new griffon model vs the previous model.

[Souppilgrim]

but a pegasus can realistically lift a man in full plate into the sky?

nope. it should be bigger too

[aldo_milo]

nope. it should be bigger too

you know a game with mythical creatures and magic, and improbable/impossible steam creations, i doubt what size a creature should be to realistically carry a man in full plate into the air probably isn't their biggest concern...just saying.

[woodster17]

I'm usually an avid defender of GW models. Not many that have ever been released that I don't like- I'm generally blinded by hobby love. Alas, this is an exception. It just looks... wrong. The Griffon's body parts seem out of proportion and the sculpting isn't quite as good. The Karl Franz figure doesn't really look regal enough for an emperor, looks kind of shabby. Might just be the studio paint job but still. That Griffon head is far too damn small.

[Sgt John Keel]

Love the new model. I think the old ones look weird because they are too small to realistically lift the rider, wearing full plate, into the air.

Realistically, they would probably not be able to lift themselves anyway.

As for the topic, it's a great model but it is not a model that fits with the Empire how I want it. It is just a pity GW feels it needs to stop selling the old versions nowadays.

[Scythe]

So yes, don't let the simplistic hybridisation fool you, these beasts are much more than just the sum of their parts, and for all purposes in this game, save transporting the models, bigger is better.

One interpretation of many. Mindlessly upscaling anything simply doesn't work; at one point, you cross a border in which your belief shatters. Mind that, with the general wingspan size of fantasy monsters, most of them could never fly anyway.
That aside, the current stats do not really do the bigger model justice imho. T5 and W5 is still not that impressive for a model that size; it fits the old model a lot better imho.

[Urgat]

Love the new model. I think the old ones look weird because they are too small to realistically lift the rider, wearing full plate, into the air.

The bigger the monster, the bigger the wings need to be. Bigger, exponentially. The new griffon is even less likely to lift off on its own that the older one was, if you want to be so nit-picky

[Souppilgrim]

The bigger the monster, the bigger the wings need to be. Bigger, exponentially. The new griffon is even less likely to lift off on its own that the older one was, if you want to be so nit-picky

I dunno, have you seen how big those wings are? Seriously though, if you are nitpicking the models, a tiny griffon doesn't look like it is able to carry as much as a big ass griffon. That's all.

[Dr Death]

One interpretation of many. Mindlessly upscaling anything simply doesn't work; at one point, you cross a border in which your belief shatters. Mind that, with the general wingspan size of fantasy monsters, most of them could never fly anyway.
That aside, the current stats do not really do the bigger model justice imho. T5 and W5 is still not that impressive for a model that size; it fits the old model a lot better imho.

But you concur on all my other points?

As i've already pointed out, there have been animals that have walked our earth that have been far bigger than ever the griffon is depicted as being here, granted none of the bracchiosaurs had wings (then again no large animal has ever had both forelimbs and wings but for the purpose of mythology we accept that suspension), but if we accept the suspension of disbelief in having dragons (which consistently are depicted as being tens if not hundreds of meters long) that are able to fly then a part avian mythological beast should be able to obtain fractionally large sizes and be able to do likewise. That the wingspan is not quite the full 'national geographic' expanse is a small concession to making the model (much like Jes Goodwin confessed his glorious cold ones actually have a truncated tail length)

As for rules, well i consider that to be a very lame reason to inhibit the growth of the monsters to a more 'accurate' or at least 'conceived' size. Rules should represent the models, the models shouldn't be constrained to represent the rules.

As an interesting additional note, while browsing wikipedia to get an overview of the sources of information on Griffons (or Griffins as they title their article), i came across a rather interesting quote concerning them from Sir John Mandeville, dated from the 14th century (i.e. slap bang in the middle of the medieval period from which GW draw their depiction of mythological beasts) from a book of his travels which is pretty explicit in describing their size and capabilities:

In that country be many griffins, more plenty than in any other country. Some men say that they have the body upward as an eagle and beneath as a lion; and truly they say sooth, that they be of that shape. But one griffin hath the body more great and is more strong than eight lions, of such lions as be on this half, and more great and stronger than an hundred eagles such as we have amongst us. For one griffin there will bear, flying to his nest, a great horse, if he may find him at the point, or two oxen yoked together as they go at the plough. For he hath his talons so long and so large and great upon his feet, as though they were horns of great oxen or of bugles or of kine, so that men make cups of them to drink of. And of their ribs and of the pens of their wings, men make bows, full strong, to shoot with arrows and quarrels.

While i haven't yet done the maths to determine how big a beast that's as big as eight lions crossed with a hundred eagles would turn out to be (although i'd be more than willing to give it a go) and while a single source is by no means authoritative on the nature of an ultimately fictional creature, it does give a compelling account of how griffons were percieved by an educated man of that period (and i assume this work would have been copied and shared by the literate of that period, so it certainly shows that real people did, at a time when these beasts were considered real consider them significantly larger than just a horse sized bird.

Dr Death

[the Goat]

That thing is a beast, how can one not love it?

The new griffon (and all the new plastic monsters) looks like a fisher price toy. I prefer models to be the proper scale.

[hashrat]

The metal Empire Griffon, looks the best of the lot to me.
Sadly I do not have one

[aldo_milo]

But you concur on all my other points?

As i've already pointed out, there have been animals that have walked our earth that have been far bigger than ever the griffon is depicted as being here, granted none of the bracchiosaurs had wings (then again no large animal has ever had both forelimbs and wings but for the purpose of mythology we accept that suspension), but if we accept the suspension of disbelief in having dragons (which consistently are depicted as being tens if not hundreds of meters long) that are able to fly then a part avian mythological beast should be able to obtain fractionally large sizes and be able to do likewise. That the wingspan is not quite the full 'national geographic' expanse is a small concession to making the model (much like Jes Goodwin confessed his glorious cold ones actually have a truncated tail length)

As for rules, well i consider that to be a very lame reason to inhibit the growth of the monsters to a more 'accurate' or at least 'conceived' size. Rules should represent the models, the models shouldn't be constrained to represent the rules.

As an interesting additional note, while browsing wikipedia to get an overview of the sources of information on Griffons (or Griffins as they title their article), i came across a rather interesting quote concerning them from Sir John Mandeville, dated from the 14th century (i.e. slap bang in the middle of the medieval period from which GW draw their depiction of mythological beasts) from a book of his travels which is pretty explicit in describing their size and capabilities:



While i haven't yet done the maths to determine how big a beast that's as big as eight lions crossed with a hundred eagles would turn out to be (although i'd be more than willing to give it a go) and while a single source is by no means authoritative on the nature of an ultimately fictional creature, it does give a compelling account of how griffons were percieved by an educated man of that period (and i assume this work would have been copied and shared by the literate of that period, so it certainly shows that real people did, at a time when these beasts were considered real consider them significantly larger than just a horse sized bird.

Dr Death

interesting quote, thanks for sharing.

and as to other creatures having lived been much larger than a modern tank yes there were, but that has no real bearing as i can see on the discussion. i'm willing to go a little larger than twice the size of a lion as a good size for a griffon, even three times the size of a lion for 'giant' griffons, and as there are giant squid today, Sir John Mandeville's account may have been of a beast of exceptional size. again, it was an interesting account. i may not be able to do the maths, but i can imagine a general size on a beast able to carry two oxen plus their yoke.

[loveless]

The new griffon (and all the new plastic monsters) looks like a fisher price toy. I prefer models to be the proper scale.

Er...they are the proper scale. If the riders and other "accessory" bits (skulls are popular decor, assuming they're real skulls and not just skull-shaped ornaments) match the size of the typical infantry of that breed, then it's just a big monster.

Also, find me a product from Fisher Price that has anywhere near the detail of a GW plastic kit.

----

I'm shocked at how many "Karl Franz on Deathclaw - previous version" defenders there are. That was one of the worst models GW ever put up for sale. I can't help but wonder if the rose-tinted glasses of age has clouded some memories here.

I also don't understand the issue with the size. I can understand the "Too big for a griffon" camp, sure - I mean, hey, they had to create a new statline for the dang thing! I don't understand the "Too big for Warhammer" camp. That side puzzles me - where are the rules set down as to how big a Warhammer model can and cannot be?

Frankly, I've always felt a 50mm base was too small for a monster in this game. Things don't start getting imposing until you put a monster on a chariot base or so for me - and even those need to have a fair bit of vertical growth to them to really feel threatening to most of the heroes.

[Urgat]

I'm shocked at how many "Karl Franz on Deathclaw - previous version" defenders there are. That was one of the worst models GW ever put up for sale. I can't help but wonder if the rose-tinted glasses of age has clouded some memories here.

Yes, thank you for making us see the light, Oh truthsayer!
"shrugs"
I can't help but wonder if some people realize not everybody share their tastes.

[the Goat]

Frankly, I've always felt a 50mm base was too small for a monster in this game. Things don't start getting imposing until you put a monster on a chariot base or so for me - and even those need to have a fair bit of vertical growth to them to really feel threatening to most of the heroes.

Have you even seen a horse in real life? I mean a full sized work horse (or warhorse if you can find one) not a riding pony. Real life horses are huge. Now in warhammer a horse is on a 25x50mm base. The old metal warhamer monsters were on 50x50mm bases. Actually the models were much larger than the 50x50mm bases (sticking out on all sides). If you extrapolate their real life size based on the 25x50mm == horse scale, the old metal warhammer monsters were plenty large enough. These new plastic monsters are way too big. They don't even look impressive on the table top. They look childish.

[loveless]

Yes, thank you for making us see the light, Oh truthsayer!
"shrugs"
I can't help but wonder if some people realize not everybody share their tastes.

Sometimes I forget that forumites forget the understood "In my opinion" at the beginning of posts, like the understood "you" at the start of an imperative sentence.

People are free to post their opinions (often without having to say it's just an opinion) and others are free to disagree or be confused by them (as I am confused by the love for the last Karl Franz and Deathclaw model ).

Have you even seen a horse in real life? I mean a full sized work horse (or warhorse if you can find one) not a riding pony. Real life horses are huge. Now in warhammer a horse is on a 25x50mm base. The old metal warhamer monsters were on 50x50mm bases. Actually the models were much larger than the 50x50mm bases (sticking out on all sides). If you extrapolate their real life size based on the 25x50mm == horse scale, the old metal warhammer monsters were plenty large enough. These new plastic monsters are way too big. They don't even look impressive on the table top. They look childish.

Er...yes, I've seen a horse in real life - the sort that pull large carts, wagons, etc. Are there people who haven't? (Not trying to be snarky, I just find them to be so common in parades, fairs, and circuses that it's hard to imagine someone not encountering a horse.)

2x Horse size is not terribly monstrous in terms of fantasy IN MY OPINION (there you go, Urgat ). Elephants might even be a bit small when I think of some monsters (though I'm sure a fully-outfitted war elephant would be horrifying to come across in battle). Dragons, certainly, should be larger than the wee little 50mm beasts the metals were. The plastic Zombie Dragon is about the only one that's felt "right" to me in terms of size.

Dragon Age might be a decent reference point - dragons in it are large, but managable. You think "that's big" but you don't get the feeling that you're in over your head (same thing with ogres and even broodmothers in that series). High Dragons (and the Archdaemon) are massive creatures that make you wish you had saved more recently.

*shrugs* None of this really matters, though - no one's opinions are going to suddenly change. That said, I still want to see the fancy Fisher Price toys everyone keeps drawing comparisons to - I might want to get some

[Torga_DW]

I'm not a fan of the new griffon, mainly because its so out of scale with the IoB one. I know they're supposed to be breeding them bigger in the zoo, but damn it looks like a steady diet of 'roids and protein shakes.

[Ludaman]

The emperor rides a bicycle seat. If you haven't looked at the model from behind, go look at the 360. Size issues aside, the emperor rides a bicycle seat...

[Urgat]

Sometimes I forget that forumites forget the understood "In my opinion" at the beginning of posts, like the understood "you" at the start of an imperative sentence.

Claiming we see things through rose-tinted glasses is hardly just an opinion: it's a judgement.

[aldo_milo]

how about we ignore and refrain from the personal implications...

i don't like the old karl franz, but i LOVE the metal model with the generic lord on top.

[Dr Death]

as to other creatures having lived been much larger than a modern tank yes there were, but that has no real bearing as i can see on the discussion

Well i'm wondering on what grounds you consider the Griffon too large. Traditionally comments on designs of mythological beasts in these contexts (i.e. supposed limitations on form) hang on biology- i.e. what is biologically possible- how a body is able to support weight, how it might feed, those kinds of things or it could be in regard to what the general consensus of the sources is (so if for example to take a very unlikely prospect, someone objected to the IOB griffon based on the fact that griffons are almost universally eagle-fronted rather than having the front half of a falcon). For the purposes of your claim that the Griffon is too large, i assumed you were basing it on something like that. If not is your argument then one of pure aesthetic taste? If so, while there's no accounting for it, i think i can put up a pretty comprehensive defence of the new griffon compared to the previous two metal models, so if that's the grounds we're working from in this debate, just say the word and i'll change my approach

Dr Death