a very anonymous source on Faeit 212 wrote:current GW managerial chart says that's Smaug wasn't good enough for the studio, so GW have had to go back to the drawing board, moving current releases forward so they don't miss the Christmas release window, Nids moving up to Dec, dwarfs in Jan 2014.
They'll still do the collectors releases for the hobbit, scenes from the film and such, just no new hobbit box.
Personal comment:
1.) Christmas release window? Other than LOTR and Hobbit things (due to movie release) GW never had a new army release in December, to concentrate on general Chrismas sales (the one month in the year, where they don't treat already released stuff as unworthy to mention).
2.) Smaug not good enough. Okay, all Hobbit stuff is not good enough for a management that deems profit marges from redone metal and Finecast models not big enough.
3.) On the other side, that will keep us with the current Limited Edition Hobbit box, which certainly is not good enough either and one reason for killing the Hobbit tabletop (doubling prices is the other).
4.) Can't be a recent decision, as December WD is already done for 3 months and at the printers.
Was there ever going to be three boxes? I think the studio decision to switch from two films to three didn't help those with licensing deals.
I have no proof but I base this theory on the way the Lego sets were released last year. On the story scale they went upto the barrel escape from the Elvenking's Hall, because if they stayed with movie time scale, they would not have released lego characters of all the dwarves.
I assume GW may have originally planned Goblin Town for one box and Five Armies for the second....then they got stuck with WTF! THREE FILMS. I also think that is why there have been comparitively few releases in the last 12 months. Things like Mirkwood Spiders have had to be delayed.
Smaug wasn't good enough? Now i'm not a fan of the Hobbit game, however being my favourite book of all time, I was going to grab a Smaug model if it was released for that Christmas day boredom buster. Don't know how they say Smaug wouldn't be good enough, him and Beorn are gonna be stunning models.
I can certainly see New Line making a (very) late call on whether a model was acceptable
(especially if GW spend a chunk of time trying to get them to change their minds)
so having a printed WD with stuff in that ends up not appearing (or worse still means the magazine gets pulped and re-printed shipping out late) is totally believable
I'm less convinced they'd be able to get all the stuff for Tyranids out a month early... yes it would be 'finished' but I'm not sure they could get all the logistics done fast enough (especially as they've been failing to do so for their regularly scheduled releases this year)
(especially if GW spend a chunk of time trying to get them to change their minds)
so having a printed WD with stuff in that ends up not appearing (or worse still means the magazine gets pulped and re-printed shipping out late) is totally believable
I'm less convinced they'd be able to get all the stuff for Tyranids out a month early... yes it would be 'finished' but I'm not sure they could get all the logistics done fast enough (especially as they've been failing to do so for their regularly scheduled releases this year)
My first thought exactly.
I wouldn't put it past GW management to let any old nonsense out the door just to capitalise, but this decision wouldn't be down solely to internal authority, so that makes it plausible IMO.
I'm less worried about a new Hobbit box and more worried that GW are going to attempt another 300+ page hardback rulebook. 3 rulebooks for the LOTR Triology at least made some sense; each film had a very different array of forces, heroes and scenarios, so each new book introduced quite a few new concepts. The three Hobbit films? Not so much.
alphaecho wrote: I assume GW may have originally planned Goblin Town for one box and Five Armies for the second....then they got stuck with WTF! THREE FILMS. I also think that is why there have been comparitively few releases in the last 12 months. Things like Mirkwood Spiders have had to be delayed.
I think this is quite likely, especially given the required lead time on plastic kits.
Chad Warden wrote: The fact the "Limited Edition" of Goblin Town is still up for grabs a year later should tell you something.
It doesn't tell you nearly as much as the fact that some FLGS (or at least mine) are no longer forced to carry a number of Hobbit boxes in order to remain a GW stockist.
Since I joined the hobby (back about when the first LoTRs models were in that magazine) every store that carried GW products had to carry starter sets and basic troops for all factions of all 3 games. Now that appears to have changed, which can't be a good sign.
Chad Warden wrote: The fact the "Limited Edition" of Goblin Town is still up for grabs a year later should tell you something.
It doesn't tell you nearly as much as the fact that some FLGS (or at least mine) are no longer forced to carry a number of Hobbit boxes in order to remain a GW stockist.
Since I joined the hobby (back about when the first LoTRs models were in that magazine) every store that carried GW products had to carry starter sets and basic troops for all factions of all 3 games. Now that appears to have changed, which can't be a good sign.
Last years Hobbit gak was a joke that nobody cared about. Year later and my FLGS still has original delivery unsold Hobbit boxes, and he won't be ordering anymore. GW should give up. They won't repeat the LOTR success.
I'm surprised the GWstapo hasn't arrived to round up remaining boxes and burn them like Dreadfleet.
My area had a really good lotr community. In my local gw you were far more likely to get a game of 40k or lotr than fantasy. Hobbit was released a year ago and now getting a game of lotr is nigh on impossible.
Lotr was actually quite a good game in small points values but now its dead I wish gw would just leave it alone and stop pretending they have improved it.
whitehorn wrote: My area had a really good lotr community. In my local gw you were far more likely to get a game of 40k or lotr than fantasy. Hobbit was released a year ago and now getting a game of lotr is nigh on impossible.
Lotr was actually quite a good game in small points values but now its dead I wish gw would just leave it alone and stop pretending they have improved it.
LOTR was always a great game, but the number of players fell off a cliff around six years ago. It looks like GW are taking a bath, but in this case I reckon the villains are New Line.
All the merch of Hobbit is extortionate - they're treating these movies as a cash cow where the money's already banked. Worse than that, the movie sucks: poor fan fiction that misses everything good about the book.
If this is true about Nids getting moved up I'll be a happy chappy, but this cries out salt to me.
Not for New Line saying the Smaug model was rubbish (that is completely plausible as they do have the final say of what goes on with the range), but for the issues of WD that have already been printed with Hobbit stuff in them.
If true, this has got to be a major headache for GW.
whitehorn wrote: My area had a really good lotr community. In my local gw you were far more likely to get a game of 40k or lotr than fantasy. Hobbit was released a year ago and now getting a game of lotr is nigh on impossible.
Lotr was actually quite a good game in small points values but now its dead I wish gw would just leave it alone and stop pretending they have improved it.
LOTR was always a great game, but the number of players fell off a cliff around six years ago. It looks like GW are taking a bath, but in this case I reckon the villains are New Line.
All the merch of Hobbit is extortionate - they're treating these movies as a cash cow where the money's already banked. Worse than that, the movie sucks: poor fan fiction that misses everything good about the book.
Yeah I know what you mean. It was the lotr army books which really bought the interest back in my area - which is odd as I know they were mega unpopular with most players in general.
I'm just hopeful about the models coming out for the last film. Battle of 5 armies has to bring some love back to the game.
Atm the storyline and cast is just too small scale to inspire any real interest in big games in the same way no one enjoyed playing fellowship vs goblins in lotr.
gorgon wrote:I may be completely wrong about this, but GW's actions generally seem to suggest that they're not 100% all-in with The Hobbit. If they've indeed moved the release of the next Hobbit set out of December, I don't think that's a small deal.
There will be no new Hobbit box in December.
Only question is, if there will be Tyranids.
THEY HAVE NO CHOICE THEY HAVE A CONTRACT WITH NEW LINE.They are making the box.Where did this rumor come from anyway?
Kroothawk wrote:There will be no new Hobbit starter this December. Call me the source, if you want.
Seems, there will indeed be no Hobbit starter box in December, but a book and a few splash release blisters and boxes, including 4 splash release plastics (2 blisters and 2 boxes):
No new box...Well at least the bugs didn't steal December.And that's what's important.But like I have stated before how would smaug have affected the existence of a box?Would GW put a thunderhawk vs a cultist/13 HQ?No?Then why would they put smaug vs Bilbo/The dwarves?It looks like GW are going for another triumph and treachery with escalation aren't they(look at the price.It probably slaps super heavys in like lord of war in Horus heresy.)?On the subject of the hobbit:It could have sold really well.If they hadn't slapped a Tenner on the box prices and then did everything they could to ignore the game.BTW:Kroothawk you were right.Sadly...
If GW managed to miss the release because the studio rejected their Smaug sculpt, then it has to be the biggest feth up in the history of licensed miniatures market.
That model should have been ready and approved a year ago.
His Master's Voice wrote: If GW managed to miss the release because the studio rejected their Smaug sculpt, then it has to be the biggest feth up in the history of licensed miniatures market.
That model should have been ready and approved a year ago.
Makes me kinda sceptic.
It shouldn't.
We had a major plot point of "The Two Towers" (and "Return of the King" come to think of it) spoiled because of model sculpts being done before the movie came out. The release list we have currently would seem to imply that the Elves are playing a pretty major part in "The Desolation of Smaug"--but that has already kind of been spoiled in the trailers. Notice how careful they have been in regards to how Smaug actually looks though. I kind of expect to see Smaug come out in February or March.
Since Smaug is SFX anyway it's not impossible that the original design document given to GW to design the mini from were changed to make Smaug look better on film after they'd started
so the mini no longer looked like the dragon on the screen and needed a swift redesign
alphaecho wrote: Was there ever going to be three boxes? I think the studio decision to switch from two films to three didn't help those with licensing deals.
I have no proof but I base this theory on the way the Lego sets were released last year. On the story scale they went upto the barrel escape from the Elvenking's Hall, because if they stayed with movie time scale, they would not have released lego characters of all the dwarves.
I assume GW may have originally planned Goblin Town for one box and Five Armies for the second....then they got stuck with WTF! THREE FILMS. I also think that is why there have been comparitively few releases in the last 12 months. Things like Mirkwood Spiders have had to be delayed.
Think you are pretty much spot on with this. The deal to switch from 2 to 3 movies so late, and then to move the release of the third movie back 5 months just a few months ago must be playing havoc with everyone who has a licensing deal, GW included.
Especially as plastic products usually need 2 years of production time.
GW probably wanted to release a Battle of the five armies box this December, but noone can keep pace with all the changes Peter Jackson makes
MWHU HA HA HA HA HA take that nid players!That's what you get for trying to sneak into our release month!HA HA HA HA HA!(Insert evil laughter)
It is a Hobbit month because a Hobbit release doesn't interfer with sales That's why they throw away the expensive plastic moulds soon and make plastics a "while supply lasts" release.
In January, everyone has time to concentrate on the real thing
We had a major plot point of "The Two Towers" (and "Return of the King" come to think of it) spoiled because of model sculpts being done before the movie came out. The release list we have currently would seem to imply that the Elves are playing a pretty major part in "The Desolation of Smaug"--but that has already kind of been spoiled in the trailers. Notice how careful they have been in regards to how Smaug actually looks though. I kind of expect to see Smaug come out in February or March.
We had a major plot point of "The Two Towers" (and "Return of the King" come to think of it) spoiled because of model sculpts being done before the movie came out. The release list we have currently would seem to imply that the Elves are playing a pretty major part in "The Desolation of Smaug"--but that has already kind of been spoiled in the trailers. Notice how careful they have been in regards to how Smaug actually looks though. I kind of expect to see Smaug come out in February or March.
We had a major plot point of "The Two Towers" (and "Return of the King" come to think of it) spoiled because of model sculpts being done before the movie came out. The release list we have currently would seem to imply that the Elves are playing a pretty major part in "The Desolation of Smaug"--but that has already kind of been spoiled in the trailers. Notice how careful they have been in regards to how Smaug actually looks though. I kind of expect to see Smaug come out in February or March.
What were they?
The elves at Helms Deep.
The trailer did those anyway.When aragorn fell of the cliff I was like:I saw him at helms deep in the trailer he'l be fine.
Those elves are actually pretty cool, I like the look of the Palace Guard especially. The new Legolas and Thranduil are also good. I'm not sure about some of the proportions on the rangers, but aesthetically they're quite nice.
Regardless, at what seems to be £30 a box for 10 single-pose figures, I'll pass (like most of the hobbit stuff, which is a shame as some of them are great figures). I also don't see why the resin Thranduil is cheaper than the plastic Legolas. How can they justify Finecast as a premium product (quality concerns aside) if it's actually the cheaper option?
The spiders are really a bit of a joke, to be honest. Nothing really to set them apart from the cheap plastic spider toys you could buy from a toy shop by the dozen and paint up, especially for the price they are at.
I can see Barrels Out of Bond making a nice diorama if someone were to make the effort, but the price again is a bit steep for something that has no use on the table. Certainly more of a collectors piece, but even then, £50 for 14 models (well, half-models) is a bit much.
It really is a shame that LOTR/The Hobbit is dying out, and pricing the kits like this doesn't really help.
I'm not all that surprised by no Smaug (big box or not) as they've been very careful about keeping him hidden in the press. The big problem facing the production for me is that the Perry Twins have moved away from GW main lines but Peter Jackson is a fan of theirs so they do the main heroes. Also whilst it seems very few people play the game in store these releases pander to collectors. I'm actually pleased to see no new "box of dwarves" (apart from the obvious collectors piece) as that could have been a bit of a cash cow. One thing I am curious about is Thrain the Broken, in the book Thrain was found in the dungeons of the Necromancer by Gandalf but that was before the events in the book as that was where he got the map. I could see that there could be reprisals after Gandalf was given the map but didn't bring Thorin to him. Beorn looks duff compared to the photos I've seen of him online. His hair is much more pointy and I would have thought they would have had him as a Bear rather than his man form. As others have said the spiders are a bit lame but I guess they had to make something that was distinct from the Warhammer Fantasy goblin mounts. All told it looks rather dated but then I suspect they've been sculpted by had as opposed to the CAD designs which we have come to expect in GWs other lines.
Bloodwin wrote: As others have said the spiders are a bit lame but I guess they had to make something that was distinct from the Warhammer Fantasy goblin mounts. All told it looks rather dated but then I suspect they've been sculpted by had as opposed to the CAD designs which we have come to expect in GWs other lines.
Remember that GW didn't design the spiders, they have to match the designs used in the film. If you don't like the design of the spiders, blame Peter Jackson.
Avian wrote: IIRC, the Balrog was also released in February, two months after the movie came out.
I don't recall the Balrog having a large promotional statue made of him. We literally did not know what he looked like until you watched the film. Smaug OTOH...
Spoiler:
It's no secret (compared to the Balrog) what he'll look like.
Avian wrote: IIRC, the Balrog was also released in February, two months after the movie came out.
I don't recall the Balrog having a large promotional statue made of him. We literally did not know what he looked like until you watched the film. Smaug OTOH...
Spoiler:
It's no secret (compared to the Balrog) what he'll look like.
Actually we have only seen parts of Smaug. We have seen the head and the tail--the body is as yet unrevealed. There has been some debate about whether it will be a Western style dragon or a more Eastern style "worm" dragon.
Avian wrote: IIRC, the Balrog was also released in February, two months after the movie came out.
I don't recall the Balrog having a large promotional statue made of him. We literally did not know what he looked like until you watched the film. Smaug OTOH...
Spoiler:
It's no secret (compared to the Balrog) what he'll look like.
Actually we have only seen parts of Smaug. We have seen the head and the tail--the body is as yet unrevealed. There has been some debate about whether it will be a Western style dragon or a more Eastern style "worm" dragon.
Which is still more than we had seen of the Balrog... Which is the point I was making Kan.
Have a look at this picture to estimate the size and price of a GW Smaug model (Bilbo costs 15$):
This would be bigger than a Stompa kit, for an almost unsupported game like the Hobbit. I don't see this coming.
Kroothawk wrote: Have a look at this picture to estimate the size and price of a GW Smaug model (Bilbo costs 15$):
This would be bigger than a Stompa kit, for an almost unsupported game like the Hobbit. I don't see this coming.
Looks about the same size as Toruk.
Introducing Smaug, GW will now be accepting payments of organs to cover his cost.
Palace Guard Captain 1:
Palace Guard Captain 2:
Ranger Captain 1:
Ranger Captain 2:
Barrels out of Bond:
Mirkwood Spiders:
Beorn:
Thrain the Broken:
Thranduil, King of Mirkwood:
Tauriel:
Legolas Greenleaf:
Palace Guards:
Mirkwood Rangers:
Man, most of those characters look really bad. I don't know if it's the painter or the sculpts, but they're not very flattering . And is anyone other than a couple of display painters going to have any use for a dozen or so separate dwarf / hobbit models in barrels?
The elf units, on the other hand, do look kind of neat!
And those mirkwood spiders . Just like the eagles last year, the creature sculpts seem to be the best for some reason.
Grimtuff wrote: I don't recall the Balrog having a large promotional statue made of him. We literally did not know what he looked like until you watched the film. Smaug OTOH...
If they went to the trouble of creating a model that big I would expect it to have appeared in New Zeland first, where they are well used to promotional aspects around Middle Earth. Also I doubt Smaug will be true to scale, I'd expect something smaller that compares to the size of the Mumakil with a long neck and tail.
A big shame that once again GW seem to have made some very nifty plastic for the LOTR/Hobbit range and then priced them out of evreyones reach. £30 for 10 plastic elves, I ask you!
Shame as had they been priced more reasonably I could see them selling very well. Even to people who don't play the game.
I know I'd be tempted to pick some up and try painting them up if they were cheap.
I stand by my opinion that the poses are off but if they were reasonably priced I might have gone for a box just cos I love wood elves and want to see some of the better poses painted up properly.
For the most part, that is not actually bad looking stuff. Still won't be buying any, but it looks ok.
And there's some Finecast so whew, it's not extinct yet.
Well damn, three posts in a row that aren't negative. Time to fix that.
I personally think that aesthetics wise they are mostly ok. I really like the look of the Mirkwood rangers but once you start looking at the technical detail it's hard not to laugh at the claim of 'best miniatures in the world'.
Spoilering pics to avoid clutter.
Spoiler:
His toes seem to be almost entirely painted on, and his fingers are barely there too.
Spoiler:
There is something wrong with the lip of the barrel, no idea if it's intentional or not.
Also there is very, very little detail on the hair.
Spoiler:
Legolas doesn't seem to have a mouth and I don't know what's going on with his girlfriends but I really doubt her face is meant to be that flat.
Spoiler:
I have no idea what's going on with that eye, it might just be painted poorly but that hand still looks to me like he is dramatically letting his blade slip from his fingers.
And of course then there is these two:
(Though I'm sure that's just a bad paintjob, I felt it needed to be included )
I looked at these and thought, straight off the bat, "boy these dont look proffessional". If i saw models painted like this and someone was trying to sell them i would be hesitant. They all look old and and slightly deformed with cave men like expressions haha.
The hippo picture person bet me to it but when i looked at the OP i was very very anti impressed. A well painted model makes people want to buy it a lot more.
I think the drop in paint jobs has coincided with the approach of "make things achievable".
Plus it looks like from production photos of "Smaug" that the Mirkwood Rangers and Palace Guard have whorls embedded in their metal/cloth bits to give an almost camouflage look. Something like that is always going to be hard to duplicate.
Those do not look professional. I can't paint even close to that well, but then again I'm not getting pain to do it. I would expect a company such as Games Workshop to hire better painters, unless new line was so overbearing that they had their own people paint the miniatures (but I doubt that).
All of those models are decent. Not good, not exactly bad, just decent. The could've been a whole lot better.
McNinja wrote: Those do not look professional. I can't paint even close to that well, but then again I'm not getting pain to do it. I would expect a company such as Games Workshop to hire better painters, unless new line was so overbearing that they had their own people paint the miniatures (but I doubt that).
All of those models are decent. Not good, not exactly bad, just decent. The could've been a whole lot better.
That pretty much sums up what i was trying to say. Just looks lazily done without much love. The barrels look really nicely done though.
Kanluwen wrote: Plus it looks like from production photos of "Smaug" that the Mirkwood Rangers and Palace Guard have whorls embedded in their metal/cloth bits to give an almost camouflage look. Something like that is always going to be hard to duplicate.
It's wood grain on the Palace Guard armour. What else would you expect from Wood Elves?
Like I said in the other GW December thread, the Mirkwood Rangers are lovely. I could use one or two of them for fantasy skirmish games, but I have no use for ten. So won't buy.
The low quality paint jobs likely correspond to GW minimizing labor spent on the figures. The game doesn't sell well, so why have your painters spend extra time. It's the equivalent of us going to a painting service and selecting a mid tier paint job over a top tier paint job because we don't want to spend the extra money.
The rangers are the best of the bunch I think. Shame they are $40 for 10.
The rangers look like neat models, but everything else looks downright lousy. Paintjobs aren't helping either. Guess the A-team was busy painting Space Marines
Actually think the rangers are really nice little sculpts, and I really like some of the dynamic posing. As Ghaz has said as well, important to realise that those miniatures are that much more delicate and minimalistic than their WFB counterparts - that head is probably half the volume of a WFB elf!
The pricing is probably 50% higher than it should be, although I realise that's part for the course these days!
Really like the Mirkwood rangers and Tauriel, but prices are a bit excessive for minis I'd never use.
I wonder how many people will buy the barrels out of bond,£40 seems a bit much for models which seem to be scenic models.
I like the spiders but do they need such a big base? The barrels are great! But most of the paint jobs aren't that good, not a lot f love put into them.
Looking foward to picking up White Dwarf with something called.. What is it again..... The hobbit.
Sikamikanic0 wrote: Those mirkwood rangers are REALLY NICE!! finally some REAL woodelves... remember their previus wood elves how pathetic they looked?
these are an order of magnitude better than those terrible things. The metal wood elves originally released were great, the plastic ones I have stared at many many times trying to see them as not-terrible (and always failing, those are bad bad sculpts).
Quite in love with these new rangers. The rest, not so much. Palace Guard just don't look like elves to me, and while Tauriel looks great, legolas is now a butter face. Oh well, I already have the awesome legolas from Two Towers, but this new one is just awesome except that round, puffy face. Oh well, the rangers are great. Almost great enough I may buy them despite the price tag and no use for em. Loving the fact that there are obvious male and female ones, both in the faces, the body types and the postures. Time to figure out a way to justify using them as counts-as warmachine figs or something. Maybe give them katanas for counts-as Nyss mercenaries.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: Holy crap, they want $40 for 10 figures, including repeat sculpts? Is this GW insanity or New Line insanity?
~Tim?
What "repeat sculpts" are you talking about out of curiosity?
Some of them are just the same model with a shield added. But even then, the price is utterly ludicrous for these models, which are pretty lacking in quality.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: Holy crap, they want $40 for 10 figures, including repeat sculpts? Is this GW insanity or New Line insanity?
~Tim?
What "repeat sculpts" are you talking about out of curiosity?
Well, I might be wrong (maybe the poses are just really similar), but at least two of the Palace Guards seem to be exact copies of each other. I'm talking about the ones in the upper-right corner, with the raised swords/shields.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: Holy crap, they want $40 for 10 figures, including repeat sculpts? Is this GW insanity or New Line insanity?
~Tim?
What "repeat sculpts" are you talking about out of curiosity?
Well, I might be wrong (maybe the poses are just really similar), but at least two of the Palace Guards seem to be exact copies of each other. I'm talking about the ones in the upper-right corner, with the raised swords/shields.
~Tim?
It looks (I cannot reliably say one way or the other without the models in hand) like the angles of the body and width between legs are off for them to be the same.
Lol, everyone complaining about copied sculpts is funny. The dark elf witch elves have copied bodies, and it is very common for hobbit/LOTR models to have copied molds. That is nothing new for me, but if they said all different, then it's a different matter. But in this case, i'm saw i saw them say you could add shields to unshielded ones.
The Hunter Orcs are just that, Hunter Orcs. That's why they have Hunter Orc Captains instead of Gundabad Orc Captains.
GW called Gundabad wargs fell wargs.Gandalf:"These are Gundabad wargs!They will outrun you!"
Radagast:"These are Rhosgobel rabbits!"
The hunter orcs are Gundabad orcs that follow Azog.They just named them that because they are hunting Thorin and co.
And yet again, the fluff and/or the movies don't matter. By the rules there are no Gundabad Orcs at the present time for the Gundabad Orc General to lead and nothing to indicate which force he can be taken in or if he even uses the same stats as Bolg. We will have to wait until next week to find out (hopefully).
jonolikespie wrote:And of course then there is these two:
(Though I'm sure that's just a bad paintjob, I felt it needed to be included )
Well, I certainly couldn't paint such detail on the 2-3 millimeters that constitute a head on a 25mm scale miniature.
What looks bad under a microscope, looks actually convincing in real life. Esp since some paint jobs compensate for lack of sculpting detail (e.g. faces, shield wood lines and cloth patterns. People usually forget how tiny LOTR miniatures are compared to heroic (!) scale 28mm.
That's close to the truth. In the book, Azog was the father killed in the battle that gave Thorin his name Oakshield. His son Bolg is the main Ork boss at the time of the main events. For some reason, Jackson made a late switch between father and son, baffling all toy manufacturers with their Bolg products. In the movie, Bolg has about 3 seconds screen time when cut down by a dwarf in battle.
http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Bolg
Those are some pretty terrible sculpts. I see a lot of details that are simply painted on to try and hide the lack of detail. Granted these are small models but there are some great LotR models available so we know it is possible to get the details on.
The wood elves are nice I will give them that, the crouching one is awesome! Everything else though, nah. Those palace guard are especially bad, I was hoping for something like this:
Also the rest of the special characters have their own unique faults such as lack of toes, caveman faces and lack of emotion.
So glad I stopped myself adding to my LotR Elf army, the disappointment would have been too great...
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: Holy crap, they want $40 for 10 figures, including repeat sculpts? Is this GW insanity or New Line insanity?
What's the big deal? Similar boxes from Privateer Press tend to be 10 models for $50, with even more repetiveness in the sculpts.
My understanding is those 10 man boxes with 2 repeats are the only 2 of the same sculpt you're every likely to field at once. These models you'll need more than 1 box of you make an army, meaning that you're looking at 4, 6 or maybe even 8 of the same guys repeated over and over in your army. It's even worse for the fantasy stuff like witch elves because they are a unit you want to be running 40+ of in an army and you'll easily end up with the same model twice in every rank of your unit.
That particular character -is- in Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in the huge fightscene where Thorin Oakenshield earns his name and the Azog loses his hand... He is present only briefly... but unfortunately, as such deals go, New Line Cinema will share only tidbits of their own promotional picture with GeeDub these days so they will not accidentally spill the beans on creatures and villains that they want to save up for the movie, which is why when the Geedub Hobbit came out, they sort of had no clue that Azog was the mainman of the orcs... and instead thought (due to New Line Cinema being sneaky gits) that said orc dressed in dwarven beards was some sort of main villain... because they got detailed pictures of said orc...
carlos13th wrote: I haven't read the rest of the thread so this may have been mentioned but £15 Legolas looks more like Vladmir Putin than Orlando Bloom
I drowned in my cup of tea laughing - Kudos Vladolas
If Smaug is life sized on the plane (image is 177 feet long), using a scale of 1" = 5', we get a Smaug model length of 35". Using 1/56 as the scale gets a Smaug that is 38" long.
carlos13th wrote: I haven't read the rest of the thread so this may have been mentioned but £15 Legolas looks more like Vladmir Putin than Orlando Bloom.
I have never wished to witness such a terrifying visage.
Few info bout the rules:
- Thranudil - stays the same - just base cost is 16 Moria Gobo with shield and he can buy armour and bow
- Tauriel - stats seems to be the same as Lego in armour, but she has Aragorns attack value, elven coat, bow and special rule that gives her +1A for each enemy she's fightin with(my guess that with each in base contact but thats just info), cost 19 Moria gobowith shield
- Guard Captain - stats as HE cap for 15 Moria Gobo with shields. If he's in 3" from Thranduil he get's +1F. Also bodyguard.
- Ranger Cap - cost the same as above, stats as WE cap, seems to have bow and TW, the same rule as Tauriel but only 3 attack(dunno if only +3, or total max 3)
- Palace Guard - cost the same Ghaladrim pics - stats as HE and the same special rule as their cap
- Ranger - the same cost as erebor with shield, and the same rule as their cap, dunno whats their eqipment.
Special rules of the Mirkwood AL - if the Lider is Thranduil, Lego or Tauriel then can have 100% bows
- Beorn - Dwalin stats but Dale Man with shield defence value and Glorf like M/W/F. He's resistant to magic, burly and fearless and woodland creature. Costs as Gulavhar. He can change into bear on 4+ in his move(model is on 60mm base and seems to be nice - pic in book). In bear form the same Wounds and M/W/F, the same special rules + terror, but rest of stats change into Threebeards. Elf Gero Courage value and Move 8"(as a bear). In this bear form he dosn't have SF, and his heroics are only his. Has special BPA - when he wins he can strike with S10 - if it wound's(enemy won't fury/fate it) he cas strike again with S10 and so on. Radagast Alliance AL.
- Thrain the broken - cost as WE with bow and spear - low stats - F dwarf like, S Hobbit like, C Orc Captain like and on every start of turn he's to pass C test. If he pass it it's ok, if he pass it twice(dunno I just translate from polish) he's got +2 to A,S,F values, but if he fails he acts like a enemy model.
- Bard - cost as full no-name nazgul on horse - stats simillar to Lego(my source don't remeber fully) and he's got a great bow. If he shoot and kill he can shoot again to the target in 3" from the last one - up to three times. Black arrow - ones a game - can reroll to hit, ITW and to wound.
- Dale hero that hac +1 on wounding flaying monster(my guess Girion)
- some lake town hero who costs 4 MG with shield that has Aragons Will value wills - for each will he can regive some hero(dunno the radius) might - on 6 k3 mights, 2-6 one might point, 1 nth
- some new Dale(laketown?) troops
- Yaznag - seems to have bad stat line - he's 10 Gobo with shield, can have lance. He's special rule - if there is Azog in the same army, then the pale orc can kill yaznag and pass all C tests, and him and rest of heros can rerolls missed to wound rolls.
- Gundabad Orcs(pic are supposed to be in book) - cost as erebor with shield, have S4, can buy pic and shiels(dunno if in combination). Special rule the same as Blackshield gobo
- Spiders - cost as 5 Gobo with shield - F as gobo, S and D as Dale man with shield D value and Elf Cap A value. Not a monster, can split poison(dunno how that works) on 4+. The warband doesn't have to contain a hero(don;t know if there is any)
Seems to be legit source but ya know how that works.
In a later post in the same thread he says that Smaug is NOT in the book.
That sculpt of Legolas is.... horrifying. Has Orlando Bloom spent some major time on the pies? Has he been calling one of the Perry twins "stumpy"? Is it just a horrendous paint job? A true mystery!
Fun fact: Now that GW took pains to rename Bolg into "Gundabad Orc General", Peter Jackson put Bolg back into the second Hobbit movie as a named underling of Azog not related to the Bolg from the Hobbit book (different actor than in first movie as well).
The movie is good BTW. Same style as the first movie but more action, and elves and dragons are more interesting that trolls and wizards with bird droppings in their hair. Benedict Cumberbatch has the honour to speak the necromancer AND the dragon. Stephen Fry is the Master of Lake-town. And Peter Jackson has a quick cameo.
Kroothawk wrote: Fun fact: Now that GW took pains to rename Bolg into "Gundabad Orc General", Peter Jackson put Bolg back into the second Hobbit movie as a named underling of Azog not related to the Bolg from the Hobbit book (different actor than in first movie as well).
Graphite wrote: That sculpt of Legolas is.... horrifying. Has Orlando Bloom spent some major time on the pies? Has he been calling one of the Perry twins "stumpy"? Is it just a horrendous paint job? A true mystery!
Having now seen the film, I think I can confirm that it's the pies!
Kroothawk wrote: Fun fact: Now that GW took pains to rename Bolg into "Gundabad Orc General", Peter Jackson put Bolg back into the second Hobbit movie as a named underling of Azog not related to the Bolg from the Hobbit book (different actor than in first movie as well).
The movie is good BTW. Same style as the first movie but more action, and elves and dragons are more interesting that trolls and wizards with bird droppings in their hair. Benedict Cumberbatch has the honour to speak the necromancer AND the dragon. Stephen Fry is the Master of Lake-town. And Peter Jackson has a quick cameo.
actually not... he is the same guy in hobbit part 1 and the new part 2 movie... the only difference is that for the 5 seconds we she him in the first movie he is geting his head smashed by dwains sledgehammer... so in part 2... he is shaved without beard and some metal scrap to hold his brains inside his opened head...
Kroothawk wrote: Fun fact: Now that GW took pains to rename Bolg into "Gundabad Orc General", Peter Jackson put Bolg back into the second Hobbit movie as a named underling of Azog not related to the Bolg from the Hobbit book (different actor than in first movie as well).
The movie is good BTW. Same style as the first movie but more action, and elves and dragons are more interesting that trolls and wizards with bird droppings in their hair. Benedict Cumberbatch has the honour to speak the necromancer AND the dragon. Stephen Fry is the Master of Lake-town. And Peter Jackson has a quick cameo.
Though they seem to have cut Thrain the Broken (xcept the intro-scene, that actually sets up his appearance?)
Kroothawk wrote: Fun fact: Now that GW took pains to rename Bolg into "Gundabad Orc General", Peter Jackson put Bolg back into the second Hobbit movie as a named underling of Azog not related to the Bolg from the Hobbit book (different actor than in first movie as well).
The movie is good BTW. Same style as the first movie but more action, and elves and dragons are more interesting that trolls and wizards with bird droppings in their hair. Benedict Cumberbatch has the honour to speak the necromancer AND the dragon. Stephen Fry is the Master of Lake-town. And Peter Jackson has a quick cameo.
Though they seem to have cut Thrain the Broken (xcept the intro-scene, that actually sets up his appearance?)
Thrain could be in the extended version, but I expect he has something to do with whatever is going to happen to Gandalf in pt 3 (trying not to be spoilery) Also once again this isn't limited to GW. The old Bolg was an action figure last year. Also parts of the LEGO sets seem to come from next year's movie given their choice of which characters are in what set. Even the big Weta Chronicles book about art and design had concepts of Thrain and nothing on Bolg.
I think that making Smaug a wyvern was an interesting choice but I suspect it also had a bit of consideration for copyright issues because up until now Smaug has been represented by other artists as a 'regular' 4 legged dragon. I would also go out on a limb and say that I wouldn't be surprised if GW doesn't do a model of Smaug. He doesn't have a direct fight with anyone and the fight he does have would be impractical for a miniatures game.
Sikamikanic0 wrote: actually not... he is the same guy in hobbit part 1 and the new part 2 movie... the only difference is that for the 5 seconds we she him in the first movie he is geting his head smashed by dwains sledgehammer... so in part 2... he is shaved without beard and some metal scrap to hold his brains inside his opened head...
he looks like a ghoul more than orc to me
anyways how can you call a cgi thingy an actor??
1.) Bolg is played by Conan Stevens in first movie and Lawrence Makoare in second and third movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_%28film_series%29 2.) In the book, Bolg is the Orc leader, after his farther Azog was killed in Moria. In the movie, Azog lives and Bolg is an underling of him.
Bloodwin wrote: I would also go out on a limb and say that I wouldn't be surprised if GW doesn't do a model of Smaug. He doesn't have a direct fight with anyone and the fight he does have would be impractical for a miniatures game.
I don't know about anyone else, but a Smaug model is the only thing related to The Hobbit that I'm actually interested in. So it would be fething hilarious to me if they didn't, as personally I see that as a complete waste of the license.
Also, The Hobbit in general isn't really suitable for a miniatures game in my opinion. There's very little conflict between actual armies, other than the ending, so it's mostly about following a D&D party that consists almost entirely of dwarves. Most of the models they're releasing are characters and display pieces anyway so you might as well do the one piece that everyone's going to want.
Well...I should say a miniatures game "on the scale GW wants you to play", with huge armies of models.
A user on TLA forums sent an email to gw about the blog name change info:
I emailed GW custumer serviceabout the Bolg name change to get a bit of info off them.Heres what they said:
Thanks for the email.
Having done some investigations, I have found out that the reason that the Gundabad orc general is called a Gundabad orc general rather than Bolg, is that Warner Brothers have requested the name change. If you wish to use the Gundabad orc general as Bolg in your games, this is totally fine, as the rules will be the same seeing as Bolg is a Gundabad orc general. At present we do not have any information as to if a new Bolg miniature will be created or a new rules set specifically for him, however when we do know something, we will be advertising it thoroughly on the website and in White Dwarf.
I hope that this helps answer your question, but if you have anything further, please feel free to contact us again. Kind regards Lydia
Also, The Hobbit in general isn't really suitable for a miniatures game in my opinion. There's very little conflict between actual armies, other than the ending, so it's mostly about following a D&D party that consists almost entirely of dwarves. Most of the models they're releasing are characters and display pieces anyway so you might as well do the one piece that everyone's going to want.
Well...I should say a miniatures game "on the scale GW wants you to play", with huge armies of models.
Really? The Battle of the Five Armies is pretty much the direct inspiration for Warhammer Fantasy (As well as the battles in LotRofc) Then there's the flashback battle with the Gundabag orcs in the first film. I fully expect a battles game to come out for the third film. However I prefer it as a small narrative skirmish game, much like the LotR game for me it's about replaying particular scenes from the film, like the Goblin town escape. I'm sure GW will make the new Bolg as a mini as he has a fair bit of screen time in the film. I'm also waiting to see how much Beorn's bear form model will cost and some of the pricing has already got me head scratching as Legolas and Tauriel are both plastic and cost £15 each and yet the captain figures are £15 for two resin models. Also as an aside none of the new releases even mention the word "finecast". I ordered the old Bolg and Beorn with the new book and whilst "Bolg's" packaging has the finecast logo Beorn's model doesn't and they both appear to be made of the same material.
Sikamikanic0 wrote: actually not... he is the same guy in hobbit part 1 and the new part 2 movie... the only difference is that for the 5 seconds we she him in the first movie he is geting his head smashed by dwains sledgehammer... so in part 2... he is shaved without beard and some metal scrap to hold his brains inside his opened head...
he looks like a ghoul more than orc to me
anyways how can you call a cgi thingy an actor??
1.) Bolg is played by Conan Stevens in first movie and Lawrence Makoare in second and third movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_%28film_series%29 2.) In the book, Bolg is the Orc leader, after his farther Azog was killed in Moria. In the movie, Azog lives and Bolg is an underling of him.
they probably mean their voices cause their 100% CGI generated both... right? anyways bolg dosent get to speak at the first movie at all
Sikamikanic0 wrote: actually not... he is the same guy in hobbit part 1 and the new part 2 movie... the only difference is that for the 5 seconds we she him in the first movie he is geting his head smashed by dwains sledgehammer... so in part 2... he is shaved without beard and some metal scrap to hold his brains inside his opened head...
he looks like a ghoul more than orc to me
anyways how can you call a cgi thingy an actor??
1.) Bolg is played by Conan Stevens in first movie and Lawrence Makoare in second and third movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_%28film_series%29 2.) In the book, Bolg is the Orc leader, after his farther Azog was killed in Moria. In the movie, Azog lives and Bolg is an underling of him.
they probably mean their voices cause their 100% CGI generated both... right? anyways bolg dosent get to speak at the first movie at all
I expect the actors were motion captured so that the actual acting came through the digital effects.
Graphite wrote: That sculpt of Legolas is.... horrifying. Has Orlando Bloom spent some major time on the pies? Has he been calling one of the Perry twins "stumpy"? Is it just a horrendous paint job? A true mystery!
Having now seen the film, I think I can confirm that it's the pies!
Agreed, along with a little middle age facial spread.... He looks very, very strange in the movie.
I know I'm a bit late to the party, was just checking out the new LOTR models. I really like the Mirkwood Rangers but holy hell they are $70 for 10 in Australia :-( If they'd come out before I flew back from the US I would have bought a bunch of them, lol. I was thinking of getting them to use as Wood Elves, but not at that price.
Graphite wrote:That sculpt of Legolas is.... horrifying. Has Orlando Bloom spent some major time on the pies? Has he been calling one of the Perry twins "stumpy"? Is it just a horrendous paint job? A true mystery!
To be fair, you really have to see LOTR models in the flesh to either appreciate or criticise them. I haven't bought any Hobbit models, but I did get some older LOTR Frodo and Sam models and remember seeing them on the website and thinking they looked terrible and nothing like Elijah Wood and Sean Astin. But one I had the models in my hands, raw and unpainted, I realised they were actually very good sculpts and damned near impossible to paint to well enough to look like Elijah and Sean simply because they are so damned small.
What looks like a wonky mouth or missing toe on a LOTR model is often just too small to be noticed when you see the actual model in the flesh. The picture of Legolas' face on my monitor is about 30mm high... the actual model is, what, 4mm? less? It's waaaay smaller than GW's typical hero scale faces of 40k and Fantasy. It's really not a good scale for super-close-up-zoomed-in-showcase models because they're simply too small.
However, when I see the models in the flesh, I think they look leagues better than the cartoonish 40k and Fantasy stuff GW puts out these days.
Necro wrote:The female sculpts faces look so masculine.
It's really hard to paint feminine features on a face that tiny. You need to paint softer features, which on a model that size is very difficult to do, even if the sculpt is perfect.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I know I'm a bit late to the party, was just checking out the new LOTR models. I really like the Mirkwood Rangers but holy hell they are $70 for 10 in Australia :-( If they'd come out before I flew back from the US I would have bought a bunch of them, lol. I was thinking of getting them to use as Wood Elves, but not at that price.
Graphite wrote:That sculpt of Legolas is.... horrifying. Has Orlando Bloom spent some major time on the pies? Has he been calling one of the Perry twins "stumpy"? Is it just a horrendous paint job? A true mystery!
To be fair, you really have to see LOTR models in the flesh to either appreciate or criticise them. I haven't bought any Hobbit models, but I did get some older LOTR Frodo and Sam models and remember seeing them on the website and thinking they looked terrible and nothing like Elijah Wood and Sean Astin. But one I had the models in my hands, raw and unpainted, I realised they were actually very good sculpts and damned near impossible to paint to well enough to look like Elijah and Sean simply because they are so damned small.
What looks like a wonky mouth or missing toe on a LOTR model is often just too small to be noticed when you see the actual model in the flesh. The picture of Legolas' face on my monitor is about 30mm high... the actual model is, what, 4mm? less? It's waaaay smaller than GW's typical hero scale faces of 40k and Fantasy. It's really not a good scale for super-close-up-zoomed-in-showcase models because they're simply too small.
However, when I see the models in the flesh, I think they look leagues better than the cartoonish 40k and Fantasy stuff GW puts out these days.
Necro wrote:The female sculpts faces look so masculine.
It's really hard to paint feminine features on a face that tiny. You need to paint softer features, which on a model that size is very difficult to do, even if the sculpt is perfect.
Angel Giraldez can paint feminine faces just fine, maybe GW needs to hire better painters?
Alkasyn wrote: Angel Giraldez can paint feminine faces just fine, maybe GW needs to hire better painters?
Yeah, Angel has some great looking female faces. However I really don't know how the scale of the model's on Angel's blog compares to LOTR, so I can't really comment.
Personally I consider myself an average painter who can paint well if I spend a lot of time on it, however the LOTR faces are just too damned small for me to get any fading or smooth transitioning happening to create something that actually looks feminine when zoomed in close. The best I can hope for is something that looks kinda female when viewed from any reasonable viewing distance.
To do a fair comparison you would have to look at the side by side at their correct scales, not blown up a 4mm face to 30mm where you can see things that in real life you simply couldn't.
Alkasyn wrote: Angel Giraldez can paint feminine faces just fine, maybe GW needs to hire better painters?
Yeah, Angel has some great looking female faces. However I really don't know how the scale of the model's on Angel's blog compares to LOTR, so I can't really comment.
Personally I consider myself an average painter who can paint well if I spend a lot of time on it, however the LOTR faces are just too damned small for me to get any fading or smooth transitioning happening to create something that actually looks feminine when zoomed in close. The best I can hope for is something that looks kinda female when viewed from any reasonable viewing distance.
To do a fair comparison you would have to look at the side by side at their correct scales, not blown up a 4mm face to 30mm where you can see things that in real life you simply couldn't.
They are the same scale AFAIK, both Hobbit and Infinity are 25mm instead of the usual 28mm "heroic" scale that GW uses for its other games (which are closer to 32mm anyway).
According to Google, Infinity is 28mm, but really I'd want to see them next to each other to compare, you never really know until you look at them next to each other.
I'm not trying to say the GW models are painted awesome, simply that realistically I don't think you'd see any of the flaws people here are pointing out unless you looked at the models under a magnifying glass and to people saying they could do better, maybe show some proof on the same scale models before you poop on someone elses' work
Infinity models are quite delicate. It's a fair scale comparison. Whether it's the sculpt, the paint, or a combination of each, these aren't in the same league.
BrotherVord wrote: these things are painted by professionals? COuld have fooled me. I'm a slightly above average painter and I put these minis to shame
In all fairness to the eavy metal team they're told to paint well below what they can do.
BrotherVord wrote: these things are painted by professionals? COuld have fooled me. I'm a slightly above average painter and I put these minis to shame
In all fairness to the eavy metal team they're told to paint well below what they can do.
Has that ever been confirmed?
I've heard a lot of people saying that, and it makes sense, but so does the theory they simply replaced the eavy metal team with random guys from the studio as a(nother) cost cutting measure.
Just a casual reminder that good Hobbit related models are being made.
You really gotta wonder what New Line think of GW if they did ditch the new starter box around the same time they gave Knight Models the license to do 35mm stuff.
Can't wait till they get down to making some orcs.
In fact, can't wait till GW drops their licence and KM can start making a proper game line out of the LotR franchise. While GW has some good LotR models in their line, they dropped the ball on quite a few too.
Edit: Well, Galadriel bought. Might need to check on my brush collection while I'm at it.
I'm talking about the models, not the game. I'd love for KM to produce enough models for me to play the LotR skirmish by GW, but without a broad game licence, I doubt we'll see enough troops (or in fact any troops). So far, all we got is three hero models, all tied to the Hobbit licence. I'd love to see some line Uruks, Haradrim, Elves or Goblins.
BrotherVord wrote: these things are painted by professionals? COuld have fooled me. I'm a slightly above average painter and I put these minis to shame
In all fairness to the eavy metal team they're told to paint well below what they can do.
Has that ever been confirmed?
I've heard a lot of people saying that, and it makes sense, but so does the theory they simply replaced the eavy metal team with random guys from the studio as a(nother) cost cutting measure.
They were present at GD and the level that some of there own models were painted to was well above what we've been seeing with recent releases.
BrotherVord wrote: these things are painted by professionals? COuld have fooled me. I'm a slightly above average painter and I put these minis to shame
Pics of your LotR stuff please? The stuff in your gallery looks nice, but it's an entirely different scale. For that matter, the Legolas linked above is blown up in size an absolutely ridiculous amount. Anything is going to suffer badly with that much zoom.
BrotherVord wrote: these things are painted by professionals? COuld have fooled me. I'm a slightly above average painter and I put these minis to shame
In all fairness to the eavy metal team they're told to paint well below what they can do.
Has that ever been confirmed?
I've heard a lot of people saying that, and it makes sense, but so does the theory they simply replaced the eavy metal team with random guys from the studio as a(nother) cost cutting measure.
They were present at GD and the level that some of there own models were painted to was well above what we've been seeing with recent releases.
Something to bear in mind is that WD painters are expected to produce very figures at a certain pace - "paint this unit/army/boxed set in Y time". They're not working on individual models where they can really take their time, nor are they painting for the absolute love and joy of it at therir absolute highest standard for 8 hours a day, 5 days per week.
BrotherVord wrote: these things are painted by professionals? COuld have fooled me. I'm a slightly above average painter and I put these minis to shame
Pics of your LotR stuff please? The stuff in your gallery looks nice, but it's an entirely different scale. For that matter, the Legolas linked above is blown up in size an absolutely ridiculous amount. Anything is going to suffer badly with that much zoom.
BrotherVord wrote: these things are painted by professionals? COuld have fooled me. I'm a slightly above average painter and I put these minis to shame
In all fairness to the eavy metal team they're told to paint well below what they can do.
Has that ever been confirmed?
I've heard a lot of people saying that, and it makes sense, but so does the theory they simply replaced the eavy metal team with random guys from the studio as a(nother) cost cutting measure.
They were present at GD and the level that some of there own models were painted to was well above what we've been seeing with recent releases.
Something to bear in mind is that WD painters are expected to produce very figures at a certain pace - "paint this unit/army/boxed set in Y time". They're not working on individual models where they can really take their time, nor are they painting for the absolute love and joy of it at therir absolute highest standard for 8 hours a day, 5 days per week.
And they had superheavys to paint.They deserve the WD front cover..not like the baneblade kit is several years old along with the guardsmen...
I like the hobbit and LOTR models they look great way better than WFB. I love the more squad based look of the game making it feel a little, stress a little, more like 40k. Finally I've always adored all things Tolkien. My four month old daughter has copies of leaf by niggle and farmer Giles of ham in her room awaiting the day I can read them to her.
But.....I still won't play these games buy the models or read anything GW tries to do in this field. Not completely sure why. I think maybe I just have a string phyciological objection to GW, whom I love in a different way, sullying Tolkiens world. I just want to scream go away its not yours, leave it alone!! Stupid but I bet I'm not the only one.
Actually, as has been said before - the game is quite good - as are many, many of the models released over the last 12 years or so. If you want to talk about "sullying", you may as well blame Peter Jackson, who aside from taking liberties here and there, also made LotR mainstream.
The worst sin I can see GW has made with Middle-Earth is the insane pricing, particularly on The Hobbit.
This list contains the January release list for the Hobbit (confirmed by WD). Blue ones are retail for about one month, red ones are mail order only from the beginning:
Looks like the Gaunt boxes either received a massive price hike or they're 20 man per box. In which case, I would not put it past GW to keep them exclusive for Direct and leave the cheaper, smaller box for retail.
They are indeed 20 gaunt boxes, they are indeed mail order only to hurt retailers, and Tyranid discussion is indeed off-topic here and discussed in the Tyranid thread.
They probably expected it to be bigger when they bought the license and are stuck with it for three years. No use in making nothing at all if you have the license but it's clearly not the cash cow they hoped for.
Azazelx wrote: ...For that matter, the Legolas linked above is blown up in size an absolutely ridiculous amount. Anything is going to suffer badly with that much zoom.
Something to bear in mind is that WD painters are expected to produce very figures at a certain pace - "paint this unit/army/boxed set in Y time". They're not working on individual models where they can really take their time, nor are they painting for the absolute love and joy of it at therir absolute highest standard for 8 hours a day, 5 days per week.
I'm a bit baffled by the lengths people will go to to protect GW's honour. The purpose of painting the models is to sell them. And if the staff painters can't make them look decent, why would anyone choose to buy the models? It's incredibly poor marketing for a company that claims to "make the best model soldiers in the world".
Compare this to advertising for other products. When you see a commercial for food, you don't see the food you're actually buying, you see the idealized, studio recreation. I look at these paintjobs, and it's like being shown a mouldy burger.
The only real explanation is that GW has lowered its standards for this product line; sales are driven by the movie and the licensing, not the appearance or quality of the models, so it's not worth the time to do better.
Azazelx wrote: ...For that matter, the Legolas linked above is blown up in size an absolutely ridiculous amount. Anything is going to suffer badly with that much zoom.
Something to bear in mind is that WD painters are expected to produce very figures at a certain pace - "paint this unit/army/boxed set in Y time". They're not working on individual models where they can really take their time, nor are they painting for the absolute love and joy of it at therir absolute highest standard for 8 hours a day, 5 days per week.
I'm a bit baffled by the lengths people will go to to protect GW's honour. The purpose of painting the models is to sell them. And if the staff painters can't make them look decent, why would anyone choose to buy the models? It's incredibly poor marketing for a company that claims to "make the best model soldiers in the world".
Compare this to advertising for other products. When you see a commercial for food, you don't see the food you're actually buying, you see the idealized, studio recreation. I look at these paintjobs, and it's like being shown a mouldy burger.
The only real explanation is that GW has lowered its standards for this product line; sales are driven by the movie and the licensing, not the appearance or quality of the models, so it's not worth the time to do better.
It's not a question of "protecting GW's honour", it's a question of dealing with the constant naysaying.
I have Legolas and Tauriel both, given to me as Christmas presents along with some Mirkwood Rangers and Palace Guard. The sculpts are actually quite good. Whoever painted the models should be reprimanded because the sculpts are not the issue.
I have zero interest in anything Hobbit or LOTR related but I clicked into the first post to check out the models. The models are OK but what is up with some of the paintjobs? I mean, they're not terrible, but they're definitely not what I expect of GWS either.
Spoiler:
How is the same painter (presumably) able to do such a knockout job on the robe and such a poor one on the face?
Speaking of bad faces;
Spoiler:
There was a while back where it was speculated that GWS was knocking back the 'Eavy Metal team's paintjobs on the product shots to make things "more accessible" to the average painter. At the time I thought that was rubbish but now I'm not so sure.
Howard A Treesong wrote: They probably expected it to be bigger when they bought the license and are stuck with it for three years. No use in making nothing at all if you have the license but it's clearly not the cash cow they hoped for.
With licenses, there are usually up front costs that need to be covered as well as minimum royalty payments that must be paid no matter how well the products sell (or don't sell). For the Hobbit license, I would imagine that the minimum royalty payments are quite substantial, given the success of the GWLOTR license. If GW does not want to lose money on the license, they need to promote the line heavily so that they can sell lots of Hobbit stuff. I suppose its possible that they have written it off as a loss already and are just doing the minimum required stuff detailed in the license contract, hence quite a few substandard sculpts and the weak paint jobs on this latest batch.
The cost of the license is probably driving the amazingly high prices, although prices for new stuff in 40K and Fantasy are getting pretty amazing too.
Oops, I should have read the rest of the thread first, looks like everyone already noticed how underwhelming the paint jobs are.
That one Ranger with the hood and mask that looks sort of like a green ninja is pretty badass, though. Bottom right. I also like the crouching guy on the top right. Decent models, poor paintjobs.
It's not a question of "protecting GW's honour", it's a question of dealing with the constant naysaying.
I have Legolas and Tauriel both, given to me as Christmas presents along with some Mirkwood Rangers and Palace Guard. The sculpts are actually quite good. Whoever painted the models should be reprimanded because the sculpts are not the issue.
The best toy soldiers in the world everybody!!
*slow clap*
Now compare to the (admittedly slightly larger scale) Knight Models minis and paint jobs.
Azazelx wrote: ...For that matter, the Legolas linked above is blown up in size an absolutely ridiculous amount. Anything is going to suffer badly with that much zoom.
Something to bear in mind is that WD painters are expected to produce very figures at a certain pace - "paint this unit/army/boxed set in Y time". They're not working on individual models where they can really take their time, nor are they painting for the absolute love and joy of it at therir absolute highest standard for 8 hours a day, 5 days per week.
I'm a bit baffled by the lengths people will go to to protect GW's honour. The purpose of painting the models is to sell them. And if the staff painters can't make them look decent, why would anyone choose to buy the models? It's incredibly poor marketing for a company that claims to "make the best model soldiers in the world".
Compare this to advertising for other products. When you see a commercial for food, you don't see the food you're actually buying, you see the idealized, studio recreation. I look at these paintjobs, and it's like being shown a mouldy burger.
The only real explanation is that GW has lowered its standards for this product line; sales are driven by the movie and the licensing, not the appearance or quality of the models, so it's not worth the time to do better.
Protect GW's honour? Err, no. I have a hate-love-hate-hate-hate relationship with GW, you can view my post history and see I attack GW more than I defend them.
I'm just calling it how I see it. When you take something that is 4mm across and painted to look good when 4mm across and then zoom in so it appears on your screen as 40mm across (like the zoomed in face pictures), of course it's going to look terrible.
Bad marketing? Absolutely. But really the sculpts and even the painting aren't nearly as bad as people are making out IMO. They may not be painted to competition standard, but they are an order of magnitude better than what I can paint and I'm guessing what most people on this forum can paint.
Lets take some of those images and rescale them to the actual model size (using my own monitor and a few LOTR models as references, I'm on a 23" 1920x1080 monitor, so I think that's a pretty common DPI, and I have an old Fellowship of the Ring set and some Rohan that I'm using to roughly scale the images).
Resizing some of those earlier pictures to a realistic scale, this is what they look like...
Still think you can paint better than that? Maybe you can, I'd suggest many people can't, I sure as hell can't.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To add to that, I don't know why GW insist on zooming in to unrealistic levels on their LOTR/Hobbit models, because it makes them look terrible when really they aren't bad at all. They clearly use feathering to do blending, when you zoom in looks ugly, but reality is the feathering is so fine you can only see it with a magnifying glass.
Bronzefists42 wrote: Are they seriously trying to sell people barrel variations of the Hobbit cast.
Yeah and on the LOTR forums I go on plenty of people want them.I'm sooo serious.Also:Why are people complaining about the faces?Its not like its 4mm wide or anything..Its probably because people are so used to 40k/fantasy heroic scale.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Still think you can paint better than that? Maybe you can, I'd suggest many people can't, I sure as hell can't.
"I can't paint better than that" isn't really the greatest defense, is it? I mean, of course I can't paint better, I'm a mediocre painter and not part of one of the greatest miniature painting teams in the world as 'Eavy Metal are (were? are allegedly?).
The goal should be the best paint job they can do to show off how great the models look. I don't know much about the long haired blonde guy (or maybe girl, is there really a distinction among elves?) but I bet he or she didn't spend the whole movie looking like they were concerned they may have crapped their pants.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: To add to that, I don't know why GW insist on zooming in to unrealistic levels on their LOTR/Hobbit models, because it makes them look terrible when really they aren't bad at all.
This is a much better argument, and one I can agree with.
Ouze wrote: "I can't paint better than that" isn't really the greatest defense, is it? I mean, of course I can't paint better, I'm a mediocre painter and not part of one of the greatest miniature painting teams in the world as 'Eavy Metal are.
The goal should be the best paint job they can do to show off how great the models look. I don't know much about the long haired blonde guy (or maybe girl, is there really a distinction among elves?) but I bet he or she didn't spend the whole movie looking like they were concerned they may have crapped their pants.
Actually, funnily enough, when I watched The Hobbit the other day, I actually thought "hmm, GW actually captured him quite well".
But again, it's not just "I can't paint better", that comment was meant for the people who are stating they could paint better when actually I don't think they could.
I actually think they're painted quite well, they just aren't photographed well. There's a world of difference between the Fantasy/40k hero scale where you probably can paint detail fine enough to zoom in and LOTR scale where really, what looks good on an ACTUAL model doesn't look good zoomed in 10 times the size.
Bronzefists42 wrote: Are they seriously trying to sell people barrel variations of the Hobbit cast.
Yeah and on the LOTR forums I go on plenty of people want them.I'm sooo serious.Also:Why are people complaining about the faces?Its not like its 4mm wide or anything..Its probably because people are so used to 40k/fantasy heroic scale.
I quite like the barrel dwarfs. A lot of LOTR/Hobbit stuff is meant for set pieces and diaramas rather than gameplay
I'd totally buy the barrel dwarfs if they didn't cost $110 and I didn't already have enough unpainted models to last a lifetime.
azreal13 wrote: A true 28mm mini, painted with enough skill and detail that it can't tolerate being zoomed in too closely on?
Can't be done.
I never said it couldn't. But people are suggesting the GW painting team are dumbing down their painting level to something achievable to little Johnny who's Mummy (Mommy for you 'Muricans) just bought him the new Hobbit set. However I think reality is more like that are still painting as good or better than the best 1%, just maybe not the best 0.01%.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: What is that model? Can't find it on a google search.
I have to disagree with you on the painting quality allseek. The new book is full of terrible paint jobs. I a,m not a world class painter. However, I paint better than 90% of the armies in the new book. It's sad to see gw put suck low quality stuff in the next new book.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But people are suggesting the GW painting team are dumbing down their painting level to something achievable to little Johnny who's Mummy (Mommy for you 'Muricans) just bought him the new Hobbit set.
Well, this theory has it's roots substantially before this thread. As I recall there was some 40k release that has visible mold mines and where the decals showed lots of silvering - that's when that line of speculation began, as I recall - but I'm sure someone like Kanluwen would be able to pin that down better than I.
I actually think they're painted quite well, they just aren't photographed well. There's a world of difference between the Fantasy/40k hero scale where you probably can paint detail fine enough to zoom in and LOTR scale where really, what looks good on an ACTUAL model doesn't look good zoomed in 10 times the size.
Definitely think this is a good point, and this same subject came up regarding criticism of some of the Mongoose/Warlord Judge Dredd miniatures. I think it's fair enough to say that the quality of a sculpt is a sliding scale, but that also what is really noticeable at tabletop level? For big-unit, mass battle systems it obvious matters less.
At least part of the problem here is the price that they are being sold at, they're firmly in small-quantity, collector market. And, compared to a lot of the other stuff that comes in at a similar price tag, it doesn't compare all that well.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: But people are suggesting the GW painting team are dumbing down their painting level to something achievable to little Johnny who's Mummy (Mommy for you 'Muricans) just bought him the new Hobbit set.
Still think you can paint better than that? Maybe you can, I'd suggest many people can't, I sure as hell can't.
I can barely boil an egg, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about an overcooked steak. I don't need to join the Screen Actor's Guild to know Paris Hilton can't act. Likewise, I shouldn't need to be a better painter to recognize that a face is seriously asymmetrical and poorly defined.
Azazelx wrote: ...For that matter, the Legolas linked above is blown up in size an absolutely ridiculous amount. Anything is going to suffer badly with that much zoom.
Something to bear in mind is that WD painters are expected to produce very figures at a certain pace - "paint this unit/army/boxed set in Y time". They're not working on individual models where they can really take their time, nor are they painting for the absolute love and joy of it at therir absolute highest standard for 8 hours a day, 5 days per week.
I'm a bit baffled by the lengths people will go to to protect GW's honour. The purpose of painting the models is to sell them. And if the staff painters can't make them look decent, why would anyone choose to buy the models? It's incredibly poor marketing for a company that claims to "make the best model soldiers in the world".
Compare this to advertising for other products. When you see a commercial for food, you don't see the food you're actually buying, you see the idealized, studio recreation. I look at these paintjobs, and it's like being shown a mouldy burger.
The only real explanation is that GW has lowered its standards for this product line; sales are driven by the movie and the licensing, not the appearance or quality of the models, so it's not worth the time to do better.
It's not a question of "protecting GW's honour", it's a question of dealing with the constant naysaying.
I have Legolas and Tauriel both, given to me as Christmas presents along with some Mirkwood Rangers and Palace Guard. The sculpts are actually quite good. Whoever painted the models should be reprimanded because the sculpts are not the issue.
So you agree they were poorly painted, but consider it "naysaying" when this is pointed out?
I love the fact you started by making a fanatic argument about recognising something isn't good doesn't require you to be good at it then upped the anti by following it with "And I am pretty fething good at painting faces despite that." I know your words didnt say that but your pictures did.
So you agree they were poorly painted, but consider it "naysaying" when this is pointed out?
No, I just consider the constant negativity about every single leaked image to something GW related to be "naysaying". It is pervasive and not limited to strictly this topic.
Also, in regards to Angel Giraldez's painting? The man is insanely talented. Some of the models he's made look good for Corvus Belli are absolutely atrocious sculpts.
Spoiler:
This is an example I can immediately bring to mind. The actual sculpt has very little of the facial detail, with the nose being nothing but a slight 'bump' and the eyes being gigantic saucers. I genuinely thought she was miscast, but after getting four of the blisters containing her and the male Moderator that I was going to use as the basis for a conversion I realized that she genuinely just does not have much facial detail.
Still think you can paint better than that? Maybe you can, I'd suggest many people can't, I sure as hell can't.
I can barely boil an egg, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about an overcooked steak. I don't need to join the Screen Actor's Guild to know Paris Hilton can't act. Likewise, I shouldn't need to be a better painter to recognize that a face is seriously asymmetrical and poorly defined.
But yes, I can paint faces better than that.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Very nice painting... however again we're talking scale. The first model is a Warhammer Dark Elf I believe? The heads of Warhammer models are gigantic compared to LOTR/Hobbit. I'm not all that familiar with the Mad Hatter model, but looking at Wyrd miniature scale comparison, they look like a similar scale to 40k/Fantasy, not LOTR.
Again, I didn't mean to say LOTR models are painted to competition standard or anything like that. If you look at Golden Daemon LOTR winners from years gone past, they look better than what GW is painting for their advertising, but the gap isn't nearly as big as I think people are making out.
So you agree they were poorly painted, but consider it "naysaying" when this is pointed out?
No, I just consider the constant negativity about every single leaked image to something GW related to be "naysaying". It is pervasive and not limited to strictly this topic.
It isn't GW related, it's gakky miniature related. If there is a correlation between the two, well....
Also, in regards to Angel Giraldez's painting? The man is insanely talented. Some of the models he's made look good for Corvus Belli are absolutely atrocious sculpts.
Spoiler:
This is an example I can immediately bring to mind. The actual sculpt has very little of the facial detail, with the nose being nothing but a slight 'bump' and the eyes being gigantic saucers. I genuinely thought she was miscast, but after getting four of the blisters containing her and the male Moderator that I was going to use as the basis for a conversion I realized that she genuinely just does not have much facial detail.
That a miniature produced in the smallest scale where any sort of level of facial detail is feasible doesn't have wrinkles and beauty spots isn't surprising, that some people are capable of reproducing astonishing results regardless, is not surprising. That GW are happy to let pictures of second rate paint jobs be published because not a single one of their studio of professional miniature painters is capable of getting even close to the results Giraldez can? That is more surprising.
So you agree they were poorly painted, but consider it "naysaying" when this is pointed out?
No, I just consider the constant negativity about every single leaked image to something GW related to be "naysaying". It is pervasive and not limited to strictly this topic.
It isn't GW related, it's gakky miniature related. If there is a correlation between the two, well....
If you want to keep saying that it's a gakky miniature versus someone who actually has the model saying it is a more than passable sculpt, then be my guest. This isn't a question of aesthetics or poor posing or any number of other issues which would be my own go-to complaints. You're choosing to focus on a painted model which was shoddily painted, for whatever reason, and insisting it is the miniature itself.
Also, in regards to Angel Giraldez's painting? The man is insanely talented. Some of the models he's made look good for Corvus Belli are absolutely atrocious sculpts.
Spoiler:
This is an example I can immediately bring to mind. The actual sculpt has very little of the facial detail, with the nose being nothing but a slight 'bump' and the eyes being gigantic saucers. I genuinely thought she was miscast, but after getting four of the blisters containing her and the male Moderator that I was going to use as the basis for a conversion I realized that she genuinely just does not have much facial detail.
That a miniature produced in the smallest scale where any sort of level of facial detail is feasible doesn't have wrinkles and beauty spots isn't surprising, that some people are capable of reproducing astonishing results regardless, is not surprising. That GW are happy to let pictures of second rate paint jobs be published because not a single one of their studio of professional miniature painters is capable of getting even close to the results Giraldez can? That is more surprising.
You do realize that Giraldez basically paints twenty models a month, at most, right?
The guy is insanely talented--but he also basically has no real deadline or multiple ranges to work for, etc.
So you agree they were poorly painted, but consider it "naysaying" when this is pointed out?
No, I just consider the constant negativity about every single leaked image to something GW related to be "naysaying". It is pervasive and not limited to strictly this topic.
It isn't GW related, it's gakky miniature related. If there is a correlation between the two, well....
If you want to keep saying that it's a gakky miniature versus someone who actually has the model saying it is a more than passable sculpt, then be my guest. This isn't a question of aesthetics or poor posing or any number of other issues which would be my own go-to complaints. You're choosing to focus on a painted model which was shoddily painted, for whatever reason, and insisting it is the miniature itself.
Let's face it Kan, when it comes to GW stuff, yours isn't the most objective opinion I could seek out, and unless you're willing to post me your miniature for my own personal inspection, I'll base my opinion on GW's own promotional material which I reasonably assume is produced to show their products in the most favourable light
Also, in regards to Angel Giraldez's painting? The man is insanely talented. Some of the models he's made look good for Corvus Belli are absolutely atrocious sculpts.
Spoiler:
This is an example I can immediately bring to mind. The actual sculpt has very little of the facial detail, with the nose being nothing but a slight 'bump' and the eyes being gigantic saucers. I genuinely thought she was miscast, but after getting four of the blisters containing her and the male Moderator that I was going to use as the basis for a conversion I realized that she genuinely just does not have much facial detail.
That a miniature produced in the smallest scale where any sort of level of facial detail is feasible doesn't have wrinkles and beauty spots isn't surprising, that some people are capable of reproducing astonishing results regardless, is not surprising. That GW are happy to let pictures of second rate paint jobs be published because not a single one of their studio of professional miniature painters is capable of getting even close to the results Giraldez can? That is more surprising.
You do realize that Giraldez basically paints twenty models a month, at most, right?
The guy is insanely talented--but he also basically has no real deadline or multiple ranges to work for, etc.
Why is that my problem? If a miniature company expects me to part with my money for their product, the onus is on them to convince me. I don't care if Giraldez holds a brush tipped with fairy eyelashes in his left nostril to paint, and only does so when the moon is full and the wind is from the West.
He is one person, GW's have a team of pro painters to call on, apparently neither individually or collectively able to paint that miniature in a manner that I, or evidently many other people, subsequently become excited to own it.
So you agree they were poorly painted, but consider it "naysaying" when this is pointed out?
No, I just consider the constant negativity about every single leaked image to something GW related to be "naysaying". It is pervasive and not limited to strictly this topic.
Sure, but automatically defending GW, even when they produce what you admit is "shoddy work", is no better than automatic negativity, is it? This is clearly poor quality, but people are still throwing out excuses for that work as if it was unreasonable to hold GW painters to the higher standard of quality they put into their other models.
Very nice painting... however again we're talking scale. The first model is a Warhammer Dark Elf I believe? The heads of Warhammer models are gigantic compared to LOTR/Hobbit. I'm not all that familiar with the Mad Hatter model, but looking at Wyrd miniature scale comparison, they look like a similar scale to 40k/Fantasy, not LOTR.
Again, I didn't mean to say LOTR models are painted to competition standard or anything like that. If you look at Golden Daemon LOTR winners from years gone past, they look better than what GW is painting for their advertising, but the gap isn't nearly as big as I think people are making out.
No... just no. I post a fraction of the work I produce. I have Infinity, Wyrd, Rackham, Citadel, RAFM, Celtos, Wargames Factory, Battletech and about a dozen other lines from over 30 years of painting. I'm familiar with true 28mm scale, even if I don't have photos available on this site. I've painted enough dwarves and halflings for D&D to know how small faces can get, and they were metal as well.
Rushed work is rushed work, and it's clear from these models that they did not take the time to blend or correct their mistakes. There are a thousand reasons why the deadline did not allow them to produce better work, but I'm only concerned about what they released and photographed.
Still think you can paint better than that? Maybe you can, I'd suggest many people can't, I sure as hell can't.
I can barely boil an egg, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about an overcooked steak. I don't need to join the Screen Actor's Guild to know Paris Hilton can't act. Likewise, I shouldn't need to be a better painter to recognize that a face is seriously asymmetrical and poorly defined.
But yes, I can paint faces better than that.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Very nice painting... however again we're talking scale. The first model is a Warhammer Dark Elf I believe? The heads of Warhammer models are gigantic compared to LOTR/Hobbit. I'm not all that familiar with the Mad Hatter model, but looking at Wyrd miniature scale comparison, they look like a similar scale to 40k/Fantasy, not LOTR.
Again, I didn't mean to say LOTR models are painted to competition standard or anything like that. If you look at Golden Daemon LOTR winners from years gone past, they look better than what GW is painting for their advertising, but the gap isn't nearly as big as I think people are making out.
Please tell me that you aren't saying that the less than 1mm diference in the size of the face is the reason why a professional painter can't achieve the same results as an amateur one? (I'm assuming that Mastiff is an amateur and not a professional, great work on those faces btw!).
Also you've already been show several Infinity miniatures that are the same size (if not smaller), than those Hobbit models, continuing to insist in this line of defence despite being shown several examples to the contrary seems to be arguing for arguments sake by this point.
PhantomViper wrote: Please tell me that you aren't saying that the less than 1mm diference in the size of the face is the reason why a professional painter can't achieve the same results as an amateur one? (I'm assuming that Mastiff is an amateur and not a professional, great work on those faces btw!).
Also you've already been show several Infinity miniatures that are the same size (if not smaller), than those Hobbit models, continuing to insist in this line of defence despite being shown several examples to the contrary seems to be arguing for arguments sake by this point.
Don't put words in my mouth. Amateur or professional I don't really care, I've already stated time and again I know the GW isn't competition standard, I've already said I agree they could be painted better, hell, I'll even show you one which actually IS a LOTRGW model...
My point is that way too big of a deal is made of the painting because with models of that scale you need almost need a magnifying glass to see the difference and the GW sculpts are actually very good for their size. The picture of Angel's model next to a 1 cent coin, the LOTR models heads are the same or smaller size but greater detail (at least the ones I own and compared to a 1 cent coin).
Why GW insists on posting zoomed in photos when the models aren't painted to a zoomed in standard, I don't know. If they even just halved the size of their images, so that they are still zoomed in but not absurdly so, the scratchiness in the feathering on the faces would blur in to your monitor's pixels and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I will totally agree that The Hobbit models are massively over priced for what they are. Especially in Australia. I actually really like the new Legolas, Tauriel and Mirkwood Rangers, I'd buy them all if it weren't for the fact to buy them all would cost $190 for only 14 models, most of which are plastic and the rest are failcast.
PhantomViper wrote: Please tell me that you aren't saying that the less than 1mm diference in the size of the face is the reason why a professional painter can't achieve the same results as an amateur one? (I'm assuming that Mastiff is an amateur and not a professional, great work on those faces btw!).
Also you've already been show several Infinity miniatures that are the same size (if not smaller), than those Hobbit models, continuing to insist in this line of defence despite being shown several examples to the contrary seems to be arguing for arguments sake by this point.
Don't put words in my mouth. Amateur or professional I don't really care, I've already stated time and again I know the GW isn't competition standard, I've already said I agree they could be painted better, hell, I'll even show you one which actually IS a LOTRGW model...
How am I putting words in your mouth when you've repeatedly stated that the difference in painting quality is due to the difference in miniature size?
And why are you posting pictures of a miniature from 2005 when what is being discussed here is the latest batch of Hobbit miniatures?
No one is arguing that the original LOTR miniatures where pretty good, what people are saying is that this new batch isn't up to that old quality be it in painting or sculpting.
PhantomViper wrote: How am I putting words in your mouth when you've repeatedly stated that the difference in painting quality is due to the difference in miniature size?
I've said people are being excessively pedantic because of the miniature scale you'd need a magnifying glass to see the difference. I didn't say the difference in quality is because of the difference in scale, the difference in scale makes the difference in painting quality less significant.
And why are you posting pictures of a miniature from 2005 when what is being discussed here is the latest batch of Hobbit miniatures?
I posted the picture because unlike Mastiff's example, it IS actually the same scale (not that Mastiff's images aren't brilliantly painted... but lets compare apples to apples here). There's a big difference between a 5mm head and a 4mm head in how much detail, blending, etc you can fit on it and how it looks when you blow both of them up to 30mm high with a zoom lens.
No one is arguing that the original LOTR miniatures where pretty good, what people are saying is that this new batch isn't up to that old quality be it in painting or sculpting.
I have a couple of old LOTR books sitting on my lap, I'm flipping through the pages and not seeing where the quality in either painting or sculpting is massively different. The zoom level of the images isn't as extreme so I can't tell whether they did better or worse blending, but the actual painting quality on the level which you can see from the images and sculpt quality (the latter of which is damned near impossible to tell from the images in my books) is on par with what I'm seeing of the current batch of Hobbit models. Some are better, some are worse. Some of the Aragorn paint jobs I'm looking at from this 2005 LOTR publication look worse than the online images I'm seeing of the Hobbit models.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, this discussion is becoming increasingly pointless. I may not have been in the hobby for 78 years and be able to paint golden daemon standard, but I can tell that a 4mm face blown up to 30mm is not an accurate representation of anything much unless you have some reference to go next to it. These sculpts look good to me, beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course, and the paint job from the pictures looks up in the top 1% to me, the photography however leaves a lot to be desired.
In short, models look good, prices are absurd, paint job is debatable. Lets move on.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Amateur or professional I don't really care, I've already stated time and again I know the GW isn't competition standard, I've already said I agree they could be painted better, hell, I'll even show you one which actually IS a LOTRGW model...
My point is that way too big of a deal is made of the painting because with models of that scale you need almost need a magnifying glass to see the difference and the GW sculpts are actually very good for their size. The picture of Angel's model next to a 1 cent coin, the LOTR models heads are the same or smaller size but greater detail (at least the ones I own and compared to a 1 cent coin)
Your point is invalid. This is not a magnifying glass, it is an image GW is using to promote their model:
This isn't being pedantic. We aren't commenting on the models at 1:1 size because that is not what GW is using to sell their models, are they? They are relying on these photos.
People are pointing out the painting quality is poor, and GW is responsible for the quality. They are also the ones responsible for the marketing images; they choose the size and quality, and have decided to highlight their lack of attention to detail. This diminishes the apparent quality of the sculpts, because people think "...if that's the best their professional studio painters can do..." It's not the best they can do, and you know that.
In short, GW made a bad call to promote the new minis with these images. You agree with all of this, but keep making excuses for them regardless.
I disagree - I dont consider those anywhere near poor quality paintjobs. They can be better sure, but poor quality? Maybe LOTR etc is targetting a different demographic where they dont want to do intimidate with full on professional paintjobs. Has been said before that that could be an issue - those are higher end table top quality paintjobs and someone (who probably knows what they are targetting) has obviously made a conscious choice to have them painted that way.
Those are massively blown up models and they shouldnt be. I have seen their LOTR in real life and they look really good - not amazing, not brilliant but just good solid paintjobs.
fullheadofhair wrote: I disagree - I dont consider those anywhere near poor quality paintjobs. They can be better sure, but poor quality? Maybe LOTR etc is targetting a different demographic where they dont want to do intimidate with full on professional paintjobs. Has been said before that that could be an issue - those are higher end table top quality paintjobs and someone (who probably knows what they are targetting) has obviously made a conscious choice to have them painted that way.
Those are massively blown up models and they shouldnt be. I have seen their LOTR in real life and they look really good - not amazing, not brilliant but just good solid paintjobs.
This is a fallacious argument.
You dont walk into a car showroom and see cars with mud all over them and some light paint scuffs "because that's how they will look when they're owned by a real person"
You don't see pictures of the drinks in Starbucks or food in McDonalds with slightly wonky garnishes or stuff slopped over to one side because that's how you'll likely receive them.
It is an utter folly to promote your product with images which are anything but showing them in the best possible light, if for no other reason than everyone else does this, so the consumer will assume you're doing the same.
With miniatures, I want to see aspirational images that encourage me to try and improve what I can do personally and give me a benchmark as to what can be done. These days, with no false modesty, I can say that my best is beginning to approach what I see scoring 7s and 8s on CMON, I just need to achieve that consistently and make a few improvements and I'll be happy. Now, perhaps not everyone feels the same way (I always have, even as a teenager barely capable of laying down and even coat of paint on a vehicle, I still aspired to be as good as I could be, I was just a lot further away from it) but I bet images of amazingly painted miniatures and armies is what hooked the overwhelming majority of posters here into the hobby, not pictures of poorly photographed models, with "good enough" paint jobs.
FYI: The Mirkwood Ranger Captains?
It seems that the male has a sculpted flaw. I took a look at the blister today, debating buying it and it most definitely is a flaw where the right eye is sculpted without a 'lower lid' and it matches to the poor paintjob.
It's easier to convert a Ranger Captain from the plastic Mirkwood Rangers anyways.
You dont walk into a car showroom and see cars with mud all over them and some light paint scuffs "because that's how they will look when they're owned by a real person"
You don't see pictures of the drinks in Starbucks or food in McDonalds with slightly wonky garnishes or stuff slopped over to one side because that's how you'll likely receive them.
You're not supposed to put that car together or make your own burgers. so back at ya with that fallacious argument.
The vast majority of GW customers can just about put three colours on their miniatures without turning them into shapeless blobs. For them, the paintjobs are perfectly adequate and a good point of reference.
We're talking about how a company represents it's products (or I was at least) so I stand by my point, unless you're suggesting that GW should stop posting pics of painted minis altogether and just post pics solely of the kit in pieces or on the sprue?
Azazelx wrote: ...For that matter, the Legolas linked above is blown up in size an absolutely ridiculous amount. Anything is going to suffer badly with that much zoom.
I'm a bit baffled by the lengths people will go to to protect GW's honour. The purpose of painting the models is to sell them. And if the staff painters can't make them look decent, why would anyone choose to buy the models? It's incredibly poor marketing for a company that claims to "make the best model soldiers in the world".
Yeah, I'm a fething Games Workshop White Knight. The Whitest! Actually, I just try to be reasonable in my opinions. Which means I'm unhappy or disappointed with them most of the time, but for reasons that are valid.
The only real explanation is that GW has lowered its standards for this product line; sales are driven by the movie and the licensing, not the appearance or quality of the models, so it's not worth the time to do better.
I'm just calling it how I see it. When you take something that is 4mm across and painted to look good when 4mm across and then zoom in so it appears on your screen as 40mm across (like the zoomed in face pictures), of course it's going to look terrible.
Lets take some of those images and rescale them to the actual model size (using my own monitor and a few LOTR models as references, I'm on a 23" 1920x1080 monitor, so I think that's a pretty common DPI, and I have an old Fellowship of the Ring set and some Rohan that I'm using to roughly scale the images).
Resizing some of those earlier pictures to a realistic scale, this is what they look like...
I don't know why GW insist on zooming in to unrealistic levels on their LOTR/Hobbit models, because it makes them look terrible when really they aren't bad at all.
Thanks for doing that. GW really aren't doing themselves any favours with the over-the-top zoom on these photos.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
griffen127 wrote: I have to disagree with you on the painting quality allseek. The new book is full of terrible paint jobs. I a,m not a world class painter. However, I paint better than 90% of the armies in the new book. It's sad to see gw put suck low quality stuff in the next new book.
Oh! I always love these kinds of posts. Pic comparisons or it didn't happen/you're full of it!
Since no one has posted these, the Hobbit releases for January:
Gandalf
Bard:
Master of Laketown:
Alfrid:
Laketown Captain:
Laketown Swordsmen:
Laketown Bowmen:
Laketown Spearmen:
Gandalf is nice, but do we really need more Gandalfs a this point ?I think there were around 5 versions in LOTR, and this is the 4th for the Hobbit (iirc). 9 options is plenty, and I'd rather see the time and effort spent on something new.
Bard is nice and dynamic, but the model itself is a little bland. Nice overall, though.
I'm not a fan of the Master or Alfrid, the faces aren't that good. The paint-scheme on all the laketown stuff is not great, that blue is way too bright.
The Laketown guard are just horribly overpriced, and finecast, so I can't see them selling. £80 for a warband is just mad. Also, you could probably get away with painting the plastic men of Dale blue to get the same unit. The aesthetic is virtually the same.
A giant chunk of the last alliance/one ring forums had planned to get a warband(or army) of dale.WHY WOULD YOU MAKE A SWARM ARMY IN FAILCOST!?Seriously its got low points cost and it FINECAST?And we thought metal hobbit swarm was stupid...
i've not had any interest in the hobbit miniatures so far, mainly because of cost but also because the movies are pretty meh. But i seriously want that master model... Just in case stephen fry pops round for tea.
Bard doesn't really look like the fella who portrayed him in the movie (I forget his name). I know it is hard to get that kind of detail so small but just look at some of the LotR models and it is obvious that it can be done.
Really like the Laketown guard and the Master. Very good sculpts indeed.
Of course the price tags and finecast put me off completely. $25 for each model filled with bubbles and miscasts? I don't think so GW.
It is also obvious GW has given up with the Hobbit almost entirely. We went from around 10 (11 counting Goblin Town) plastic kits in the first movie to two in the second.
The reason why LotR was so popular years ago was (in my opinion) the fact that you could quickly build a huge army for less than half the price of 40K of WFB due to the 24 man plastic sets. With that incentive gone and next to no promotion of the game itself it is no wonder that it is making no money. Perhaps the final movie and some actual battle scenes will mean GW may actually make some more plastic goodness as a pose to a few overpriced finecast models.
I seriously doubt it. Almost every time I go into my FLGS or GW Dusseldorf I pick up a box of the hunter orcs on wargs, admire the sculpts, check the price, sigh and put them back.
I mean, I can afford them, but I just bought forty really nice Gripping Beast Dark Ages warriors for 24 euro. Comparing that to the six cavalry there, it is no contest which is giving me better bang for my buck. I got 15 Norman Cavalry for a similar price.
I refuse to support that level of pricing. Sadly, I assume that means the line will eventually fail if enough people take my attitude as I doubt GW will ever reduce prices. But we shouldn't be encouraging that sort of pricing.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can't wait until we get the utterly unnecessary boxes of 10 plastic Lake Town guard.
Who do you think you are kidding? I bet you'd be the first to secretly pre-order 10 boxes
Anyway, back OT.
The master is, in my humble view, one of GW's best sculpts in recent years. That IS Stephen Fry in a nutshell, so fair play to GW. See, I can give credit where it's due.
Agree with the views on Gandalf - 9 versions is too many.
It is also obvious GW has given up with the Hobbit almost entirely. We went from around 10 (11 counting Goblin Town) plastic kits in the first movie to two in the second.
Bear in mind though that considering these designs were probably planned for a two-Hobbit movie event rather than a trilogy, last months Wood Elves would have been the final releases for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey rather than the first releases for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.
It is also obvious GW has given up with the Hobbit almost entirely. We went from around 10 (11 counting Goblin Town) plastic kits in the first movie to two in the second.
Bear in mind though that considering these designs were probably planned for a two-Hobbit movie event rather than a trilogy, last months Wood Elves would have been the final releases for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey rather than the first releases for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.
It is also obvious GW has given up with the Hobbit almost entirely. We went from around 10 (11 counting Goblin Town) plastic kits in the first movie to two in the second.
Bear in mind though that considering these designs were probably planned for a two-Hobbit movie event rather than a trilogy, last months Wood Elves would have been the final releases for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey rather than the first releases for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.
Not only that but consider that Yazneg was in the "Desolation of Smaug" book...despite having died in Unexpected Journey.
Then we have things like Bolg, the option for Legolas to have a horse, Thranduil with armor, etc.
Incidentally, Thranduil with armor? There was a few shots of him in armor on Peter Jackson's "Desolation of Smaug" behind the scenes videos. It looked amazing.
Actually really like those Laketown guys, they look nicely sculpted and the design is very characterful! Also, Alfrid looks mildly like a moustached Keith Allen
Pacific wrote: Actually really like those Laketown guys, they look nicely sculpted and the design is very characterful! Also, Alfrid looks mildly like a moustached Keith Allen
I remember seeing Keith Allen at a music festival years ago looking more drugged up than an East German weight lifter! But that's another story.
Anyway, back OT. Does anybody else think the laketown guys look like the guards from the first Conan film (the one with Arnie in it)
It is also obvious GW has given up with the Hobbit almost entirely. We went from around 10 (11 counting Goblin Town) plastic kits in the first movie to two in the second.
Bear in mind though that considering these designs were probably planned for a two-Hobbit movie event rather than a trilogy, last months Wood Elves would have been the final releases for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey rather than the first releases for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.
Not only that but consider that Yazneg was in the "Desolation of Smaug" book...despite having died in Unexpected Journey.
Then we have things like Bolg, the option for Legolas to have a horse, Thranduil with armor, etc.
Incidentally, Thranduil with armor? There was a few shots of him in armor on Peter Jackson's "Desolation of Smaug" behind the scenes videos. It looked amazing.
The most exciting thing about these releases was that Stephen Fry tweeted a pic of his model.
Oh, and, for some reason GW have actually released the rules for last years models for FREE to download. This does not compute, can someone please explain?
Compel wrote: The most exciting thing about these releases was that Stephen Fry tweeted a pic of his model.
Oh, and, for some reason GW have actually released the rules for last years models for FREE to download. This does not compute, can someone please explain?
Sales are that low that its incentive to buy efgt and more models like hunter orcs.Its hard to convince people to buy a 60 euro book for a few profiles and scenarios.Stephen fry has in one tweet done more advertising then GW has done for the hobbit.
Agreed, and doesn't look like the actor... in general a lot of these models just strike me as unattractive... regardless of sculpting quality (which honestly is also lacking, but still).
Damn, Thranduil's armour is EPIC! I have managed to resist paying for overpriced hobbit models, but if they bring that out, I may have to just grab it. It's ok, though, I've got a year to prepare myself
And yeah, Azog on the White Warg is amazing (I'm not a fan of the one on foot). The price is just completely over the top, though.
Paradigm wrote: Damn, Thranduil's armour is EPIC! I have managed to resist paying for overpriced hobbit models, but if they bring that out, I may have to just grab it. It's ok, though, I've got a year to prepare myself
With any luck, Thranduil in armor will actually be coming out before the next installment of The Hobbit.
Mostly because I really need that model for a Palace Guard/Ranger heavy list.
And yeah, Azog on the White Warg is amazing (I'm not a fan of the one on foot). The price is just completely over the top, though.
The one on foot actually has some hideous casting. The detail on the face is very soft in places.
The price is high but it is worth mentioning that Azog and the White Warg are noticeably larger than the other Warg mounted Hunter Orcs.
Thanks to that other spam-thread (and fair play to that man being drunk at 1pm in the afternoon ) I now can't stop seeing John Cleese in that Bard miniature..
It's not so much the moustache, but the tight-lipped expression/look of consternation (although still think it's a pretty good sculpt!)
Pacific wrote: Thanks to that other spam-thread (and fair play to that man being drunk at 1pm in the afternoon ) I now can't stop seeing John Cleese in that Bard miniature..
It's not so much the moustache, but the tight-lipped expression/look of consternation (although still think it's a pretty good sculpt!)
It really does, although the mustache doesn't help things. The faces are ridiculously bad. That Alfrid figure especially looks nothing like the actor. Between those two and Vladimir Putin Legolas, it's as if they used the wrong references for each figure. The entire range has been a wash for me.
Kroothawk wrote: This is not threadomancy, this is GW Hobbit release policy
End of the week, we will see preorders of new Hobbit miniatures, as announced on this WD cover:
Although to be fair the release policy hasn't been helped by the film maker's decision to stretch The Hobbit to three films over 24 months rather than two separated by 12.
alphaecho wrote: Although to be fair the release policy hasn't been helped by the film maker's decision to stretch The Hobbit to three films over 24 months rather than two separated by 12.
Like butter that has been scraped over too much bread.
Isn't it nice of them to make this error in a franchise that has the perfect quote to describe it?
alphaecho wrote: Although to be fair the release policy hasn't been helped by the film maker's decision to stretch The Hobbit to three films over 24 months rather than two separated by 12.
Like butter that has been scraped over too much bread.
Isn't it nice of them to make this error in a franchise that has the perfect quote to describe it?
(All Finecast, all released 29th march)
Beorn and Bear 40€
Girion Lord of Dale (Father of Bard, no, not Homer ) 15€
Gundabad Orc Captain 13€
Gundabad Orc Swordsmen (Blister of 3) 20€
Gundabad Orc Speermen (Blister of 3) 20€
Gundabad Orcs are heavily armoured. Never seen them before.
(All Finecast, all released 29th march)
Beorn and Bear 40€
Girion Lord of Dale (Father of Bard, no, not Homer ) 15€
Gundabad Orc Captain 13€
Gundabad Orc Swordsmen (Blister of 3) 20€
Gundabad Orc Speermen (Blister of 3) 20€
Gundabad Orcs are heavily armoured. Never seen them before.
The pics of these are all shockingly bad, imo, except Beorn. Surprised they're not in this thread already!
Oh, so no plastic Gundabad Orcs? I mean sure there's already armoured orc models, but I was kind of anticipating a kit for those that were briefly seen in the second movie (those are Gundabad Orcs right? The ones with the silly helmets?). Poo.
Hang on, don't the Gundabad Orcs make up most of the Orc force during the Battle of the Five Armies?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ah right, and knicked from some blog. Till proper images appear.
Yeah, the bear is pretty terrible. Beorn in human form, on the other hand, for those that have seen him, looks spot on to the movie version. Quite nice really.
Compel wrote: Thranduil looks like he's wearing some kind of steam punk microphone eyelens hybrid thing. I don't remember that in the film!
It's the same as his weird crown/collar thing...just it can't be represented absolutely 100% correct on a model unless they go and make the crown its own piece that attaches to Thranduil's head. So it ends up having a little bit "sculpted" connecting it to the face.
It's a weird design that from the first time I saw it in "An Unexpected Journey" I thought it would be difficult to show on a model.
He might have stood up too quickly...Thrandy is really bad, Beorn is quite bad, the rest meh. Some poor painting too, GW is clearly falling out of love with the license still.
I like most the models. Beorn the Bear is a bit whack, but the rest look good. But my goodness, the prices, GW are completely stupid, so much of The Hobbit stuff I've liked the miniatures but just cannot justify the insane prices.
I dont like any of this lot and I'm a fan of the previous models. The bear looks terrabad but I expect that's because it's CGI on the film and I doubt they had any good pictures to go on other than the big black bear from the book. In the movie pics he is rather chunkier and you can see he is bear 'like' but not a natural looking bear. the texture of the fur is duff too. It looks like something I would have done with greenstuff. Also I dislike that they are putting in another Beorn in 'man' form model when I bought the one that came out in December... Thranduil looks lousy but I would need to see the actual model to tell if its the paint job or not and yes that crown looks silly at that scale. I would have left off the bits that come round toward the eyes. The Gundabad orcs look rubbish. I am really surprised they aren't plastic and am sceptical because the third movie is out at Christmas and that will have the massive battle in it which I am sure will have GW trying to reinvigorate the LotR war game rather than the skirmish game.
I'm a huge Middle Earth fanboy, and especially the Hobbit. Wouldn't buy any of those miniatures.
The Hobbit has been a big disappointment for me. I really want to like it, and to be excited about the range again, but at the prices GW charges that is just impossible.
Da Boss wrote: I'm a huge Middle Earth fanboy, and especially the Hobbit. Wouldn't buy any of those miniatures.
The Hobbit has been a big disappointment for me. I really want to like it, and to be excited about the range again, but at the prices GW charges that is just impossible.
I agree I want to get these but the models just aren't worth it to me.
I actually think Beorn looks spot on to the movie and I like everything else in this release except the Beorn in Bear format.
@KrootHawk
As for it all being finecast I heard a little something from my local FLGS owner.....
He said that the Hobbit range will be getting taken over by Forge World in the near future possibly. I am not 100% sure if that means the old Lord of the Rings stuff though.
Just thought I would drop that in there. Also said something about Gamesworkshop switching all the Finecast stuff (in the Fantasy range and 40k range) to plastic kits...Kroothawk do you know if that is true (or a possible rumour) since you know alot about that haha
alphaecho wrote: I do hope the bear looks better in the film than that model.
For the Orc armour though, if that's how WETA designed it then that's how GW have to reproduce it.
I remember for the LOTR releases, the Perrys said that each Rohan soldier model was a reproduction of an actual costume from the film.
I was at a staff meeting in notts when the perrys said they had met each rohan warrior personally and they wanted to capture that individuality figure wise. Then I saw plastics. Their really nice guys but I don't believe anything gw wise they say. Sorry. And to be fair I'm an ex uni mate of matt ward. Nice guy but a magic tcg power gamer to to core.
$40AUD for 3 of the Orcs, $30AUD for the unit leader, oh my lord. And $90 for Beorn? When there are dudes like Mierce around making something much cooler for less? Ahahahah no thanks GW.
I was at a staff meeting in notts when the perrys said they had met each rohan warrior personally and they wanted to capture that individuality figure was.
Well, they were in the films and have turned up in cast photos if my memory is right. So its not exactly unlikely that they spent a bit chatting with the extras.
chiefbigredman wrote:KrootHawk
As for it all being finecast I heard a little something from my local FLGS owner.....
He said that the Hobbit range will be getting taken over by Forge World in the near future possibly. I am not 100% sure if that means the old Lord of the Rings stuff though.
I heard that rumour too, but these are officially declared Finecast products.
Ouze wrote:So, I haven't seen these movies, and I have to ask, what is that thing on the right, a bear? Because, uh... damn.
Beorn is a shapeshifter that can transform into something bear-like.
[quote=chiefbigredman 561594 6654989 ff761cf9d82b31a7abcef3c8d28615d1.jpg@KrootHawk
As for it all being finecast I heard a little something from my local FLGS owner.....
He said that the Hobbit range will be getting taken over by Forge World in the near future possibly. I am not 100% sure if that means the old Lord of the Rings stuff though.
Just thought I would drop that in there.
I think The Hobbit range is still Finecast because it should have been released months ago and was pushed out of synch with GW's plans (if you believe they have them) when the movie release schedule changed.
Well I thought I would add this link in there (not sure that is is on this thread yet) It is the new 1 click bundle collections for the Lord of the Rings game (including Balin's Tomb which is essentially the old starter kit but not as many goblins in this one but the old one ran something like $60ish dollars if I recall??) .....paying extra for the convience of
I find it interesting that they did this. They may be trying to jolt sales or something of that nature?
Anyways here is the math on the Balin's tomb collection This kit costs $180.25 Canadian but if you buy all the models separately it adds up to $173 Canadian if you purchase the non finecast version of the Fellowship.
I didn't feel like doing the math for the rest but I think it is probably similar line of no saving for the 1 click bundles.
chiefbigredman wrote: Well I thought I would add this link in there (not sure that is is on this thread yet) It is the new 1 click bundle collections for the Lord of the Rings game (including Balin's Tomb which is essentially the old starter kit but not as many goblins in this one but the old one ran something like $60ish dollars if I recall??) .....paying extra for the convience of
To be fair, the Mines of Moria kit was a plastic Fellowship, they didn't look as good as a the metal fellowship of the same time.
But yeah, LOTR/Hobbit is painfully expensive now, a large part of the reason I started LOTR back in the Mines of Moria days was just how cheap it was. I haven't bought a single thing from The Hobbit range due to the extreme price even though I really like a lot of the models.
Ouze wrote:So, I haven't seen these movies, and I have to ask, what is that thing on the right, a bear? Because, uh... damn.
Beorn is a shapeshifter that can transform into something bear-like.
Yeah, but I remember him looking cooler in the movie. He looked a hell of a lot more bear-like than the model does.
Courtesy of Google , screen cap from movie:
Concept art:
And then there's...that model. Looks more like one of those ugly wargs than a bear, really.
Seriously though, GW? Do better. This is a fething joke. For those prices you had damn well better make sure you're offering a good-quality sculpt and this isn't it.
. And is anyone other than a couple of display painters going to have any use for a dozen or so separate dwarf / hobbit models in barrels? 
This is an example I can immediately bring to mind. The actual sculpt has very little of the facial detail, with the nose being nothing but a slight 'bump' and the eyes being gigantic saucers. I genuinely thought she was miscast, but after getting four of the blisters containing her and the male Moderator that I was going to use as the basis for a conversion I realized that she genuinely just does not have much facial detail.
Actually, I just try to be reasonable in my opinions. Which means I'm unhappy or disappointed with them most of the time, but for reasons that are valid.
