondes are just redheads without the passion.



This does seem more and more like flaming since it was directed at one person in particular. That doesn't exactly foster a sense of community.

Carot
18-05-2007, 17:59
I was a bit put off by the title of the thread as well.

Why bother Gav about somebody else's model. We all know Rackham makes good stuff, no news there.

Maybe you should have said something along the lines of "Why doesn't GW hire some better sculptors?". Which is a fair question.

Gods, we've been bashing GW a bit non-stop around here. It's getting old. Maybe we should adjust the forum rules or something to cut the "angry at GW" threads back.

On the Rackham subject...I absolutely love my Ninja Goblins. But they don't fit into the GW range at all, and I wouldn't want them to either.

I forsee a mod coming to reprimand us all in the near future.
:chrome:

Eversor
18-05-2007, 18:05
Redheads are the best. Brunettes know better and blondes are just redheads without the passion.
Truer words have seldom been spoken! Err ... written. In digital. Whatever.
Oh, and the minotaur? Big nose, small legs, awkward pose. Crisp details, though. But I hardly ever like Rackham's concepts. Too arty ;)

Agamemnon2
18-05-2007, 20:30
Gods, we've been bashing GW a bit non-stop around here. It's getting old. Maybe we should adjust the forum rules or something to cut the "angry at GW" threads back.

I'd say the reason GW-bashing is up again is because they are giving us a reason. To try to curtail the expression of our justified grievances would be an act of censorship. While the Warseer Inquisition is free to impose whatever conditions of posting they like, insisting what we all try to be nice about our dislikes and peeves is tantamount to idiocy.

t-tauri
18-05-2007, 20:36
To try to curtail the expression of our justified grievances would be an act of censorship. While the Warseer Inquisition is free to impose whatever conditions of posting they like, insisting what we all try to be nice about our dislikes and peeves is tantamount to idiocy.
You can express whatever "grievances" you like so long as it's done within the limits of the forum rules.

This thread is closed before it descends into trolling and flaming.

t-tauri

The Warseer Inquisition