Is it just me?
Or the new Stonehart cow units are lame...

I think the mountains with trees growing out of the shoulders is an odd choice... but other than that It's a fantasy miniature.

If I were to buy one... and I wouldn't... but if I were, I'd probably try to do something different with the mountains growing out of the shoulders and be ok with it otherwise.

Yeah, mountains are an obviously cheezy one.
-"Stone themed units, what shall we do"
-"Dont know sir, this is a hard one"
-"Hmmm lets put... rocks and mountains in the design!"
-"Brilliant sir! what school did you go to to learn such depths of character design?!"

For me bigger problem is that I just do not understand a thematic connection of a Beatmen upright cow with the "High-Elfs" I know they are not HighElfs, yet they LOOK like they are kin.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I think the mountains with trees growing out of the shoulders is an odd choice... but other than that It's a fantasy miniature.

If I were to buy one... and I wouldn't... but if I were, I'd probably try to do something different with the mountains growing out of the shoulders and be ok with it otherwise.

Nothing's "growing" out of it.

These are constructs shaped for a Spirit of the Mountain to inhabit them. The rocks and even the shrubs on them are meant to reflect the mountains themselves.

The fluff for them was actually fascinating to read about. The Alarith(Mountain) Temples are devoted to specific mountains, with the Stonemages creating these constructs where the mountain can inhabit the construct if it feels the battle in question necessitates it. Avalenor, the Stoneheart King is the exception to the rule having just shown up at some point much like Teclis' companion Luna Sphinx. Each of the major Temples(Wind, River, and Mountain respectively) are described as having some kind of construct/Spirit deal. The final Temple(Zenith) seems to be less attainable and so there's no Spirit mentioned for them yet.

Wind has a 'fox-faced spirit, with streamers trailing behind' and 'wielding a massive bow'.
River's Spirit was not really well described, other than being a massive water elemental that crushed an Orruk horde within its mass. Since then though, the river whose spirit it was has become more violent and its currents turbulent because of the rusting Orruk armor in its riverbed.

Plus if you look at the 3D you can see that the mountain sticks out to the back its not a flat "hill" formed right on the shoulders.

Personally Luminoth are not for me at this stage. I don't like them enough to want to buy into them and I've got enough armies as-is that even if I really liked them I wouldn't have room to collect them.

That said I don't dislike the models. I also think that some units, like the elite horn-helmed infantry won't look as bad as people think when they see the actual models. Sometimes close up photos can make some details look different or wrong compared to when you see them in reality.


That said that cow model would make a great base for a converted Keeper of Secrets.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
I think the mountains with trees growing out of the shoulders is an odd choice... but other than that It's a fantasy miniature.

If I were to buy one... and I wouldn't... but if I were, I'd probably try to do something different with the mountains growing out of the shoulders and be ok with it otherwise.

Nothing's "growing" out of it.

These are constructs shaped for a Spirit of the Mountain to inhabit them. The rocks and even the shrubs on them are meant to reflect the mountains themselves.

I am sorry, And? Miniature mountains and trees on shoulder pads still look lame.
There are many many ways to draw a character with (Spirit of the Mountain) without actually drawing an actual mountain. That is just bad design imho



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Plus if you look at the 3D you can see that the mountain sticks out to the back its not a flat "hill" formed right on the shoulders.

Personally Luminoth are not for me at this stage. I don't like them enough to want to buy into them and I've got enough armies as-is that even if I really liked them I wouldn't have room to collect them.

That said I don't dislike the models. I also think that some units, like the elite horn-helmed infantry won't look as bad as people think when they see the actual models. Sometimes close up photos can make some details look different or wrong compared to when you see them in reality.


That said that cow model would make a great base for a converted Keeper of Secrets.

Yeah, some of the units might look pretty cool for sure.
I was talking about the overall bad design for the faction

Think of it this way - its a very classic fantasy design and GW's designs are very born in the 70-80s era of fantasy.

 Overread wrote:
Think of it this way - its a very classic fantasy design and GW's designs are very born in the 70-80s era of fantasy.

Fair enough
That works.
Still, bad design is a bad design, classic or new.
70-80s era had some great designs and some bad designs why bring bad the... nm

Nevermind the mountains
I was talking about Thematic connection of a Cygor draped in Elven armor.
Is that an also classic GW 70 design? Taking a chaos unit, putting "good" armor on it? Or taking a noble knight and putting ork armor on it?

I saw the unit and was like,,, Are Elfs and beast men are now allies on this new unit?

 Overread wrote:
I also think that some units, like the elite horn-helmed infantry won't look as bad as people think when they see the actual models. Sometimes close up photos can make some details look different or wrong compared to when you see them in reality.

And I'm pretty sure that unit will look just as dumb if I ever see it in person.
I don't mind the hammers one way or another, but those stupid looking helmets....
A) Will definitely prevent me from buying the unit,
B) And if i were buying the unit? Then I'd have to do a head swap (with spearmen? archers? cav?).

Or you could just clip off the horns, clean up the helm and use the helmet as is. Chances are that works pretty well

I quite like the big cows. I seriously dislike the cow-warrior elves, but that's because they retain the worst elements of the lame wfb High Elves more than the basic spear and bow boys somehow.

 Overread wrote:
Or you could just clip off the horns, clean up the helm and use the helmet as is. Chances are that works pretty well

I looked at the sprue. I think that'll be more effort than it'd be worth.
I'll wait & see if the other luminith player gets any before I make a final decision though.

Kind of like them. They do something new and bold, with a strong mythological flavour. They feel like they really belong in a high fantasy, realm-spanning game of conflict like AoS.

Will I buy them? Dunno, if I'm honest. Lovely figures, rather expensive.

New and bold, sure. As the "new High Elves" I was hoping for something...I don't know...more graceful? If you were going to pick one place to put hammers and giant goat creatures in Sigmar the new elves are probably the last place I'd look.

New? Well, obvs.

Bold? It's certainly a new direction, and a stronger break with the past than orruks or fyreslayers. I'm ok with the Greek-style troops rather than yet another post-Tolkien vibe.

The bull theme is a callout to Minoan culture, although I would have gone with axes (Labyrinthos means "the place of the axe" according to the guide we had at Knossos, and axes seem to have had a strong symbolism from the Neolithic onwards).

Or maybe Slaanesh. Who knows right now?

I'm glad that GW doesn't feel bound by design choices it first made three decades ago, and if you thought that the "AoS version" just meant "the same but a little sharper" then you haven't been paying attention.

The bowmen are silly, and the cow-god think is very static, otherwise they're very nice. The Griffon thing that Teclis is attached to is lovely though. A homage to the Sphinx Mysterieux sculpture by Charles van der Stappen?

I mean really, if you don't like them, that's fine. I find them graceful - how would you change them? Maybe I just don't have any prior investment in what I think High Elves should look like?

The thing is that cows are good and miniatures that involve cows are good.

More cows, i say.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
New and bold, sure. As the "new High Elves" I was hoping for something...I don't know...more graceful? If you were going to pick one place to put hammers and giant goat creatures in Sigmar the new elves are probably the last place I'd look.

Thank you! lolz


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Momotaro wrote:
New? Well, obvs.

Bold? It's certainly a new direction, and a stronger break with the past than orruks or fyreslayers. I'm ok with the Greek-style troops rather than yet another post-Tolkien vibe.

The bull theme is a callout to Minoan culture, although I would have gone with axes (Labyrinthos means "the place of the axe" according to the guide we had at Knossos, and axes seem to have had a strong symbolism from the Neolithic onwards).

Or maybe Slaanesh. Who knows right now?

I'm glad that GW doesn't feel bound by design choices it first made three decades ago, and if you thought that the "AoS version" just meant "the same but a little sharper" then you haven't been paying attention.

The bowmen are silly, and the cow-god think is very static, otherwise they're very nice. The Griffon thing that Teclis is attached to is lovely though. A homage to the Sphinx Mysterieux sculpture by Charles van der Stappen?

I mean really, if you don't like them, that's fine. I find them graceful - how would you change them? Maybe I just don't have any prior investment in what I think High Elves should look like?

I was in the hobby for the art and the models after I read Malus Darkblade, never played warhammer fantasy but owned many models, then watched AoS endtimes end the fantasy community with broken hearts and book burnings on youtube. After AoS, got more models but never played the game, no time plus no one to play with. So A) I was never around the old warhammer B) I got Zero attachment to the original style and direction of warhammer C) I never played or followed the lore after AoS
My Whole point is purely about the character design!

What I would of done? Probably not used hoofs and horns in the character design because those make units look like beasts of chaos. With the right color scheme Lumineth will look like a transition faction between Demonets and DE.
At times I kinda get a glimpse of understanding of why the original fantasy community was in such distress about the endtimes/AoS direction.
Perhaps I would of been in a bit of a distress along with the old players if I knew that in future there will be a faction of Elfs who will look like Beastmen worshipers with their own bovine beast.

I couldn’t disagree more. The cow mountains are a beautiful design to me personally. Great shapes used and overall good sense of scale with very reserved but well constructed details for a model they could’ve gone ham on. And the interesting fluff for why they have the mountains on their back (which are very 3D in person) and why it’s cool.

I’m not saying people have to like it, but to say it’s a bad design I’d say is incorrect.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
New and bold, sure. As the "new High Elves" I was hoping for something...I don't know...more graceful? If you were going to pick one place to put hammers and giant goat creatures in Sigmar the new elves are probably the last place I'd look.

Mountains? Hammers? These aren't high elves - these are dwarf elves. They're wannabe dwarfs. If they could grow beards, they'd have them down to their knees.

Ah well, one Old World rivalry settled!

 Tiberius501 wrote:
I couldn’t disagree more. The cow mountains are a beautiful design to me personally. Great shapes used and overall good sense of scale with very reserved but well constructed details for a model they could’ve gone ham on. And the interesting fluff for why they have the mountains on their back (which are very 3D in person) and why it’s cool.

I’m not saying people have to like it, but to say it’s a bad design I’d say is incorrect.

Not a bad design...
Why is it good design?
"beautiful design to me personally"
"Great shapes"
"overall good sense of scale"
"well constructed details"
"interesting fluff"

I am sorry none of those are part of what is important in a good design.
Character however is very important (imo there are no character in these units because it mixes 3 different themes into one)
Difference in scale is important (Especially the Spirit units are equally proportionate in relationship between the feet torso head, that is a boring design, for a good design ratios pull up some character designs from Blizzard)
Rhythm is especially important (That is a relationship between the busy and the plain. The spirit units are absolutely festooned with dangly bits and pieces of detail equality spread all over the models, at least Alarith have plain robes to balance the design)
Composition is paramount important (That is the overall dynamic of the model, and I must say that GW always nailed composition spot on with all the sculpts)
And ultimately the Silhouette is extremely important (That is the cutout shape of the unit that is the most important element in any game completely fails in the Lumineth and especially with the Spirit units. For the importance of the readability of the silhouette find Valve's design direction for Leaf4Dead)
All of these are important for the design because they make sure the object reads well, especially at a distance! If the object does not read well then it is bad design no matter how cool the fluff is. Because the design deals with the "Impact" (impact is a term referring to the strong composition design, color, and tone that immediately catches the eye) Even though it can have all the "Payoff" (Payoff is a term referring to the richness of information and details present when the image is examined closer) it still fails as a good design. The bovine theme at a distance reads like chaos units, and the mountains the the trees on the should-pads do not even read as such at the distance. You know what reads well? the Horns the hoofs the hammers read well.

That is why I say these units have bad design. I am not convinced of a good design by "Great shapes" and "overall good sense of scale" when I see that the silhouette is failing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crispy78 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
New and bold, sure. As the "new High Elves" I was hoping for something...I don't know...more graceful? If you were going to pick one place to put hammers and giant goat creatures in Sigmar the new elves are probably the last place I'd look.

Mountains? Hammers? These aren't high elves - these are dwarf elves. They're wannabe dwarfs. If they could grow beards, they'd have them down to their knees.

Ah well, one Old World rivalry settled!

I though same lolz
Is't Bovine mountain spirit thing a Native American Mythos?
Or Wołogór, Mountain Spirit’s helper Polish inspiration?

 Momotaro wrote:
- how would you change them?

Style their helms more like either the spearmen/archers/cav. I'd keep the cow horns on banner poles/banners/maybe as designs on breatplates/shields.
I just don't like the tall spindly helms with antlers sticking out from them. Looks cool enough on their mage, but not so cool on infantry units.

And Mothsniper can go on all they like concerning why a design is/isn't bad. But at the end of the day I still won't like these helmets....

ccs wrote:

 Momotaro wrote:
- how would you change them?

Style their helms more like either the spearmen/archers/cav. I'd keep the cow horns on banner poles/banners/maybe as designs on breatplates/shields.
I just don't like the tall spindly helms with antlers sticking out from them. Looks cool enough on their mage, but not so cool on infantry units.

And Mothsniper can go on all they like concerning why a design is/isn't bad. But at the end of the day I still won't like these helmets....

I agree with horns on banners.

I only go on when called out
My purpose is never to change opinions for it is a monumentally a useless task, but instead find folk alike of mind.

Crispy78 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
New and bold, sure. As the "new High Elves" I was hoping for something...I don't know...more graceful? If you were going to pick one place to put hammers and giant goat creatures in Sigmar the new elves are probably the last place I'd look.

Mountains? Hammers? These aren't high elves - these are dwarf elves. They're wannabe dwarfs. If they could grow beards, they'd have them down to their knees.

Ah well, one Old World rivalry settled!

But dwarves are either on fire or flying in the sky now. Or losers that need to hang out around humans and elves to do anything

I happen to like really like the Alarith a.k.a. Lumineth mountain aspect elements. So much so that the Lumineth went from a faction that was kinda nice and looked to be a nice Order counterpart to a more classically based (infantry, cavalry, archers) army to my S2D warriors and knights to a faction I actually wanted to collect. Just today, I picked up my pre-order of 4 boxes of Stone Guard and 2 boxes of Avalenor/Spirit of the Mountain.

I think the models are rather well designed with a number of Earth based cultures nicely balanced with traditional (read: Tolkien/Gygax) fantasy yet wholly original. The faction so far very much leans on classical Greek befitting such a Apollonian faction of arrogant intellectuals. At least as much my limited knowledge of Greek mythology knows. The Stone Guard and whole mountain aspect in general does have a sort of Hindi/Tibetanvibe lending them a very monk/holy man impression made more concrete with their flowing robes and capes. Which further presses the idea they people are smart son-of-a-guns yet seeking humility and self-reflection. All told through the hinted choices of the models. I even like the 3-stinged bows which as a sort of 'This is Spinal Tap' impression of regular bows just go to 1. Our bows go to 3. Ya know, because they are thrice the archer.

Avalenor and the Spirit of the Mountain have a serene, tranquil sort of power to them that belies the grace of their lithe forms. Despite all the banners and ribbons whipping in the wind which could symbolize the chaos and Chaos of the Mortal Realms that surround them. About the only element I don't like is the reds used for the Mountain diorama up on the broad shoulders and back of Avalenor which I think betray an otherwise calmness to the model. Although, this fury of the included warm colors make sense given the hero aspect of the lands of Hysh given form. Not necessarily as apparent without some knowledge of the AoS setting, but an sort of subtle indicator none the less.

On a more personal note, I have grown extremely weary Fantasy always leaning heavy on dwarves for anything earth aspect. Well that or lumpy/crusty poo-men called elementals. I see no reason my elves would attune themselves to mountainous nature as if forest/woodlands nature is the only sort of nature elves are allowed to. On that note, I doubly appreciate that the GW attempting to circumvent at least a little bit of the standard earth, fire, water and air elements going with mountain, zenith, river and wind. It isn't much, but I do think the distinction is important.

This thread and countless discussions on the internet here and elsewhere have divided opinions on the Lumineth and especially the Alarith. I believe Age of Sigmar is a sort of crossroads between traditional Fantasy (WHFB very much included), the kitsch and somewhat daring setting that heavily mixes myth and deities into the active sequences of consequential events. The Alarith being a sort of vegemite is kinda fine by me as all three of my 40k armies also has someone playing the same army down to the subfaction. It will be nice to have an army that even if their are 4-5 other Lumineth players (and I think there are), mine will stand part as the only Ymetrica one. After all, if we all liked the same thing we'd all be playing Ultramarines.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I happen to like really like the Alarith a.k.a. Lumineth mountain aspect elements. So much so that the Lumineth went from a faction that was kinda nice and looked to be a nice Order counterpart to a more classically based (infantry, cavalry, archers) army to my S2D warriors and knights to a faction I actually wanted to collect. Just today, I picked up my pre-order of 4 boxes of Stone Guard and 2 boxes of Avalenor/Spirit of the Mountain.

I think the models are rather well designed with a number of Earth based cultures nicely balanced with traditional (read: Tolkien/Gygax) fantasy yet wholly original. The faction so far very much leans on classical Greek befitting such a Apollonian faction of arrogant intellectuals. At least as much my limited knowledge of Greek mythology knows. The Stone Guard and whole mountain aspect in general does have a sort of Hindi/Tibetanvibe lending them a very monk/holy man impression made more concrete with their flowing robes and capes. Which further presses the idea they people are smart son-of-a-guns yet seeking humility and self-reflection. All told through the hinted choices of the models. I even like the 3-stinged bows which as a sort of 'This is Spinal Tap' impression of regular bows just go to 1. Our bows go to 3. Ya know, because they are thrice the archer.

Avalenor and the Spirit of the Mountain have a serene, tranquil sort of power to them that belies the grace of their lithe forms. Despite all the banners and ribbons whipping in the wind which could symbolize the chaos and Chaos of the Mortal Realms that surround them. About the only element I don't like is the reds used for the Mountain diorama up on the broad shoulders and back of Avalenor which I think betray an otherwise calmness to the model. Although, this fury of the included warm colors make sense given the hero aspect of the lands of Hysh given form. Not necessarily as apparent without some knowledge of the AoS setting, but an sort of subtle indicator none the less.

On a more personal note, I have grown extremely weary Fantasy always leaning heavy on dwarves for anything earth aspect. Well that or lumpy/crusty poo-men called elementals. I see no reason my elves would attune themselves to mountainous nature as if forest/woodlands nature is the only sort of nature elves are allowed to. On that note, I doubly appreciate that the GW attempting to circumvent at least a little bit of the standard earth, fire, water and air elements going with mountain, zenith, river and wind. It isn't much, but I do think the distinction is important.

This thread and countless discussions on the internet here and elsewhere have divided opinions on the Lumineth and especially the Alarith. I believe Age of Sigmar is a sort of crossroads between traditional Fantasy (WHFB very much included), the kitsch and somewhat daring setting that heavily mixes myth and deities into the active sequences of consequential events. The Alarith being a sort of vegemite is kinda fine by me as all three of my 40k armies also has someone playing the same army down to the subfaction. It will be nice to have an army that even if their are 4-5 other Lumineth players (and I think there are), mine will stand part as the only Ymetrica one. After all, if we all liked the same thing we'd all be playing Ultramarines.

I am all for spreading Elves into other elements other than forests, and dwarfs into something else but mountains, infact one of the most enjoyable experience for me was to run scenarios of random variations of factions, classes, and elements in AgeofWonders3 like a (Ice sea Dwarfs that mount small ice wyvrens, or mechanized gunpowder subterranean Elf spider riders) But! AoW3 is well designed... I agree with you of everything but the well design part.

Last thing I will say on the matter of design
There are 2 types of artist who use multitude of colors on their palette! The ones who know exactly what they are doing and the ones who don't have a clue.
Same for designers, There are 2 types of designers who mix many many themes and styles and concepts into one character, the ones who know exactly what they are doing, and the ones who aint.

We get it, you don't like it.

It's pretty clear that no matter how many times the full concept is explained to you? You're more interested in "LULZ COW ELFS IS DUM!" and memes than actual discussion or understanding why things are.

I'm personally a big fan of the Alarith. I'm ready for the other three Temples now.

While the cow elves are not my cup of tea, I find it very hard to define objective criteria to determine what is a good design in terms of looks and what is not (functionality is a different story designwise). I think it mostly comes down to personal taste. Some people at GW seemed to like them and quite some hobbyists also do.

there's a lot of people around here who have real trouble with telling the difference between their opinion and objective reality.

i think bits of the new elves are amazing and like the cow monster very much but am not going to buy one because i don't have the money to spend on any more projects.

 Max Moray wrote:
While the cow elves are not my cup of tea, I find it very hard to define objective criteria to determine what is a good design in terms of looks and what is not (functionality is a different story designwise). I think it mostly comes down to personal taste. Some people at GW seemed to like them and quite some hobbyists also do.

Exactly, that is the thing man, there is an objective criteria. Readability is one of many for example
It is hard to separate objective part form personal preference.
Composition, Impact/Payoff, Silhouette, Rhythm, Dynamic, Repetition, Scale Ratio, Contrast Just like in painting, or sculpting, or music


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daddyorchips wrote:
there's a lot of people around here who have real trouble with telling the difference between their opinion and objective reality.

i think bits of the new elves are amazing and like the cow monster very much but am not going to buy one because i don't have the money to spend on any more projects.

Don't people have trouble telling the difference in general.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
We get it, you don't like it.

It's pretty clear that no matter how many times the full concept is explained to you? You're more interested in "LULZ COW ELFS IS DUM!" and memes than actual discussion or understanding why things are.

I'm personally a big fan of the Alarith. I'm ready for the other three Temples now.

"I'm personally a big fan of the Alarith"
And that is your subjective personal opinion, and good for you!
I just do not have the need to attack you personally for it liking them.

What concept? So far it has been (great shapes) (I'm personally a big fan) ( bits of the new elves are amazing)
Those are not design concepts.

Interestingly when there is nothing of substance to add one must misrepresent my position to make a point.
If my explanation of why things really are in a design starting from composition to readability is not clear then I I will try to communicate it in a different way.

I get it, you like it no matter how many times good design is broken down for you. And that is fine
As if people do not go to school and get real degrees in design to tell the difference between good and bad design, otherwise there would be no need to go to school for it!

But what do I know about good design, its not like studied it or anything.

As much as you talk about good and bad design, this does come off more as a whine/troll thread. You haven't posted anything worth discussing as of yet.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
As much as you talk about good and bad design, this does come off more as a whine/troll thread. You haven't posted anything worth discussing as of yet.

I did.


Lets discuss Difference in scale, the proportion ratios.
Example image - Stronger design will exaggerate one part and minimize the other to crate a stronger character and avoid half ratios.

Lets discuss Rhythm and the balance of busy vs calm in the design. Why is a design with good balance is stronger than the design without it?

Lets discuss readability of the silhouette. A good design will communicate to viewer in a split second at a quick glance if the "character" is good or bad strong or weak, fast or slow, ets. And lets discuss what the silhouette communicates. and why it is importnat. Because I already wrote why it is important, I hope we can discuss that.

Yeah they are a solid nope from me.

I think its an interesting design direction but personally think they look stupid... Like I appreciate the technical design stuff and it looks like a nice kit but the overall effect just doesn't mesh...

Maybe im just to set in my ways.. When I think about high elves, I dont picture cows.. Each to their own of course.

 Mothsniper wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
As much as you talk about good and bad design, this does come off more as a whine/troll thread. You haven't posted anything worth discussing as of yet.

I did.

Spoiler:

Character however is very important (imo there are no character in these units because it mixes 3 different themes into one)
Difference in scale is important (Especially the Spirit units are equally proportionate in relationship between the feet torso head, that is a boring design, for a good design ratios pull up some character designs from Blizzard)
Rhythm is especially important (That is a relationship between the busy and the plain. The spirit units are absolutely festooned with dangly bits and pieces of detail equality spread all over the models, at least Alarith have plain robes to balance the design)
Composition is paramount important (That is the overall dynamic of the model, and I must say that GW always nailed composition spot on with all the sculpts)
And ultimately the Silhouette is extremely important (That is the cutout shape of the unit that is the most important element in any game completely fails in the Lumineth and especially with the Spirit units. For the importance of the readability of the silhouette find Valve's design direction for Leaf4Dead)
All of these are important for the design because they make sure the object reads well, especially at a distance! If the object does not read well then it is bad design no matter how cool the fluff is. Because the design deals with the "Impact" (impact is a term referring to the strong composition design, color, and tone that immediately catches the eye) Even though it can have all the "Payoff" (Payoff is a term referring to the richness of information and details present when the image is examined closer) it still fails as a good design. The bovine theme at a distance reads like chaos units, and the mountains the the trees on the should-pads do not even read as such at the distance. You know what reads well? the Horns the hoofs the hammers read well.

Lets discuss Difference in scale, the proportion ratios.
Example image - Stronger design will exaggerate one part and minimize the other to crate a stronger character and avoid half ratios.

Lets discuss Rhythm and the balance of busy vs calm in the design. Why is a design with good balance is stronger than the design without it?

Lets discuss readability of the silhouette. A good design will communicate to viewer in a split second at a quick glance if the "character" is good or bad strong or weak, fast or slow, ets. And lets discuss what the silhouette communicates. and why it is importnat. Because I already wrote why it is important, I hope we can discuss that.

Shame you didn't post some of this instead of the 4chan tier trash opening post.

I don't have time to address each of these points right now, but i'll try and get some time tomorrow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:
Yeah they are a solid nope from me.

I think its an interesting design direction but personally think they look stupid... Like I appreciate the technical design stuff and it looks like a nice kit but the overall effect just doesn't mesh...

Maybe im just to set in my ways.. When I think about high elves, I dont picture cows.. Each to their own of course.

Your problem is thinking of them as high elves, they're not. People need to get out of this stereotyping mindset of elves=flouncy, lanky and blonde hair, dwarves=scottish, beard and hard drinker etc. It's tiresome. Even Tolkien had hammer wielding elves in his works.

"The House of the Hammer of Wrath was a House of the Elven city of Gondolin. Their lord was Rog. They were great smiths and craftsmen, and revered Aulë. In battle they carried great maces like hammers, and heavy shields, for they had strong arms."

"Shame you didn't post some of this instead of the 4chan tier trash opening post"
How silly of me, wish you jumped in sooner to steer me in right direction!
4chan tier trash hahahaa, brilliant! I like you.
Looking forward to deep insightful addressing of the points made.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:


Your problem is thinking of them as high elves, they're not. People need to get out of this stereotyping mindset of elves=flouncy, lanky and blonde hair, dwarves=scottish, beard and hard drinker etc. It's tiresome. Even Tolkien had hammer wielding elves in his works.

"The House of the Hammer of Wrath was a House of the Elven city of Gondolin. Their lord was Rog. They were great smiths and craftsmen, and revered Aulë. In battle they carried great maces like hammers, and heavy shields, for they had strong arms."

What's interesting is that in real warfare swords aren't always the best weapon. Once you had plate armours a mace or hammer could be far more effective. Your sword couldn't slice through plate and chain mail and padding; but a hammer or mace blow might dent it and bruise or break the softer body underneath. It's only in fantasy where the sword is always king and the spear is only against horses and the mace against undead.

Also in the lore behind Old World the elves, even the High Elves, were not as poncy as many make out. Indeed they were quite savage. If anything, in the Old World at least, the Dwarves were almost more noble than the Elves. Though Dwarves had other vices like their strict social codes and way of life and also their tendency to carry a grudge.

 Overread wrote:
What's interesting is that in real warfare swords aren't always the best weapon. Once you had plate armours a mace or hammer could be far more effective. Your sword couldn't slice through plate and chain mail and padding; but a hammer or mace blow might dent it and bruise or break the softer body underneath.

In real life, I believe that the pollax was as popular as the two handed sword for the knight when fighting on foot against enemy in plate armor.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Mothsniper wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
As much as you talk about good and bad design, this does come off more as a whine/troll thread. You haven't posted anything worth discussing as of yet.

I did.

Spoiler:

Character however is very important (imo there are no character in these units because it mixes 3 different themes into one)
Difference in scale is important (Especially the Spirit units are equally proportionate in relationship between the feet torso head, that is a boring design, for a good design ratios pull up some character designs from Blizzard)
Rhythm is especially important (That is a relationship between the busy and the plain. The spirit units are absolutely festooned with dangly bits and pieces of detail equality spread all over the models, at least Alarith have plain robes to balance the design)
Composition is paramount important (That is the overall dynamic of the model, and I must say that GW always nailed composition spot on with all the sculpts)
And ultimately the Silhouette is extremely important (That is the cutout shape of the unit that is the most important element in any game completely fails in the Lumineth and especially with the Spirit units. For the importance of the readability of the silhouette find Valve's design direction for Leaf4Dead)
All of these are important for the design because they make sure the object reads well, especially at a distance! If the object does not read well then it is bad design no matter how cool the fluff is. Because the design deals with the "Impact" (impact is a term referring to the strong composition design, color, and tone that immediately catches the eye) Even though it can have all the "Payoff" (Payoff is a term referring to the richness of information and details present when the image is examined closer) it still fails as a good design. The bovine theme at a distance reads like chaos units, and the mountains the the trees on the should-pads do not even read as such at the distance. You know what reads well? the Horns the hoofs the hammers read well.

Lets discuss Difference in scale, the proportion ratios.
Example image - Stronger design will exaggerate one part and minimize the other to crate a stronger character and avoid half ratios.

Lets discuss Rhythm and the balance of busy vs calm in the design. Why is a design with good balance is stronger than the design without it?

Lets discuss readability of the silhouette. A good design will communicate to viewer in a split second at a quick glance if the "character" is good or bad strong or weak, fast or slow, ets. And lets discuss what the silhouette communicates. and why it is importnat. Because I already wrote why it is important, I hope we can discuss that.

Shame you didn't post some of this instead of the 4chan tier trash opening post.

I don't have time to address each of these points right now, but i'll try and get some time tomorrow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:
Yeah they are a solid nope from me.

I think its an interesting design direction but personally think they look stupid... Like I appreciate the technical design stuff and it looks like a nice kit but the overall effect just doesn't mesh...

Maybe im just to set in my ways.. When I think about high elves, I dont picture cows.. Each to their own of course.

Your problem is thinking of them as high elves, they're not. People need to get out of this stereotyping mindset of elves=flouncy, lanky and blonde hair, dwarves=scottish, beard and hard drinker etc. It's tiresome. Even Tolkien had hammer wielding elves in his works.

"The House of the Hammer of Wrath was a House of the Elven city of Gondolin. Their lord was Rog. They were great smiths and craftsmen, and revered Aulë. In battle they carried great maces like hammers, and heavy shields, for they had strong arms."

I dont agree people need to change their image of an elf to suit/explain a new GW minature range lol..

Some tolkien elves using maces coz they really into their smithing is not going to convince me that any kind of elf fits a huge circle-cow-horn-helmet-thats-comicaly-too-large-for-head is going to make me change my mind. Mind you the WHFB HE sculpts were very silly too. The plastic Phoenix guard are even worse than the cow head elfs..

You can like the models, I have no issues with people liking these. You do you. But I certainly wouldn't say you have a problem because you like them for wrong reasons. if you dig them thats cool..

To each their own, I suppose.

Personally, as a long time 40k player, Lumineth Realm Lords are the first AoS army that has appealed to me, and I have decided to jump in and start the army.

I chose the Ymetrica faction just so I could run a whole army of Cow Mountains and Cow Elves.

Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder.

@Mothsniper

You say you want to discuss stronger vs. weaker designs, yet the images are far from apparent to what you arguing in your original post to me.

Take the Spirit of the Mountain vs. the two-headed ogre. You place red blocks I am guessing to highlight portion. Which I think strengthen the argument for the Spirit of the Mountain as it is well portion. Especially when compared to something that would fit right in with Mantic Games' aesthetic of tiny little legs (which is a fine aesthetic if that's what one likes). The ogre has old dreadnought legs complete with an almost lack of upper leg. Where as the the Spirit of the Mountain's long legs give it a kind of grace. The avoiding half-ratios guideline (it isn't a rule by any means) typically applies more to two-dimensional art in framing composition. Less so in 3D sculpture.

Next, comparing the Spirit of the Mountain to the sorceress, I suppose you are attempting to demonstrate balance and motion. Certainly not avoiding half-ratios since the sorceress could very easy also be guilty of it. The Spirit of the Mountain doesn't have a lot of motion. Which is to be expected from a tranquil mountain spirit given an artificial avatar to inhabit. Furthermore, the balance and subsequent formations of a lot of triangles particularly with negative space gives the viewer the impression of quiet, tempered power and strength. Which very much works to merge with more bovine aspect of the model. Cows aren't quick to anger but they are very strong and not something to mess with despite their usual placid demeanor. There's a reason why comparing a bull's strength to something is common knowledge way to say something is very strong.

As for the silhouette, I think this where the Spirit of the Mountain very much shines. Again the model form many triangular shapes in silhouette subtlety reveal the idea of balance and power as well as the basic shape of mountains. It probably wouldn't to a surprise that Great Nation of Ymetrica (the mountain aspect nation) is said to incorporate triangle patterns into their art and craftsmanship according to the limited lore given in the Battletome.

Next look at the silhouette's shoulders. Broad and powerful but also showing some refinement with the graceful curve of the shoulder pad reinforcing the grace along with the model's long legs. I disagree with the idea that a silhouette should reveal whether something is good or evil. I mean try applying that criteria to just about anything in 40k model line where everything ranges from evil to very evil. The iconic space marine would fail to demonstrate pretty much anything with your silhouette test I think.

I mean look at a number of the silhouettes you included. Each to recognizable enough that someone familiar with model line know what they are in silhouette. Which I honestly think is about as much a silhouette should strive to accomplish for three-dimensional models. Perhaps also showing dome interesting use of negative space. I would hardly have it hold much weight of criteria for good/bad design. I mean look at the Maw Crusha and perennial favorite model of most AoS fans I that I have encountered. Yet in silhouette, it looks like crap barely readable to want it is. Heck, go back to the not Citadel images you used for demonstration purposes and look at their silhouette. You get round shape-y thing with spikes (I guess spikes=evil, right? Stupid, evil Chun-Li) and stubby-legs and curtain with a stick and ribbons.

***

It is totally fine not liking the designs of the Lumineth even the Alarith. You are probably in the majority. They are most certainly a bold, new direction for what can best be described as AoS High Elves. Which if that is what someone was wanting, I can't see how they would be anything but disappointed if they just wanted modern updates to a classical line. However, just because they aren't to your liking doesn't mean that they are aesthetically bad in any objective manner save maybe creating bad faith criteria or Texas sharp-shoot them into being bad. Which I think you are doing. Particularly when you seem to be applying a lot of 2d criteria to a 3d sculpture that doesn't always work the same between the mediums.

So you can keep not liking them. Just don't pretend that your expert art critique holds as much water as you think it does.

Mothsniper, you seem like a fun dude haha.

Let’s discuss my dude:
You haven’t placed the (I assume) weight of the head in the right spot. If you had, the weight would be good. If you’re talking about proportions with this, it’s heroic proportions, as opposed to more cartoony monster proportions. The balance of busy vs calm as well, it has plenty of white plates between other details. While these have little etchings in them, they’re subtle enough not to detract. The mountains themselves are pretty subtle, the handle of the hammer is plain. Not to mention the space between his elements and limbs to give points of rest between the actual model itself.

The rhythm of the model too, (I presume your second image) you’ve taken too literally. Look at the lovely lines that go across him, using the horns, shoulders and hammer. Then, look at the pyramidal lines using his legs, his arms, then the mountains themselves, to give a real solid and grounded vibe.
The difference between this model, and the lovely painting by Wayne Reynolds, is 1 has to be easily readable in 2D, the other is a 3D model that must look good from all angles. Try doing your rhythm outline on Drycha, or most of those other silhouettes, none will be as simplistic as the 2D painting.

Finally, your silhouettes, his silhouette is easily more readable than a lot of those. And the way he’s so planted, the clear mountainous shape on him, the big hammer, the stoic stance, all would suggest he’s a defensive beef cake, regardless of being skinny.
Ontop of this, the designer has even managed to get dynamics into such a typically motionless pose using dangling cloth that’s flowing in the wind.

EDIT: Also, just to add, your point about it having no character because there’s too many themes. This is a very flawed way to look at design, and also very basic. If every design was structured around a single thing, life would be very boring. The designer on this model clearly knew what they wanted, and mixed several things together to make it interesting and to drive home the point. His is tall, slender and elegant, to show that he is part of an elf force. He stands stern and grounded, with obvious mountains on his back to show that he is strong and defensive. And the cow design, imo, drives home that immovable brick theme.
It’s not about how many themes you add, it’s about how they they mix together.

EDIT 2: (because I’ve thought about this way too much lol) here’s the portrayal of the lines I mention above. As a secondary to the already established satisfaction you get from the balance and symmetry, when taking into account the curve of the shoulders and horns, it looks somewhat like an Elvish/Japanese/Chinese letter or rune, which is really awesome.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
@Mothsniper

You say you want to discuss stronger vs. weaker designs, yet the images are far from apparent to what you arguing in your original post to me.

Take the Spirit of the Mountain vs. the two-headed ogre. You place red blocks I am guessing to highlight portion. Which I think strengthen the argument for the Spirit of the Mountain as it is well portion. Especially when compared to something that would fit right in with Mantic Games' aesthetic of tiny little legs (which is a fine aesthetic if that's what one likes). The ogre has old dreadnought legs complete with an almost lack of upper leg. Where as the the Spirit of the Mountain's long legs give it a kind of grace. The avoiding half-ratios guideline (it isn't a rule by any means) typically applies more to two-dimensional art in framing composition. Less so in 3D sculpture.

I though adding a picture would communicate what I was trying to communicate better, nevermind. One thing I will point out is (it isn't a rule by any means) I am sorry lolz there are rules in art, design, and music. Those rules are there for a good reason, those rules are there to make sure the image clicks with human psychology and clicks with the way brain processes visual input with better designs create a stronger impact and payoff, the entire art, game, advertisement industry is only build on those rules. I know art field seems like a free for all do what you want, but it is not, and that is not an opinion that is a fact. Lolz what, hahaha "typically applies more to two-dimensional art in framing composition" What the heck is a framing composition? Like a composition that frames the .. painting composition? Only to 2Dimentioanl art? Oh well, I must go tell that to all 3D game devs who are into character design, guess they must stop using half-ratios because it is for 2D only.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Next, comparing the Spirit of the Mountain to the sorceress, I suppose you are attempting to demonstrate balance and motion. Certainly not avoiding half-ratios since the sorceress could very easy also be guilty of it. The Spirit of the Mountain doesn't have a lot of motion. Which is to be expected from a tranquil mountain spirit given an artificial avatar to inhabit. Furthermore, the balance and subsequent formations of a lot of triangles particularly with negative space gives the viewer the impression of quiet, tempered power and strength. Which very much works to merge with more bovine aspect of the model. Cows aren't quick to anger but they are very strong and not something to mess with despite their usual placid demeanor. There's a reason why comparing a bull's strength to something is common knowledge way to say something is very strong.

Not balance or motion, why are you making up your own things to argue against? What I wrote was not clear enough?
I said Rhythm and the balance of busy vs calm Not balance or motion... busy vs calm busy vs calm busy vs calm not balance or motion. There is a picture that shows one side busy and one side calm...
"Certainly not avoiding half-ratios since the sorceress could very easy also be guilty of it." Wrong, image bellow, leg to waist, torso and head ratios are not all equal or half of the other. And even if it was we are talking about what makes a good design, Wayne has good designs and bad designs too, that is why I find strongest design by an artist to make a point.
"Mountain doesn't have a lot of motion" So far only you are arguing against motion, I have not mentioned it before, and have no idea how you got motion out of busy vs calm example...

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

As for the silhouette, I think this where the Spirit of the Mountain very much shines. Again the model form many triangular shapes in silhouette subtlety reveal the idea of balance and power as well as the basic shape of mountains. It probably wouldn't to a surprise that Great Nation of Ymetrica (the mountain aspect nation) is said to incorporate triangle patterns into their art and craftsmanship according to the limited lore given in the Battletome.

Silhouette is triangle shaped, really. It is more of an X shaped. So if you to hold the image of that silhouette in front of your friend and asked them to keep they eyes closed, and then told them to open their eyes and say the first shape that will pop into their mind when they see it for the first time, and they will look at that and yell-out triangle? Care to put that to a test

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Next look at the silhouette's shoulders. Broad and powerful but also showing some refinement with the graceful curve of the shoulder pad reinforcing the grace along with the model's long legs. I disagree with the idea that a silhouette should reveal whether something is good or evil. I mean try applying that criteria to just about anything in 40k model line where everything ranges from evil to very evil. The iconic space marine would fail to demonstrate pretty much anything with your silhouette test I think.

In order for your point of "a silhouette shouldn't reveal whether something is good or evil" not to stand idle, be good to show an example of that where an "evil" silhouette was used with a good character. Like hunched brooding silhouette was used for a strong noble hero or a crooked and barbed dagger was a weapon choose for the good keepers of the law. So Jafar could of looked just as evil if he was short round?
"I mean try applying that criteria to just about anything in 40k " I am sorry we are talking about what goes into a good design, not comparing 40K silhouettes to 40K, and even if we did that space marines suppose to be good? Not according to the books or space marines them selves. They are a feared overpowered weapon, and their silhouette does communicate that well.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

I mean look at a number of the silhouettes you included. Each to recognizable enough that someone familiar with model line know what they are in silhouette. Which I honestly think is about as much a silhouette should strive to accomplish for three-dimensional models. Perhaps also showing dome interesting use of negative space. I would hardly have it hold much weight of criteria for good/bad design. I mean look at the Maw Crusha and perennial favorite model of most AoS fans I that I have encountered. Yet in silhouette, it looks like crap barely readable to want it is. Heck, go back to the not Citadel images you used for demonstration purposes and look at their silhouette. You get round shape-y thing with spikes (I guess spikes=evil, right? Stupid, evil Chun-Li) and stubby-legs and curtain with a stick and ribbons.

The silhouettes I included for (And lets discuss what the silhouette communicates) Not if it is hard for people to id the models, Not if silhouettes look cool or like crap, Seriously mate, its like you are arguing against points that you are coming up with as you go. I brought up (And lets discuss what the silhouette communicates.) (what the silhouette communicates) (communicates) (communicates) (communicates) (communicates)
(You get round shape-y thing with spikes) That is a very good silhouette, it communicates something huge brooding and spiky, Oh it is a brute, well done artist!
Maw Crusha silhouette communicates a huge brooding mass, and hey that is exactly what it is. Elf silhouette communicates, well you can tell it is a bird.
What does the Mountain Spirit communicate to you my friend? With hoof legs and horns hmm, Oh yes, a noble friendly spirit for good, obviously!

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

It is totally fine not liking the designs of the Lumineth even the Alarith. You are probably in the majority. They are most certainly a bold, new direction for what can best be described as AoS High Elves. Which if that is what someone was wanting, I can't see how they would be anything but disappointed if they just wanted modern updates to a classical line. However, just because they aren't to your liking doesn't mean that they are aesthetically bad in any objective manner save maybe creating bad faith criteria or Texas sharp-shoot them into being bad. Which I think you are doing. Particularly when you seem to be applying a lot of 2d criteria to a 3d sculpture that doesn't always work the same between the mediums.

Again you are arguing against the position that I never took. Yes because the design rules I listed are my subjective manners. Learning something new about my self every day!
"2d criteria to a 3d sculpture that doesn't always work the same between the mediums" Unfortunately the criteria we are discussing is "design" and that applies to both. Everything I say about 2D is not only directly applied to 3D as well but before it was a 3D model it was all drawn out in 2D rotoscoped and aprooved...waita minute... I think I know what happened, lolz, .... I wonder... I would bet 50 good ol USofA deniros that newer models now go from 3D sketch to model without much of art direction.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

So you can keep not liking them. Just don't pretend that your expert art critique holds as much water as you think it does.

You can keep on liking them! Just next time stay on topic please and don't invent your own arguments to destroy in our future discussion.
Wish we had this talk over a cup of tea.

Mothsniper wrote:Yeah, mountains are an obviously cheezy one.
-"Stone themed units, what shall we do"
-"Dont know sir, this is a hard one"
-"Hmmm lets put... rocks and mountains in the design!"
-"Brilliant sir! what school did you go to to learn such depths of character design?!"

For me bigger problem is that I just do not understand a thematic connection of a Beatmen upright cow with the "High-Elfs" I know they are not HighElfs, yet they LOOK like they are kin.

This one is easy to explain. GW lost their ass in a lawsuit trying to crush smaller mini companies, mainly ones making alternative models to their models. What they found out was that generic fantasy tropes couldn't be copyrighted, so they needed to make their product as far away from common tropes as possible. Thus we have Cow Elves. Sorry, Aelves.

And the cow design, imo, drives home that immovable brick theme.

I spent a good chunk of my life living on a farm, and cows are on the stupidest animals there are. Dog elfs or wolf elfs, heck even pig elfs would have been better. They are also not immovable, I was as old as 8 when I was herding them and had zero problems with moving them around from the pastures to home, and from home to the pastures.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Mothsniper, you seem like a fun dude haha.

you dont know me! lolz

 Tiberius501 wrote:

Let’s discuss my dude:
You haven’t placed the (I assume) weight of the head in the right spot. If you had, the weight would be good. If you’re talking about proportions with this, it’s heroic proportions, as opposed to more cartoony monster proportions. The balance of busy vs calm as well, it has plenty of white plates between other details. While these have little etchings in them, they’re subtle enough not to detract. The mountains themselves are pretty subtle, the handle of the hammer is plain. Not to mention the space between his elements and limbs to give points of rest between the actual model itself.

Perhaps, but then take mountains and proportion ratio is even worse.
I understand the heroic proportions, what I mean by proportions is a CONCEPT, a ratio of something big to something small, like a big purple fussy thing to small round green shiny thing a contrast of sizes if you will. try to ignore the actual images or styles they are painted in or colors used or the details, I think a lot of miscommunication here because of that, also in my inability to type well.
Yes there are plenty of clean smooth areas, but that is when you look at the details, I am looking at the sculpt in shapes. Yes in 3D too, the concept is the same. In the Spirit design there is no balance of calmn vs busy, but in the details there are.

 Tiberius501 wrote:

The rhythm of the model too, (I presume your second image) you’ve taken too literally. Look at the lovely lines that go across him, using the horns, shoulders and hammer. Then, look at the pyramidal lines using his legs, his arms, then the mountains themselves, to give a real solid and grounded vibe.
The difference between this model, and the lovely painting by Wayne Reynolds, is 1 has to be easily readable in 2D, the other is a 3D model that must look good from all angles. Try doing your rhythm outline on Drycha, or most of those other silhouettes, none will be as simplistic as the 2D painting.

Yes there is grounded vibe is there. And the design is not very strong because it is equality detailed all over with very well executed grounded vibe.
There is no difference between 2D and 3D when it comes to a design, Because a 3D artist is using same basic art rules he learned from basic still life drawing class and color theory. It is very silly to assume that 3D models gets away with design flaws just because it can be viewed at different angles.

 Tiberius501 wrote:

Finally, your silhouettes, his silhouette is easily more readable than a lot of those. And the way he’s so planted, the clear mountainous shape on him, the big hammer, the stoic stance, all would suggest he’s a defensive beef cake, regardless of being skinny.

More readable? Remember, I am talking about what the silhouette communicates, not if you can tell what the models is or not from the silhouette. So if a person that never seen the models before sees the silhouettes, could they reliably clearly point to what alliance each model belongs to? For the ones that are clear are then with strong design, ones that will get misplaced is bad design.
On those toothpick legs? immovable object? move aside Maw Crusha, Mountain Spirit will show you the meaning of word defensive!

 Tiberius501 wrote:

Ontop of this, the designer has even managed to get dynamics into such a typically motionless pose using dangling cloth that’s flowing in the wind.

When I say dynamics, I mean the dynamic shapes, not the dynamic pose or dynamic sense of movement in the pose.
And this is personal opinion, dangling cloth is awesome on anything, also with tassels.

 Tiberius501 wrote:

EDIT: Also, just to add, your point about it having no character because there’s too many themes. This is a very flawed way to look at design, and also very basic. If every design was structured around a single thing, life would be very boring. The designer on this model clearly knew what they wanted, and mixed several things together to make it interesting and to drive home the point. His is tall, slender and elegant, to show that he is part of an elf force. He stands stern and grounded, with obvious mountains on his back to show that he is strong and defensive. And the cow design, imo, drives home that immovable brick theme.
It’s not about how many themes you add, it’s about how they they mix together.

It is extremely flawed way to look at design! By my beard! Who is looking at the design that way?
You must of missed it, but I said earlier
(There are 2 types of artist who use multitude of colors on their palette! The ones who know exactly what they are doing and the ones who don't have a clue.
Same for designers, There are 2 types of designers who mix many many themes and styles and concepts into one character, the ones who know exactly what they are doing, and the ones who aint. )
I am all for mixing themes and ideas together, if they are mixed well. They are not here and that is my position and things that I already listed support that position.

 Tiberius501 wrote:

EDIT 2: (because I’ve thought about this way too much lol) here’s the portrayal of the lines I mention above. As a secondary to the already established satisfaction you get from the balance and symmetry, when taking into account the curve of the shoulders and horns, it looks somewhat like an Elvish/Japanese/Chinese letter or rune, which is really awesome.

It does look like Japanese character and that is awesome!
That is the thing, perfectly balanced design or composition is boring and is always avoided as much as possible. Because I do that in my work everyday, avoid boring design and composition. Because human eye is always always drawn to contrast and not to symmetry.
What I can tell from your lines is that the model is very top heavy, and those toothpick legs look very lonely. And that if I drew or sculpted that, my art director would of told me to redo it.

@Mothsniper

1. His ratio seems good to me. Head small, torso bigger, legs the longest part. Like Drycha, who’s also a swish design. It’s practically doubling the sizes each time, which is good.

2. The fundamental principles are the same, for sure, but that doesn’t stop 3D from having an additional layer of necessary things to consider. A 2D image is a 2D image and that’s that. You must have it as good as possible from that angle or it has flaws. A 3D object needs to be veiwed from all angles, therefore inherently requires different dynamics. You can’t always reproduce a 2D illustration in 3D for that very reason. The image you provided and the cow are also completely different designs entirely, and need to fulfill different criteria.

3. It is not the thickness but the stance. His wide stance, suggests that he is planted and will be staying there. The Mawcrusher is great too, because he’s a boulder. But there’s more ways to suggest that something is immovable than being fat.

4. That’s fair.

5. I disagree. He is slender and elegant, to suggest that he is elvish. But he is also wide and planted, with the flowing parts to help fill him out as a grounded object. He has animalistic traits that are done subtlety to not override the elf. And to support the grounded ideal, he has a small mountain on his back to show clearly what he represents. Not to mention the fact that he stoically stands to represent his patience and defensiveness. It all seems to fit together very nicely to me, they’ve managed to get an elf, mountain cow brief all into a well executed model.

6. I’m not saying that it is perfectly symmetrical, and perfectly symmetrical designs CAN be very boring, you’re right. However it depends on what the design is trying to portray. Here, we have a spirit aspect from the realm of symmatry, knowledge and enlightenment. So symmetry seems like a pretty big part of its design phelosify. The designer has then offset that with the flowing material and the pose, shifting its gaze to the side where the wind is blowing its cloth parts, cutting through the symmetry.
Symmetry in design can also be very satisfying to the eye, all the same as non-symmetry. In a way, similar to how analogous schemes work as well as complimentary. It gives a feeling of serenity and calm.
He is also not top heavy, he has the banner between his legs and other parts of flowing ribbon on his legs to weigh it down more, and the longest line being through his middle also provides stability, as well as his wide stance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

And the cow design, imo, drives home that immovable brick theme.

I spent a good chunk of my life living on a farm, and cows are on the stupidest animals there are. Dog elfs or wolf elfs, heck even pig elfs would have been better. They are also not immovable, I was as old as 8 when I was herding them and had zero problems with moving them around from the pastures to home, and from home to the pastures.

Sorry, I don’t mean to claim how cows work in real life, I wouldn’t have a clue haha. I mean more in mythology. Looking at Celtic mythology, cows were a big part of their culture, and often viewed as strong and necessary creatures.

Karol wrote:

And the cow design, imo, drives home that immovable brick theme.

I spent a good chunk of my life living on a farm, and cows are on the stupidest animals there are. Dog elfs or wolf elfs, heck even pig elfs would have been better. They are also not immovable, I was as old as 8 when I was herding them and had zero problems with moving them around from the pastures to home, and from home to the pastures.

There is a vast world of difference between a bovine bred through generations of selective breeding for farming and one from the wild.
Domestic animals have been selectively bred for generations and breeders would select the more docile and easily led/herded animals to breed from over and over to reinforce those traits (often by accident to start with and later by intent). So sure today we've cattle that can be easily handled, led, trained and used for work on the farms (traditionally most farms used cattle for work, it was only in more comparatively recent times that the horse rose to replace the cow - at least in western European farming). You can see the same in dogs, compare some domestic breeds with a wolf; or even compare your standard companion breed with a dog from a working background of breeding and you will see differences in intelligence, wilfulness (which can be mistaken for intelligence) etc...







Mothsniper - I think you're having issues because you keep presenting a handful of words without defining what you mean by them. So the rest of the thread has to come up with trying to work out what you mean; you then hit a wall because people did not interpret what you summarised the same way as you meant it. You have to learn to put forward a detailed argument if you want people to both make a detailed reply and to make a reply to the point you are making rather than to one similar, but not quite what you mean.

That said some of your arguments are not factual but based on opinion and are thus subjective. Eg you state that the silhouette must define if the unit is good or bad which is honestly impossible unless the good and bad designs in the game diverge greatly. Thing is you've got the sylvaneth up there who looks like a walking tentacle monster in silhouette I'd also note that you're looking at the silhouette from only one angle on a 3D object which has multiple different angles to view it from and each one might present a totally different impression.
Asides for which the silhouette is unlikely to ever come up in a game. We have colour, we have a 3D view.


Also your design concepts on scale are going to hit a barrier because wargame models are, in gameplay, viewed from a 45 degree angle looking down at them from around half a foot to a foot away from them. That's the angle you view most models at during a game. You have to potentially factor that into your calculations when viewing a model not just the front on view.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
@Mothsniper

1. His ratio seems good to me. Head small, torso bigger, legs the longest part. Like Drycha, who’s also a swish design. It’s practically doubling the sizes each time, which is good.

2. The fundamental principles are the same, for sure, but that doesn’t stop 3D from having an additional layer of necessary things to consider. A 2D image is a 2D image and that’s that. You must have it as good as possible from that angle or it has flaws. A 3D object needs to be veiwed from all angles, therefore inherently requires different dynamics. You can’t always reproduce a 2D illustration in 3D for that very reason. The image you provided and the cow are also completely different designs entirely, and need to fulfill different criteria.

3. It is not the thickness but the stance. His wide stance, suggests that he is planted and will be staying there. The Mawcrusher is great too, because he’s a boulder. But there’s more ways to suggest that something is immovable than being fat.

4. That’s fair.

5. I disagree. He is slender and elegant, to suggest that he is elvish. But he is also wide and planted, with the flowing parts to help fill him out as a grounded object. He has animalistic traits that are done subtlety to not override the elf. And to support the grounded ideal, he has a small mountain on his back to show clearly what he represents. Not to mention the fact that he stoically stands to represent his patience and defensiveness. It all seems to fit together very nicely to me, they’ve managed to get an elf, mountain cow brief all into a well executed model.

6. I’m not saying that it is perfectly symmetrical, and perfectly symmetrical designs CAN be very boring, you’re right. However it depends on what the design is trying to portray. Here, we have a spirit aspect from the realm of symmatry, knowledge and enlightenment. So symmetry seems like a pretty big part of its design phelosify. The designer has then offset that with the flowing material and the pose, shifting its gaze to the side where the wind is blowing its cloth parts, cutting through the symmetry.
Symmetry in design can also be very satisfying to the eye, all the same as non-symmetry. In a way, similar to how analogous schemes work as well as complimentary. It gives a feeling of serenity and calm.
He is also not top heavy, he has the banner between his legs and other parts of flowing ribbon on his legs to weigh it down more, and the longest line being through his middle also provides stability, as well as his wide stance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

And the cow design, imo, drives home that immovable brick theme.

I spent a good chunk of my life living on a farm, and cows are on the stupidest animals there are. Dog elfs or wolf elfs, heck even pig elfs would have been better. They are also not immovable, I was as old as 8 when I was herding them and had zero problems with moving them around from the pastures to home, and from home to the pastures.

Sorry, I don’t mean to claim how cows work in real life, I wouldn’t have a clue haha. I mean more in mythology. Looking at Celtic mythology, cows were a big part of their culture, and often viewed as strong and necessary creatures.

1 - " His ratio seems good to me" Sure. And good design avoids such ratios. Honestly don't know what is so hard about admiring that yes, the design could of been better. No you must insist that design is perfect and no matter what I say your standard by what you will measure what I say is accurate or not, is your own perception. Are there any examples you can give me of a strong design that uses doubling in size ratios or symmetrical designs you mentioned earlier? in architecture perhaps? in sculpture perhaps? maybe in design of packaging? Perhaps in a well designed logo? "Doubling the sizes each time, which is good" That is the definition of a boring design, because there is no impact. (earlier I explain what I mean by impact and payoff)
2 - "fundamental principles are the same,but that doesn’t stop 3D from having an additional layer of necessary things to consider." ... Have you ever sculpted a character or a portrait before? I have. Have you ever translated a drawing into a 3D sculpture? I have. You can’t always reproduce a 2D illustration in 3D If you do not know what you are doing! "The image you provided and the cow are also completely different designs entirely" No what you are talking about is Style, yes different in style but design is like notes in music you can play in Jazz style or Classical style but the notes are the same. The criteria is always the same, Impact and Payoff, in 2D or 3D, movie poster or Movie it self, it does not matter, the criteria is always the same, if you do not see that then I do not know how else to explain it
3 - "But there’s more ways to suggest that something is immovable than being fat" Yes, and a jumping jacks pose is not it! ! !
5 - Slender and elegance with plantedness all of that could of been executed in a much stronger way!
6 - "He is also not top heavy" He is lolz, based on your own line drawing! Seriously man, are you an act curator? Because damn you can present a candy wrapper as a high form of art that should be in museums!
lolz vat? "Symmetry in design can also be very satisfying to the eye, all the same as non-symmetry. " So ... it doesn't matter really, Anything symmetrical or none can be pleasing to an eye! If only people knew that before they got into student debt going to a art university! "In a way, similar to how analogous schemes work as well as complimentary" Unfortunately not, they do not work in a similar way... That is color theory 101.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

Karol wrote:

And the cow design, imo, drives home that immovable brick theme.

I spent a good chunk of my life living on a farm, and cows are on the stupidest animals there are. Dog elfs or wolf elfs, heck even pig elfs would have been better. They are also not immovable, I was as old as 8 when I was herding them and had zero problems with moving them around from the pastures to home, and from home to the pastures.

Mothsniper - I think you're having issues because you keep presenting a handful of words without defining what you mean by them. So the rest of the thread has to come up with trying to work out what you mean; you then hit a wall because people did not interpret what you summarised the same way as you meant it. You have to learn to put forward a detailed argument if you want people to both make a detailed reply and to make a reply to the point you are making rather than to one similar, but not quite what you mean.

That said some of your arguments are not factual but based on opinion and are thus subjective. Eg you state that the silhouette must define if the unit is good or bad which is honestly impossible unless the good and bad designs in the game diverge greatly. Thing is you've got the sylvaneth up there who looks like a walking tentacle monster in silhouette I'd also note that you're looking at the silhouette from only one angle on a 3D object which has multiple different angles to view it from and each one might present a totally different impression.
Asides for which the silhouette is unlikely to ever come up in a game. We have colour, we have a 3D view.


Also your design concepts on scale are going to hit a barrier because wargame models are, in gameplay, viewed from a 45 degree angle looking down at them from around half a foot to a foot away from them. That's the angle you view most models at during a game. You have to potentially factor that into your calculations when viewing a model not just the front on view.

"handful of words without defining what you mean by them"
Interesting... I though I did

"You have to learn to put forward a detailed argument if you want people to both make a detailed reply and to make a reply to the point you are making rather than to one similar,"
I agree that my communication skills are not very good, working on it. However I am still confused how my example of Busy vs Calm got misinterpreted as motion. I think that is beyon my ability to communicate.

"That said some of your arguments are not factual but based on opinion and are thus subjective."
Some are yes, but not all.

"Eg you state that the silhouette must define if the unit is good or bad which is honestly impossible unless the good and bad designs in the game diverge greatly."
And that is the whole point of this thread, there are are no longer any great divergence! ! ! and I am sorry if that point was missed in miscommunication.
Now... "impossible unless the good and bad designs in the game diverge greatly" Is that a factual statement? Or can I dismiss it because it is subjective? lolz

" Thing is you've got the sylvaneth up there who looks like a walking tentacle monster"
EXACTLY! and do you think that is a good design for sylvaneth? I think it is a very poor design based on the silhouette

"in silhouette I'd also note that you're looking at the silhouette from only one angle on a 3D object which has multiple different angles to view it from and each one might present a totally different impression. "
I am so sorry for being so brain-dead dumb not to realize that 3D models can be viewed from a different angle! How stupid am I, to base my entire argument on something that can be so easily refuted... Don't i feel put back in my place now, shunts...
For the Thousandth time, the silhouett good/evil and reability applies to both 2D and 3D regardless! It was not coined by me! It was though to me by Jeremy Bennet when they designed Left4Dead, Not only a 3D sculpture but in a game but where the models are not static but MOVE and animated!
AND FOR 3D THE SILHOUETTE IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN FOR A 2D IMAGE! And for a 3D model that is moving the SILHOUETTE is even more important than for a static sculpture. HAhaha, oh boy, this is fun.

"Also your design concepts on scale are going to hit a barrier because wargame models are, in gameplay, viewed from a 45 degree angle looking down at them from around half a foot to a foot away from them. That's the angle you view most models at during a game. You have to potentially factor that into your calculations when viewing a model not just the front on view. "
You spoke of my inability to communicate. I though we are talking about character design goodvsbad. I do not recall arguing about models viewed on the table top for wargaming... Good job crushing a point that I never made!
But yes, if wargaming is to be considered than you right, ultimately silhouette does not matter on the table.

Who cares if model is well designed or just good enough? If it is pro painted or good enough? on the table top, with normal kitchen lighting, at a distance none of it matters anyways

I would have thought that surely an expert in design would be able to explain their point clearly from basic principles, considering their audience would mostly be laypeople, as yet unburdened by the crushing weight of genius.

Maybe consider how better to articulate your points before calling everyone else stupid and disingenuous? Or perhaps just try being a bit polite? The things you're trying to say may well have merit (I don't know, I didn't STUDY DESIGN!!) but your condescending attitude, incoherent explanations and blind appeals to authority (either your own or to some guy who worked on Left4Dead) rather than explaining the principles you say back up your point are not very convincing.

Perhaps next you could study rhetoric, teaching, or basic social skills?

Silhouettes are important in a 3D computergame like Left 4 Dead because the game involves dark regions and fast action. Ergo many times where the viewer is looking directly at the silhouette of things or an outline or just a quick glance. So within that context yes making them easy to tell apart makes the game fairer/easier/more accessible in being able to tell a human from a zombie.

Things like that don't really come into Warhammer games. Silhouette design isn't as important because its not a common thing you're going to encounter when interacting with the models.


Design is very rarely a case of ultimate concepts. Any creative design situation is comprised of multiple theories and concepts that vary in importance depending on the creative project. Often as not what you might identify as a weakness in one area of design could be a strength for another design theory.








As for silhouettes in general and the lack of a unified "good - bad" design structure - I don't see that as a negative at all. Multiple races in the setting are neither good nor bad in a general sense or understanding. Sylvaneth are neither good nor evil - in fact depending on your point of view they are both at once. If you're being attacked by chaos and the woods come alive to save you, they are good. If you're chopping away to harvest wood to build a home to protect your family and the woods come alive and want to have revenge on you, then they are bad.

Furthermore why limit design choices for a specific design in silhouette? Why can't the sylvaneth have writhing vines on their bodies? A vine is not a tentacle but in a silhouette the might be mistaken for each other; yet in colour and in the full 3D view you can see clearly that they are different.
That's just one example, another might be spikes - why should chaos only be allowed spikes when armies like, for example, Daughters of Khaine would also benefit from a spiky or bladed design choice.

 Wasteland wrote:
I would have thought that surely an expert in design would be able to explain their point clearly from basic principles, considering their audience would mostly be laypeople, as yet unburdened by the crushing weight of genius.

Maybe consider how better to articulate your points before calling everyone else stupid and disingenuous? Or perhaps just try being a bit polite? The things you're trying to say may well have merit (I don't know, I didn't STUDY DESIGN!!) but your condescending attitude, incoherent explanations and blind appeals to authority (either your own or to some guy who worked on Left4Dead) rather than explaining the principles you say back up your point are not very convincing.

Perhaps next you could study rhetoric, teaching, or basic social skills?

Calmn ur tits, When did I call anyone here stupid but MY self? Soryr, was that too mean?

Ah yes, the insults begin
"I would have thought that surely an expert in design would be able to explain their point clearly from basic principle" What are you calling me here? don't be shy I am not faint of heart be honest !
Can you please copy paste what I wrote that was condescending? Otherwise your point is not very convincing.
Want to be consistent and also put condescending comments from others too or is it just my attitude that is an issue lolz

You know that the best way to put this condescending A-hole with no social skills, this prick with incoherent explanations who is calling everyone else stupid and disingenuous, this vile nobody with an attitude back into his place would be just to show design principals that prove my claims wrong.
Nah, personal insults is the way to go.

Lets try again, with respect!
There is a concept of Busy vs calmn in a design, in art, sculpture, and music. It is important to have areas that are busy and areas that are calm in a design because that creates interest and attracts the eye and keep eye engaged longer.
Images, sculptures with good busy vs calm balance have stronger design than images, sculptures that do not have good busy vs calm balance.
I included a picture to illustrate the concept. If you are still of mind set that "rather than explaining the principles you say back up your point are not very convincing."

Then you are right, perhaps I need to study rhetoric, teaching, or basic social skills before I engage in a discussion with random people on a forum on ultimately a useless topic.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:
Silhouettes are important in a 3D computergame like Left 4 Dead because the game involves dark regions and fast action. Ergo many times where the viewer is looking directly at the silhouette of things or an outline or just a quick glance. So within that context yes making them easy to tell apart makes the game fairer/easier/more accessible in being able to tell a human from a zombie.

Things like that don't really come into Warhammer games. Silhouette design isn't as important because its not a common thing you're going to encounter when interacting with the models.


Design is very rarely a case of ultimate concepts. Any creative design situation is comprised of multiple theories and concepts that vary in importance depending on the creative project. Often as not what you might identify as a weakness in one area of design could be a strength for another design theory.

Yes exactly. agree 100% That is what I was talking about the character design. It would of been silly of me to make same point and demand silhouettes that would translate to the tabletop.
And if we talk about the design for war gaming then my position on design here is absolutely irrelevant.
Though we discussed character design. Perhaps talking pass each other then.

 Overread wrote:

As for silhouettes in general and the lack of a unified "good - bad" design structure - I don't see that as a negative at all. Multiple races in the setting are neither good nor bad in a general sense or understanding. Sylvaneth are neither good nor evil - in fact depending on your point of view they are both at once. If you're being attacked by chaos and the woods come alive to save you, they are good. If you're chopping away to harvest wood to build a home to protect your family and the woods come alive and want to have revenge on you, then they are bad.

I know that, but you must agree that there should be at least some sort of grouping. If everything is relative, then the orders have no purpose at all. Why then have Lumenith in Alliance or Order? I am not familiar with the lore but aren't the new aelfs like wielding crazy magical powers and destroying each other with crazy weapons? Why not put them in Alliance or Destruction with orks? Lets not get stuck on old tropes and concepts. Get rid of Grand Alliances all together and let players make up their own origins and pick their own traits for death, chaos, order, destruction. You could have evil Sigmar stormcasts, and noble goblins fighting for true faith! Seriously why not?
Because if there is no issue with that then there is no issue with silhouettes.

 Overread wrote:

Furthermore why limit design choices for a specific design in silhouette? Why can't the sylvaneth have writhing vines on their bodies? A vine is not a tentacle but in a silhouette the might be mistaken for each other; yet in colour and in the full 3D view you can see clearly that they are different.
That's just one example, another might be spikes - why should chaos only be allowed spikes when armies like, for example, Daughters of Khaine would also benefit from a spiky or bladed design choice.

I think the answer to that question is human psychology and how people view and and process shapes and colors. That is a good question, why Jafar instinctively, just based on the shape and color of his robe look like a cunning bad guy and the Sultan based on his color and shape look like a gullible good guy?

It might be best to look at top dogs now - Disney, Starwars, Wow, ets and see what are they doing or done right with the design, and learn from.
All in all, hope someone here will get so inspired in proving me wrong and go out and study design

 Mothsniper wrote:

Can you please copy paste what I wrote that was condescending? Otherwise your point is not very convincing.

Sure. Here are some of my favorites:

I get it, you like it no matter how many times good design is broken down for you. And that is fine
But what do I know about good design, its not like studied it or anything.

4chan tier trash hahahaa, brilliant! I like you.
Looking forward to deep insightful addressing of the points made.

Oh well, I must go tell that to all 3D game devs who are into character design, guess they must stop using half-ratios because it is for 2D only.

Not balance or motion, why are you making up your own things to argue against? What I wrote was not clear enough?

Yes because the design rules I listed are my subjective manners. Learning something new about my self every day!

waita minute... I think I know what happened, lolz, .... I wonder... I would bet 50 good ol USofA deniros that newer models now go from 3D sketch to model without much of art direction.

Not balance or motion, why are you making up your own things to argue against? What I wrote was not clear enough?

No you must insist that design is perfect and no matter what I say your standard by what you will measure what I say is accurate or not, is your own perception

Is that a factual statement? Or can I dismiss it because it is subjective? lolz

I am so sorry for being so brain-dead dumb not to realize that 3D models can be viewed from a different angle! How stupid am I, to base my entire argument on something that can be so easily refuted... Don't i feel put back in my place now, shunts...

 Mothsniper wrote:

You know that the best way to put this condescending A-hole with no social skills, this prick with incoherent explanations who is calling everyone else stupid and disingenuous, this vile nobody with an attitude back into his place would be just to show design principals that prove my claims wrong.

I told you, I don't know any. You've posted examples with no explanation - I see one image of the model where you've drawn rough pointed lines over the edges (including the curved parts of the outline) and a piece of Pathfinder art where instead you've followed the some of the curves. No explanation of the point you're trying to make, or why you drew the lines differently. Same with the silhouettes - what are we meant to conclude from them?

 Mothsniper wrote:

" Thing is you've got the sylvaneth up there who looks like a walking tentacle monster"
EXACTLY! and do you think that is a good design for sylvaneth? I think it is a very poor design based on the silhouette

So some of your examples are of good design, and others bad? Which ones are which? What makes them one or the other? You say "let's discuss" and then don't say anything.

(Here's where you can call me stupid, or just sarcastically imply it)

 Mothsniper wrote:

There is a concept of Busy vs calmn in a design, in art, sculpture, and music. It is important to have areas that are busy and areas that are calm in a design because that creates interest and attracts the eye and keep eye engaged longer.
Images, sculptures with good busy vs calm balance have stronger design than images, sculptures that do not have good busy vs calm balance.
I included a picture to illustrate the concept. If you are still of mind set that "rather than explaining the principles you say back up your point are not very convincing."

So explain your examples! Why did you draw those lines the way you did? What do they tell us about one design vs the other? Which of the silhouettes you posted are good examples and which are bad? Why? Surely you can provide a better explanation for why these things matter than "Left4Dead guy said so!"

You follow this curved line like this:


(I assume this is supposed to be an example of "calm"? You don't say)

But follow these lines like this:


Why did you draw them like that, and not like this?



I don't already know myself, I went to school for other things. You come across like a 1st year Psychology student who takes one class and then thinks they can tell anyone in earshot about how they can analyze their every action and know exactly what they're thinking and why.

 Mothsniper wrote:

Then you are right, perhaps I need to study rhetoric, teaching, or basic social skills before I engage in a discussion with random people on a forum on ultimately a useless topic.

Politeness exists regardless of how important the subject of the conversation is. You can be an discussing matters of philosophy just the same as you can be an talking about what color of jellybeans you like the best. Doesn't matter how long you spent studying jellybean color.

 Mothsniper wrote:

It might be best to look at top dogs now - Disney, Starwars, Wow, ets and see what are they doing or done right with the design, and learn from.

So do that! Let's see it! If you want me to agree that you're correct about something, show me why I should. Your whole thread has just been "I'm right, anyone who disagrees is a fool, and figuring out what I'm talking about or how it applies is left as an exercise for the reader".

Now that you mention WoW, it actually brings up an interesting point of comparison:



Is this better design? Why or why not?

EDIT: Added image examples

 Mothsniper wrote:

Lets discuss readability of the silhouette. A good design will communicate to viewer in a split second at a quick glance if the "character" is good or bad strong or weak, fast or slow, ets. And lets discuss what the silhouette communicates. and why it is importnat. Because I already wrote why it is important, I hope we can discuss that.

So what in avalorn silhuette doesn't say "slow immobile bulwark" that the model is supposed to be?

 Mothsniper wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Silhouettes are important in a 3D computergame like Left 4 Dead because the game involves dark regions and fast action. Ergo many times where the viewer is looking directly at the silhouette of things or an outline or just a quick glance. So within that context yes making them easy to tell apart makes the game fairer/easier/more accessible in being able to tell a human from a zombie.

Things like that don't really come into Warhammer games. Silhouette design isn't as important because its not a common thing you're going to encounter when interacting with the models.


Design is very rarely a case of ultimate concepts. Any creative design situation is comprised of multiple theories and concepts that vary in importance depending on the creative project. Often as not what you might identify as a weakness in one area of design could be a strength for another design theory.

Yes exactly. agree 100% That is what I was talking about the character design. It would of been silly of me to make same point and demand silhouettes that would translate to the tabletop.
And if we talk about the design for war gaming then my position on design here is absolutely irrelevant.
Though we discussed character design. Perhaps talking pass each other then.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about now. You seem to be discussing character design based on a photograph of the physical model. You seem to agree with me that in the tabletop world the silhouette isn't important, but that it is for the characters design. Yet the design you're holding up is the physical model viewed from one angle. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at at all. You seem to be jointly saying that it is and is not important. Or that its only important when we are looking at a photograph, which I'd argue is of a minor importance considering that most of us would be seeing a model and interacting with it (either our own or our opponents) on the tabletop.

 Mothsniper wrote:

 Overread wrote:

As for silhouettes in general and the lack of a unified "good - bad" design structure - I don't see that as a negative at all. Multiple races in the setting are neither good nor bad in a general sense or understanding. Sylvaneth are neither good nor evil - in fact depending on your point of view they are both at once. If you're being attacked by chaos and the woods come alive to save you, they are good. If you're chopping away to harvest wood to build a home to protect your family and the woods come alive and want to have revenge on you, then they are bad.

I know that, but you must agree that there should be at least some sort of grouping. If everything is relative, then the orders have no purpose at all. Why then have Lumenith in Alliance or Order? I am not familiar with the lore but aren't the new aelfs like wielding crazy magical powers and destroying each other with crazy weapons? Why not put them in Alliance or Destruction with orks? Lets not get stuck on old tropes and concepts. Get rid of Grand Alliances all together and let players make up their own origins and pick their own traits for death, chaos, order, destruction. You could have evil Sigmar stormcasts, and noble goblins fighting for true faith! Seriously why not?
Because if there is no issue with that then there is no issue with silhouettes.

The problem here is you don't understand the lore so you're making connections which are not there. The "Grand Alliances" are not grouped on concepts of good - bad - evil - chaos. They are instead political alliances formed around ways of life. Grand Alliance Order is a collection of factions who all approach a sedentary way of life. The idea that they settle in a specific area, build up that area; improve that area and invest themselves in the betterment and extension of their territory. They build civilisations of a kind we, in the western developed world, would consider civilised.
Even the Sylvaneth are quite (if not very) sedentary; though their approach to land management is different to that of a Cities of Sigmar faction or a Khadoran. As such the armies within are formed of factions we'd consider good, neutral even evil. They will fight each other; plot against each other; you have death cults in Daughters of Khaine; Sylvaneth who will tear up anyone who harms their woods; Idoneth who actively prey on other factions for souls.

Yet those factions will also set aside their differences and stand united against Chaos.

DEATH meanwhile is a faction united by the insane control of Nagash. Each army (even the mad, uncontrollable Flesheaters) are controlled by Nagash. They represent the undead forces of the realms. There are many undead armies and factions who are not part of Nagash's domain and control and they are not apparent. Granted part of that is because he's conquering them left right and centre as much as he can (interestingly Skaven appear to be one of the few who are able to resist him). Each of the Death factions are united by the fact that they are ruled by Nagash; influenced by Nagash.

Destruction are those races who are not civilisation builders. They are more tribal and less likely to settle in one particular spot and make their home. They are more apt to roam the lands, settling in temporary camps and settlements before moving on. Every so often they'll form up into huge gatherings and form fortresses and the like. Their approach to life is different; they aren't ordered or civilised as a race. They aren't building and improving the land; they aren't drawing lines on maps (though they'll have territories). They have a different view on life. They will ally and stand with those factions in Order, just as Death will - when Chaos comes knocking; but they are far more likely to stand against the others. To drive forward their own agenda.

Chaos - is Chaos its the force of madness, magic chaos and ruination that wants to sweep over and corrupt all the lands to their will.


As you can see there is no simple good and evil. There isn't a unified aesthetic that each block should aspire too. Heck several models have stormcast helms on them including some Daughters of Khaine models (and they are in order; they have temples within the Cities of Sigmar).

 Mothsniper wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Furthermore why limit design choices for a specific design in silhouette? Why can't the sylvaneth have writhing vines on their bodies? A vine is not a tentacle but in a silhouette the might be mistaken for each other; yet in colour and in the full 3D view you can see clearly that they are different.
That's just one example, another might be spikes - why should chaos only be allowed spikes when armies like, for example, Daughters of Khaine would also benefit from a spiky or bladed design choice.

I think the answer to that question is human psychology and how people view and and process shapes and colors. That is a good question, why Jafar instinctively, just based on the shape and color of his robe look like a cunning bad guy and the Sultan based on his color and shape look like a gullible good guy?

It might be best to look at top dogs now - Disney, Starwars, Wow, ets and see what are they doing or done right with the design, and learn from.
All in all, hope someone here will get so inspired in proving me wrong and go out and study design

You're also overlooking that the appearance of those character is only one part of them. Jafar isn't evil just because he wears black and has angular edges to his form. His voice actor, his mannerisms, his actions create his evil nature. You could just as easily take him and change the voice, change the actions and have him as a good character. Disney creates concepts (like angular looks are evil) but they are purely fabrications of design ideas within their own construct. A theme that works for Disney but is not inherently "evil". It's just evil/bad in a Disney film.
Even that isn't unified, one of the bad characters in Toy Story is a fluffy pink bear.

why Jafar instinctively, just based on the shape and color of his robe look like a cunning bad guy

because of cultural expectations, there is nothing universal about the design being "evil". He was designed purely to fit what western culture trained you to think an "evil oriental" is supposed to look like, largely based on victorian stereotypes (because you can pretty much trace 90% of harmful western stereotypes to that blighted period)

He shares very similar designs to Scar, Rasputin, Maleficent, that witch out of the film where there's a llama and many other "evil" cartoon Disney characters.

Thin, angular character design, darker colour pallet, haughty and selfish mannerisms


It's an identity structure that Disney has built up over the years and repeated so you are partly trained to see the "evil". It's like how when the evil person appears in a pantomime the music changes and you're encouraged to boo and hiss. It's like how they might speak slightly differently etc... Plus all the actions they perform are "evil" very quickly.

There's nothing which culturally says thin people who wear darker clothes are evil, its just in Disney films.

 Tiberius501 wrote:


Sorry, I don’t mean to claim how cows work in real life, I wouldn’t have a clue haha. I mean more in mythology. Looking at Celtic mythology, cows were a big part of their culture, and often viewed as strong and necessary creatures.

Maybe I am in the wrong here. But really there are so many noble animals or scary animals to pick from. Why not wolf elfs, tiger elfs, eagle elfs, boars are god damn scary up close and celtic too same with elks. Everything, but cows. I mean the only worse option would be mormots or hamster elfs.

Mountain lion elfs could be cool. Saber tooth mounted cavalery would be awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cronch wrote:

why Jafar instinctively, just based on the shape and color of his robe look like a cunning bad guy

because of cultural expectations, there is nothing universal about the design being "evil". He was designed purely to fit what western culture trained you to think an "evil oriental" is supposed to look like, largely based on victorian stereotypes (because you can pretty much trace 90% of harmful western stereotypes to that blighted period)

Sharp facial features are considered evil in every culture and holding the seat of a kings right hand always brings in the idea of a sneaky backstabber. If Jaffar liked to play the violoin he would be, minus the magic powers, a clone of Iskander Celebi

Because the Lumineth chose an animal that dwells on the mountainsides in the form of a buffalo called the 'Ymetrican Longhorn'. It's a beast said to be immortal, thus they felt it embodied the mountains best.

Seriously. This stuff is in the damn battletome. Phil Kelly talked about it in the livestream where they revealed the Alarith.

The Aelementari Temples? They're not about power for power's sake. It's Aelves who have given themselves over to Hysh's various genius loci to repair the damage that the Lumineth did during a time of war between the various Great Nations. Teclis' founding of the Temples is explained in great detail.

Go read it. Then come back to discuss it, Karol.

I love the big cows, I'm a little iffy on the hammerers, but I'm going to be having the models in person soon. Perhaps my tune will chance with them in hand, like it did once I actually got to see Teclis, and could give him a less... cringing face like he just smelled something absolutely foul.

My biggest gripe of the Alarith release, was that it was, quite obviously, a very divisive portion of the army to release at first. The army already had hard lines drawn just off of it's Vanari troops, but such an odd/ unique design choice, both lore and model wise behind Alarith temple units, I feel it turned people away from Lumineth even more so.

Consider, had they released or designed an Aelementari temple that had more traditionally "Elven" sterotype designs FIRST instead of the cows, I feel the initial reception to Lumineth would have been brighter. Then, they can release the weird Cow army. While I do like them, one should recognize that they are pretty weird.

 Wasteland wrote:

 Mothsniper wrote:

Can you please copy paste what I wrote that was condescending? Otherwise your point is not very convincing.

Sure. Here are some of my favorites:

I get it, you like it no matter how many times good design is broken down for you. And that is fine
But what do I know about good design, its not like studied it or anything.

4chan tier trash hahahaa, brilliant! I like you.
Looking forward to deep insightful addressing of the points made.

Oh well, I must go tell that to all 3D game devs who are into character design, guess they must stop using half-ratios because it is for 2D only.

Not balance or motion, why are you making up your own things to argue against? What I wrote was not clear enough?

Yes because the design rules I listed are my subjective manners. Learning something new about my self every day!

waita minute... I think I know what happened, lolz, .... I wonder... I would bet 50 good ol USofA deniros that newer models now go from 3D sketch to model without much of art direction.

Not balance or motion, why are you making up your own things to argue against? What I wrote was not clear enough?

No you must insist that design is perfect and no matter what I say your standard by what you will measure what I say is accurate or not, is your own perception

Is that a factual statement? Or can I dismiss it because it is subjective? lolz

I am so sorry for being so brain-dead dumb not to realize that 3D models can be viewed from a different angle! How stupid am I, to base my entire argument on something that can be so easily refuted... Don't i feel put back in my place now, shunts...

 Mothsniper wrote:

You know that the best way to put this condescending A-hole with no social skills, this prick with incoherent explanations who is calling everyone else stupid and disingenuous, this vile nobody with an attitude back into his place would be just to show design principals that prove my claims wrong.

I told you, I don't know any. You've posted examples with no explanation - I see one image of the model where you've drawn rough pointed lines over the edges (including the curved parts of the outline) and a piece of Pathfinder art where instead you've followed the some of the curves. No explanation of the point you're trying to make, or why you drew the lines differently. Same with the silhouettes - what are we meant to conclude from them?

 Mothsniper wrote:

" Thing is you've got the sylvaneth up there who looks like a walking tentacle monster"
EXACTLY! and do you think that is a good design for sylvaneth? I think it is a very poor design based on the silhouette

So some of your examples are of good design, and others bad? Which ones are which? What makes them one or the other? You say "let's discuss" and then don't say anything.

(Here's where you can call me stupid, or just sarcastically imply it)

 Mothsniper wrote:

There is a concept of Busy vs calmn in a design, in art, sculpture, and music. It is important to have areas that are busy and areas that are calm in a design because that creates interest and attracts the eye and keep eye engaged longer.
Images, sculptures with good busy vs calm balance have stronger design than images, sculptures that do not have good busy vs calm balance.
I included a picture to illustrate the concept. If you are still of mind set that "rather than explaining the principles you say back up your point are not very convincing."

So explain your examples! Why did you draw those lines the way you did? What do they tell us about one design vs the other? Which of the silhouettes you posted are good examples and which are bad? Why? Surely you can provide a better explanation for why these things matter than "Left4Dead guy said so!"

You follow this curved line like this:


(I assume this is supposed to be an example of "calm"? You don't say)

But follow these lines like this:


Why did you draw them like that, and not like this?



I don't already know myself, I went to school for other things. You come across like a 1st year Psychology student who takes one class and then thinks they can tell anyone in earshot about how they can analyze their every action and know exactly what they're thinking and why.

 Mothsniper wrote:

Then you are right, perhaps I need to study rhetoric, teaching, or basic social skills before I engage in a discussion with random people on a forum on ultimately a useless topic.

Politeness exists regardless of how important the subject of the conversation is. You can be an discussing matters of philosophy just the same as you can be an talking about what color of jellybeans you like the best. Doesn't matter how long you spent studying jellybean color.

 Mothsniper wrote:

It might be best to look at top dogs now - Disney, Starwars, Wow, ets and see what are they doing or done right with the design, and learn from.

So do that! Let's see it! If you want me to agree that you're correct about something, show me why I should. Your whole thread has just been "I'm right, anyone who disagrees is a fool, and figuring out what I'm talking about or how it applies is left as an exercise for the reader".

Now that you mention WoW, it actually brings up an interesting point of comparison:



Is this better design? Why or why not?

EDIT: Added image examples

NIce! Wow , Sorry I am still not convinced. Those seem to you condescending?! That is your personal issue mate, with perhaps childhood undressed guilt and adult established inadequacies lead you to take simple replies as insults.
Learning something about people everyday Care to share more of who you are?

"I told you, I don't know any. You've posted examples with no explanation - I see one image of the model where you've drawn rough pointed lines over the edges (including the curved parts of the outline) and a piece of Pathfinder art where instead you've followed the some of the curves. No explanation of the point you're trying to make, or why you drew the lines differently. Same with the silhouettes - what are we meant to conclude from them? "
With no explanation? That post is a specific reply to a specific comment, it was an invitation to a discussion. I did not need to do detailed explanation in that picture example post as if I am talking to 5 year olds! That would be condescending.

"So some of your examples are of good design, and others bad? Which ones are which? What makes them one or the other? You say "let's discuss" and then don't say anything.
(Here's where you can call me stupid, or just sarcastically imply it) "
Yes lets discuss, and we are discussing what are stronger and what are weaker.
I don't say anything? LOLZ Are you kidding me man So if I just list them here ( Here ya go lads, these are good and these here are bad) I already know a reply that I will get, it will be something akin to - (Well to YOU those are good and bad, but not to me, and that is your personal opinion and don't act like you are king of design that holds authority to tell what is good and what is bad) That is not the discussion I want to have, because then I spend all the time establishing my credibility. And even if I do that will come off wrong and will achieve nothing. INSTEAD! the discussion is open and flowing, and organically we will come to some sort of conclusions in the end! Hopefully staying on topic and talk about points and not about people who are making the points. I will most defensively not engage a discussion how you think I should.
"(Here's where you can call me stupid, or just sarcastically imply it) "
I really hope you stop perceiving comments as personal insults, because that tells more about who you are than about what you think I am.
AND DON'T take this the wrong way again, I say it because that was my issue a while back. take it or leave, I don't really care

"So explain your examples! Why did you draw those lines the way you did? What do they tell us about one design vs the other? Which of the silhouettes you posted are good examples and which are bad? Why? Surely you can provide a better explanation for why these things matter than "Left4Dead guy said so!"
Left4Dead example is an outside reference out side of just saying things.
"(I assume this is supposed to be an example of "calm"? You don't say) "
You assume correctly
"Why did you draw them like that, and not like this? "
Why did I draw those lines very jagged? For same exact reason I drew lines jagged on the sorceress as well.
Lets have a discussion, Why do you think I drew jagged lines on both Spirit and Sorceress?

"I don't already know myself, I went to school for other things. You come across like a 1st year Psychology student who takes one class and then thinks they can tell anyone in earshot about how they can analyze their every action and know exactly what they're thinking and why. "
Am I being categorized now and demeaned? Let me take notes quick on this behavior for my second year of my Psychology degree!

"Politeness exists regardless of how important the subject of the conversation is. You can be an discussing matters of philosophy just the same as you can be an talking about what color of jellybeans you like the best. Doesn't matter how long you spent studying jellybean color. "
Get off your high horse! lolz are you a politeness police here to put me back into my place? Nothing I said was offensive, that does not mean that some people might still take offense to it, and that is not my problem but theirs.
/// Ima try to explain this - You see I am just sitting here and typing, YOU HAVE NO IDEA with what intent I am typing things, Infact, I can put an emoji but you don't know if that is my honest intent or sarcastic! And when you read it (even though you have no idea my intent) you interpret what I wrote how you want it. Accurately or not.
Check your self before schooling me on politeness (dont take it the wrong way) ... dont take the ( dont take it the wrong way) the wrong way...

"Now that you mention WoW, it actually brings up an interesting point of comparison: "
Yes it is much better design. Why? Many reasons and lets start with one.
It is not using same or half ratios, Want to overlay the rulers from the legs vs tors vs head and compare that the the Spirit?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Mothsniper wrote:

Lets discuss readability of the silhouette. A good design will communicate to viewer in a split second at a quick glance if the "character" is good or bad strong or weak, fast or slow, ets. And lets discuss what the silhouette communicates. and why it is importnat. Because I already wrote why it is important, I hope we can discuss that.

So what in avalorn silhuette doesn't say "slow immobile bulwark" that the model is supposed to be?

I am sorry, what is avalorn?

Thing is cows/bovines are noble. They just aren't "Western European" popular modern noble animals. As I've noted before cattle used to be the primary work animal for many farms for generations; most farmers could never afford a horse and until they were bred for it; many weren't suited to hard labour. We had cattle for that work.

Head to India and the cow is a revered animal.



Also the whole concept of animals having nobility etc... is purely human constructs. Wolves are no more loyal, noble, righteous or such; just like hyenas are no more low, filthy and scavengers (heck lions scavenge from hyena kills all the time)

 Thadin wrote:
I love the big cows, I'm a little iffy on the hammerers, but I'm going to be having the models in person soon. Perhaps my tune will chance with them in hand, like it did once I actually got to see Teclis, and could give him a less... cringing face like he just smelled something absolutely foul.

My biggest gripe of the Alarith release, was that it was, quite obviously, a very divisive portion of the army to release at first. The army already had hard lines drawn just off of it's Vanari troops, but such an odd/ unique design choice, both lore and model wise behind Alarith temple units, I feel it turned people away from Lumineth even more so.

Consider, had they released or designed an Aelementari temple that had more traditionally "Elven" sterotype designs FIRST instead of the cows, I feel the initial reception to Lumineth would have been brighter. Then, they can release the weird Cow army. While I do like them, one should recognize that they are pretty weird.

If they had done River(which seem to be swordsmen) or Wind(which seem to be mounted archers)? I don't expect things would have necessarily sold as well as something all new would. Plus, River's Aelementari 'Avatar' is supposed to be formed from water and would have felt too Idoneth-y. Wind has a 'fox-faced spirit' with a massive bow and 'streamers of cloth' that would have possibly felt too Wood Elf-y.

If it's truly the Aelementari Temple bit throwing people off, it wouldn't matter which Temple got released because they'd be consistent in their criticisms...but let's be real here, it's the memey nonsense from people like the OP. "cOw eLvEs?! loooooooool" doesn't help matters any. I've linked the relevant stuff in the past, not doing it again. There's two good videos with Phil Kelly discussing the lore of the Lumineth. It's easy enough for people to find and it's on the Warhammer Community page plus their Twitch stream("From Aelves to Zoats"--LVO show) free to watch.

The Vanari are cross-faction, effectively, since they are both Tyrionic and Teclian. They're across all of the Great Nations. The Aelementari Temples? They're a Teclian thing. The Tyrionic nations are said to have some more 'traditional' stuff in the form of scouts, chariots, and warmachines while the Teclian ones have Aelementari Temples.

Ymetrica(Teclis' 'homebase', so to speak) is the Great Nation where Teclis basically founded the Aelementari Temples and is closely associated with the Alarith.

 Overread wrote:
Silhouettes are important in a 3D computergame like Left 4 Dead because the game involves dark regions and fast action. Ergo many times where the viewer is looking directly at the silhouette of things or an outline or just a quick glance. So within that context yes making them easy to tell apart makes the game fairer/easier/more accessible in being able to tell a human from a zombie.

"I'm not really sure what you're talking about now."
I feel like I need to define character design, otherwise ARE talking pass each other

"The problem here is you don't understand the lore so you're making connections which are not there. The "Grand Alliances" are not grouped on concepts of good - bad - evil - chaos. They are instead political alliances formed around ways of life. Grand Alliance Order is a collection of factions who all approach a sedentary way of life. The idea that they settle in a specific area, build up that area; improve that area and invest themselves in the betterment and extension of their territory. They build civilisations of a kind we, in the western developed world, would consider civilised.
Even the Sylvaneth are quite (if not very) sedentary; though their approach to land management is different to that of a Cities of Sigmar faction or a Khadoran. As such the armies within are formed of factions we'd consider good, neutral even evil. They will fight each other; plot against each other; you have death cults in Daughters of Khaine; Sylvaneth who will tear up anyone who harms their woods; Idoneth who actively prey on other factions for souls. "

Then that is even worse than I though lolz. That is then extremely misleading to new folk or to anyone who did not dive into the lore! So there is a bad design at the root, interesting. Everything makes sense now!

"As you can see there is no simple good and evil. There isn't a unified aesthetic that each block should aspire too. Heck several models have stormcast helms on them including some Daughters of Khaine models (and they are in order; they have temples within the Cities of Sigmar)"
Yes I see now. I did not know that AoS as a whole Sucked this much - Now this is a personal opinion, feel free to disregard it as insignificant!
That is some poor story and character development - Now this is not a personal opinion, feel free to explain to how a fantasy with no clear good/evil is more engaging than a fantasy with good/evil, lets say lord of the rings.

Now this kidna makes me want to leave the hobby. If all is so relative then I can't really get exited for anyone, everyone equally suck

"You're also overlooking that the appearance of those character is only one part of them. Jafar isn't evil just because he wears black and has angular edges to his form. His voice actor, his mannerisms, his actions create his evil nature. You could just as easily take him and change the voice, change the actions and have him as a good character. Disney creates concepts (like angular looks are evil) but they are purely fabrications of design ideas within their own construct. A theme that works for Disney but is not inherently "evil". It's just evil/bad in a Disney film.
Even that isn't unified, one of the bad characters in Toy Story is a fluffy pink bear. "

Wait, you truly believe that if Jafar looked like Sultan it would of been just the same, and it does not matter how the character looks at all because the voice actor is all that matters in a character?
Now that is purely subjective opinion. And is absolutely wrong based on the fact how brain processes shapes and colors.
You will deny that "shape and color of his robe look like a cunning bad guy"
At this point we are talking pass eachother.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cronch wrote:

why Jafar instinctively, just based on the shape and color of his robe look like a cunning bad guy

because of cultural expectations, there is nothing universal about the design being "evil". He was designed purely to fit what western culture trained you to think an "evil oriental" is supposed to look like, largely based on victorian stereotypes (because you can pretty much trace 90% of harmful western stereotypes to that blighted period)

Yes, and that proves my point even more.
wait, (because you can pretty much trace 90% of harmful western stereotypes to that blighted period)
Victorian? really? Like mid 1800, like Napoleon time? trained western culture to think what evil looks like?

I think it's more a matter of familiarity, as opposed to it being 'too similar' to other armies, in my mind.

Wood Elves are... just about entirely gone, I don't think their identity, what little remains, would be infringed upon by a High Elf classic, redesigned brilliantly, in the Horseback archers. Fox spirit, with the armor design motifs of Lumineth, wouldn't look too similar to what Wood Elves have, which tend to be more natural appearances.

They could have started with Water too. The only thing connecting them to Idoneth would be... being wet, and being elves. Idoneth use sea creatures, for the most part. I think there's enough design space to release a water elemental style monster, that would be suitably different from an Eidolon. Lean more to the monsterous side of an elemental, and I think that'd be good.

Though, this is just my opinion on how I feel GW could have done better on drawing people in to playing Lumineth to start off with. Release things that are comfortable to players, not too terribly offensive. There are plenty of people who just don't like the Alarith designs, beyond the meme-reasons. I was almost one of them, before I took time to warm up to it's design.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter to either of us. We both like the designs, and (myself atleast) are buying in to the army. I'm trying to consider the perspectives of others who didn't like the Alarith release.

 Mothsniper wrote:


Yes I see now. I did not know that AoS as a whole Sucked this much - Now this is a personal opinion, feel free to disregard it as insignificant!
That is some poor story and character development - Now this is not a personal opinion, feel free to explain to how a fantasy with no clear good/evil is more engaging than a fantasy with good/evil, lets say lord of the rings.

Now this kidna makes me want to leave the hobby. If all is so relative then I can't really get exited for anyone, everyone equally suck

There's nothing wrong with heroic style fantasy with good VS evil just as there is nothing wrong with "grey" where it might not be good vs evil. Game of Thrones, Malazan Book of the Fallen - there are loads of stories where its not your classic "Good VS Evil" setup. Even the Old World wasn't that. Bretonnia wasn't "good" it just wasn't orks or dark elves or chaos. Good in warhammer games has always been variable depending on your chosen army and point of view.

 Mothsniper wrote:


Wait, you truly believe that if Jafar looked like Sultan it would of been just the same, and it does not matter how the character looks at all because the voice actor is all that matters in a character?
Now that is purely subjective opinion. And is absolutely wrong based on the fact how brain processes shapes and colors.
You will deny that "shape and color of his robe look like a cunning bad guy"
At this point we are talking pass eachother.

More or less the actions a character makes defines a character and establishes visual tropes. If all the angular characters with dark robes do evil things then dark robes and angular characters appear evil. If all the evil characters were jolly and fat with beards then - yep - that would become how "evil" looks. As I noted Disney establishes style within itself. There's no reason that those styles have to carry over into other genres and IPs. There's no reason that black and dark red are "evil" colours more evil than blue or white.

 Mothsniper wrote:

Cronch wrote:

why Jafar instinctively, just based on the shape and color of his robe look like a cunning bad guy

because of cultural expectations, there is nothing universal about the design being "evil". He was designed purely to fit what western culture trained you to think an "evil oriental" is supposed to look like, largely based on victorian stereotypes (because you can pretty much trace 90% of harmful western stereotypes to that blighted period)

Yes, and that proves my point even more.
wait, (because you can pretty much trace 90% of harmful western stereotypes to that blighted period)
Victorian? really? Like mid 1800, like Napoleon time? trained western culture to think what evil looks like?

That's fair, but at this point? I don't think GW should do things that are 'comfortable' for AoS when first dropping an army. We had that with the initial AoS launch and it just seemed like it wasn't that great.

It wasn't until we started seeing stuff like the Idoneth, Kharadron, etc that I feel that we really saw the setting start to feel different than just WHFB 2.0. Even Stormcast alone weren't really that different.

I have a hard time, personally, with anyone saying "I just don't like the Alarith designs"--because it inevitably comes down to "Elfs shouldn't have hammers!" or "Cows aren't scary!" kind of nonsense.


That Aelf in the front with the greatsword? That's our 'first look', seemingly, at a River Temple Aelementari. I genuinely do not feel like that model would have stirred up anything near this level of discussion or interest for me.

I think the Cow Aelves are also seeing GW not so much tipping the boat of fantasy, but more reaching out to other cultural backgrounds and not just the western fantasy approach.

So we are seeing units that are perhaps inspired by Indian folk lore and stories not just King Arthur and Lord of the Rings. Which is honestly a great thing. We could do with more such influences and I hope AoS continues to explore them.

 Overread wrote:
He shares very similar designs to Scar, Rasputin, Maleficent, that witch out of the film where there's a llama and many other "evil" cartoon Disney characters.

Thin, angular character design, darker colour pallet, haughty and selfish mannerisms


It's an identity structure that Disney has built up over the years and repeated so you are partly trained to see the "evil". It's like how when the evil person appears in a pantomime the music changes and you're encouraged to boo and hiss. It's like how they might speak slightly differently etc... Plus all the actions they perform are "evil" very quickly.

There's nothing which culturally says thin people who wear darker clothes are evil, its just in Disney films.

I disagree, because the artist that was drawing it was not thinking - "Oh, we are so confused and no one knows what evil should look like, let me invent a new way of how evil shall be viewed, Yeah, this guy looks evil enough"
No, the artist came up with a design that works from his own pre-disney identity structure that was already there, that is the way brain processes shapes and colors before disney identity structure, before medieval times identity structure, back in mythology identity structure there are color and shapes that are assigned to good and evil.

"There's nothing which culturally says thin people who wear darker clothes are evil, its just in Disney films. "
So when I say lets look at the big dogs and see what they did right you make a case that Disney is wrong in their design of Jafar? Because you claim that it doesn't not matter what the bad guy looks like, because it is all relative.
They could of made him short fat and fluffy with light clothes and achieved same response from the audience? That is provably untrue because humans do react to different colors and shapes psychologically beyond "cultural biases" Because if they didn't then there would be no advertising industry.
Colors and shapes do work, and it does matter what color and what shape goes on a character that suppose to be good, bad, sneaky, tweaky, weak, strong, ets.

You are mistaking reinforcing existing identity structure with partly trained to see new identity structure Disney invented. They did not invent it, they use it because it works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thadin wrote:
I love the big cows, I'm a little iffy on the hammerers, but I'm going to be having the models in person soon. Perhaps my tune will chance with them in hand, like it did once I actually got to see Teclis, and could give him a less... cringing face like he just smelled something absolutely foul.

My biggest gripe of the Alarith release, was that it was, quite obviously, a very divisive portion of the army to release at first. The army already had hard lines drawn just off of it's Vanari troops, but such an odd/ unique design choice, both lore and model wise behind Alarith temple units, I feel it turned people away from Lumineth even more so.

Consider, had they released or designed an Aelementari temple that had more traditionally "Elven" sterotype designs FIRST instead of the cows, I feel the initial reception to Lumineth would have been brighter. Then, they can release the weird Cow army. While I do like them, one should recognize that they are pretty weird.

Man, honestly they could of made something cool with cow theme troops. Like my first image with Hindu holly cows, that would of been an awesome Urumi style Elf cow warriors or Charkum throwers style Elf cow warriors.

You're overlooking how often marketing has changed over the generations and even country to country. For example, its currently seen as less attractive to be overweight in the UK. Yet if you go to many African nations being overweight is seen as an attractive quality.

Marketing takes it to the extreme, but at the same time it doesn't just follow trends, it aims to define them. Look at how they've steadily shifted advertising to women especially with lots of "nip and tuck" in photoshop to the point where the women shown are near impossible in proportions.


Marketing creates constructs; those constructs might be based on a period in time and impressions of a generation or two; however after a time they stop following and start leading and defining. Until things change and new generations come along with a new and different perspective.


Being angular isn't inherently making one evil, if that were the case thin, angular shaped people would be hated and driven out of communities. Meanwhile we'd be marrying and nurturing and raising our children to be bearded and somewhat overweight.



Again how a character acts defines them greatly in a series. The fat jolly sultan is fat and jolly because of his looks and his actions. You can equally have fat and horrible characters (the Baron from Dune). Colour and shape works, but it requires contextual information and situational information and often as not it might be a simply supporting part not a defining part.

 Overread wrote:
Thing is cows/bovines are noble. They just aren't "Western European" popular modern noble animals. As I've noted before cattle used to be the primary work animal for many farms for generations; most farmers could never afford a horse and until they were bred for it; many weren't suited to hard labour. We had cattle for that work.

Head to India and the cow is a revered animal.



Also the whole concept of animals having nobility etc... is purely human constructs. Wolves are no more loyal, noble, righteous or such; just like hyenas are no more low, filthy and scavengers (heck lions scavenge from hyena kills all the time)

"Also the whole concept of animals having nobility etc... is purely human constructs."
OMG lolz is everything relative to you?
This is a FANTASY! yes in a fantasy I want this warrior to be good and this one to be bad, this animal to be noble and this one to be low.
I see your argument, and it is absolutely boring! Even in good ol boring real life not everything is relative and subjective.

 Mothsniper wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Thing is cows/bovines are noble. They just aren't "Western European" popular modern noble animals. As I've noted before cattle used to be the primary work animal for many farms for generations; most farmers could never afford a horse and until they were bred for it; many weren't suited to hard labour. We had cattle for that work.

Head to India and the cow is a revered animal.



Also the whole concept of animals having nobility etc... is purely human constructs. Wolves are no more loyal, noble, righteous or such; just like hyenas are no more low, filthy and scavengers (heck lions scavenge from hyena kills all the time)

"Also the whole concept of animals having nobility etc... is purely human constructs."
OMG lolz is everything relative to you?
This is a FANTASY! yes in a fantasy I want this warrior to be good and this one to be bad, this animal to be noble and this one to be low.
I see your argument, and it is absolutely boring! Even in good ol boring real life not everything is relative and subjective.

Think of it like this -
why is a wolf loyal
Why is a lion nobel
Why is a hyena disloyal
Why is an owl wise



Fun fact see I put wolf in there; go back 100 years and the wolf was far from loyal, it was big and bad. It wasn't noble, loyal, wild and free. It was vicious and monstrous and horrible and evil. It's eyes the colour of the devil so much so it features in dozens of folk tales and stories. Go back far enough and the wolf was so hated and feared in the UK that we wiped them out.
Today we see the wolf as a symbol of nature, of restoration and balance; back then it was a monster.

Second fun fact - owls are generally regarded to be not as high up the wisdom nor intelligence scale as quite a few other birds. Parrots and corvids have them beaten quite soundly and quite a few other raptors are generally considered smarter/easier to train*

So yes its relative.


*though one must be careful since being easy to train does not always correspond to being "smarter".

There are plenty of reasons why someone may not like a design, and you boiling it down to 'nonsense' why they don't like it is reductive, and needlessly confrontational. Just because you like it doesn't mean it should be liked by everyone else. Personal preference and all that.

However, the people who feel passionately enough about them do seem to come on to forums quite loudly about how it's a bad design or something or another... I Don't Like it =/= Bad Design

I blame forum/internet culture about it. The people I talk to in person who don't like it, merely say that it's not for them, or something along those lines.

 Thadin wrote:
There are plenty of reasons why someone may not like a design, and you boiling it down to 'nonsense' why they don't like it is reductive, and needlessly confrontational. Just because you like it doesn't mean it should be liked by everyone else. Personal preference and all that.

However, the people who feel passionately enough about them do seem to come on to forums quite loudly about how it's a bad design or something or another... I Don't Like it =/= Bad Design

I blame forum/internet culture about it. The people I talk to in person who don't like it, merely say that it's not for them, or something along those lines.

It's not even 'forum/internet culture'. It's fandom culture at this point. You're right that I might be a bit reductive or confrontational about it...but I have yet to ever hear anyone say "I read the fluff/watched Phil Kelly explain the lore. I don't like the models, but the concept is interesting" or anything of that nature. It just keeps being the same constant refrain of "LOLZ COWELFS?" or folks like the OP, who just seem to want to bandwagon onto the hate-train while adding nothing of substance to the discussion.

 Overread wrote:
You're overlooking how often marketing has changed over the generations and even country to country. For example, its currently seen as less attractive to be overweight in the UK. Yet if you go to many African nations being overweight is seen as an attractive quality.

Marketing takes it to the extreme, but at the same time it doesn't just follow trends, it aims to define them. Look at how they've steadily shifted advertising to women especially with lots of "nip and tuck" in photoshop to the point where the women shown are near impossible in proportions.


Marketing creates constructs; those constructs might be based on a period in time and impressions of a generation or two; however after a time they stop following and start leading and defining. Until things change and new generations come along with a new and different perspective.


Being angular isn't inherently making one evil, if that were the case thin, angular shaped people would be hated and driven out of communities. Meanwhile we'd be marrying and nurturing and raising our children to be bearded and somewhat overweight.



Again how a character acts defines them greatly in a series. The fat jolly sultan is fat and jolly because of his looks and his actions. You can equally have fat and horrible characters (the Baron from Dune). Colour and shape works, but it requires contextual information and situational information and often as not it might be a simply supporting part not a defining part.

"Yet if you go to many African nations being overweight is seen as an attractive quality. "
First of all I was taking about VISUAL DESIGN for the advertisement, like colors and shapes, because are talking about visual design here and not about marketing. You are arguing against your own points again that I did not make.
And wait- "Yet if you go to many African nations being overweight is seen as an attractive quality. "
Is that a fact? I think you are wrong in this.
Are you sure about that? Now I have a friend from Nigeria, and if I ask him about that what do you think he will tell me?

"Marketing takes it to the extreme, but at the same time it doesn't just follow trends, it aims to define them. Look at how they've steadily shifted advertising to women especially with lots of "nip and tuck" in photoshop to the point where the women shown are near impossible in proportions. "
Marketing towards women? what are you talking about? Who has ever made a point that TRENDS stay the same, I am talking about colors and shapes? I am talking about VISUAL advertisements not marketing tactics or trends.

"
Marketing creates constructs; those constructs might be based on a period in time and impressions of a generation or two; however after a time they stop following and start leading and defining. Until things change and new generations come along with a new and different perspective.
Being angular isn't inherently making one evil, if that were the case thin, angular shaped people would be hated and driven out of communities. Meanwhile we'd be marrying and nurturing and raising our children to be bearded and somewhat overweight.
Again how a character acts defines them greatly in a series. The fat jolly sultan is fat and jolly because of his looks and his actions. You can equally have fat and horrible characters (the Baron from Dune). Colour and shape works, but it requires contextual information and situational information and often as not it might be a simply supporting part not a defining part. "
Why are you talking about acting? we are on a topic of visual design of shapes and colors.

"The fat jolly sultan is fat and jolly because of his looks and his actions."
So his looks are important?

"You can equally have fat and horrible characters (the Baron from Dune)."
Vat are ya talking about? Baron does not look like Sultan! He looks like fat Jafar with back and red, thank you for proving my point!

"Colour and shape works, but it requires contextual information and situational information"
Wrong, A Bag of chips does not contextual information or situational information to attract a customer with shape and color

" often as not it might be a simply supporting part not a defining part"
I would love to see you actually prove that

You should take a break. At this point you're maliciously misconstruing points just to keep an argument going.

 Overread wrote:
I think the Cow Aelves are also seeing GW not so much tipping the boat of fantasy, but more reaching out to other cultural backgrounds and not just the western fantasy approach.

So we are seeing units that are perhaps inspired by Indian folk lore and stories not just King Arthur and Lord of the Rings. Which is honestly a great thing. We could do with more such influences and I hope AoS continues to explore them.

Kelly talked about it being more an extension of the 'genius loci' concept. Where a place is given an identity. The Ymetrican Longhorn is a cow, the Alarith temple was founded on a mountainside. The Longhorn is considered effectively immortal(some comment was made about the horns needing to be removed for the beast to actually perish? something of that nature) and only dwells in the mountains of Hysh. It would make sense then that they start styling themselves after a beast tied to it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Thadin wrote:
There are plenty of reasons why someone may not like a design, and you boiling it down to 'nonsense' why they don't like it is reductive, and needlessly confrontational. Just because you like it doesn't mean it should be liked by everyone else. Personal preference and all that.

However, the people who feel passionately enough about them do seem to come on to forums quite loudly about how it's a bad design or something or another... I Don't Like it =/= Bad Design

I blame forum/internet culture about it. The people I talk to in person who don't like it, merely say that it's not for them, or something along those lines.

It's not even 'forum/internet culture'. It's fandom culture at this point. You're right that I might be a bit reductive or confrontational about it...but I have yet to ever hear anyone say "I read the fluff/watched Phil Kelly explain the lore. I don't like the models, but the concept is interesting" or anything of that nature. It just keeps being the same constant refrain of "LOLZ COWELFS?" or folks like the OP, who just seem to want to bandwagon onto the hate-train while adding nothing of substance to the discussion.

Not the original response get in line!
Inquisitor Gideon
(As much as you talk about good and bad design, this does come off more as a whine/troll thread. You haven't posted anything worth discussing as of yet.)

"bandwagon onto the hate-train while adding nothing of substance to the discussion"
It is fascinating to read your crit of the OP.
Would love to hear your crit of the design problems brought up in the discussion about Cygor in Elven armor.
Otherwise it is It's fandom culture around the lore.

Mothsniper you keep jumping around like mad whenever someone makes a point. You openly start talking about marketing and advertising then shoot someone down for talking about marketing and advertising.

Besides you're also not clear if your issue is with the concept of the sculpt; the design of the sculpt or GWs chosen angle of the photograph to market the sculpt (which in turn is talking about the sculpt itself). You need to settle and make your points clearer and then slow down as you read the counter arguments and points being made

Cygor:


Alarith, Spirit of the Mountain:

These things do not look similar beyond broadstrokes.

They both have hoofed feet, are bipedal, have arms, and have horns.

The Cygor:
Grotesquely muscular, unkempt(cracked horns and the 'fur' on the back is matted with blood per the fluff so that it stands straight up like that), crude coverings and improvised weapons. Even the pose itself is more 'feral', with its positioning being more aggressive than intelligent.

Spirit of the Mountain:
Lithe rather than muscular. Well-constructed armor and weapons with banners and streamers coming from the armor and decoration on the armor and weapons. Even its fur is well-'groomed' despite the whole thing being a construct built for a spirit to inhabit rather than an actual flesh and blood creature. The horns have been decorated as well.

In no way, shape, or form are these two things comparable beyond 'they have horns, stand up on two hoofed feet, and have arms that clutch things'.

 Overread wrote:
Mothsniper you keep jumping around like mad whenever someone makes a point. You openly start talking about marketing and advertising then shoot someone down for talking about marketing and advertising.

Besides you're also not clear if your issue is with the concept of the sculpt; the design of the sculpt or GWs chosen angle of the photograph to market the sculpt (which in turn is talking about the sculpt itself). You need to settle and make your points clearer and then slow down as you read the counter arguments and points being made

Calling me mad? I was hoping to get called something bit more creative

"You openly start talking about marketing and advertising"
I openly talked about Advertising, visual advertising, in context of color and shapes and design that we are discussing.
You go off tangent into marketing and what trends target each group then you are going off topic!

I know ti is hard to stay on topic of advertising, and tempting to go off into all kinds of related subjects like marketing and trends.


"Besides you're also not clear if your issue is with the concept of the sculpt; the design of the sculpt or GWs chosen angle of the photograph to market the sculpt (which in turn is talking about the sculpt itself). You need to settle and make your points clearer and then slow down as you read the counter arguments and points being made "

Then let me repeat my self. Bad design is my issue wit the concept and the sculpt.

"You need to settle and make your points clearer and then slow down as you read the counter arguments and points being made "
I will try, hope you can try to stay on topic next time



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Cygor:

Alarith, Spirit of the Mountain:

These things do not look similar beyond broadstrokes.

They both have hoofed feet, are bipedal, have arms, and have horns.

The Cygor:
Grotesquely muscular, unkempt(cracked horns and the 'fur' on the back is matted with blood per the fluff so that it stands straight up like that), crude coverings and improvised weapons. Even the pose itself is more 'feral', with its positioning being more aggressive than intelligent.

Spirit of the Mountain:
Lithe rather than muscular. Well-constructed armor and weapons with banners and streamers coming from the armor and decoration on the armor and weapons. Even its fur is well-'groomed' despite the whole thing being a construct built for a spirit to inhabit rather than an actual flesh and blood creature. The horns have been decorated as well.

In no way, shape, or form are these two things comparable beyond 'they have horns, stand up on two hoofed feet, and have arms that clutch things'.

Yes, and that is the problem! the broadstrokes! Because broadstrokes is the most important in the design.
"In no way, shape, or form are these two things comparable beyond 'they have horns, stand up on two hoofed feet, and have arms that clutch things'."
Yes, They have horns, stand up on two hoofed feet, Did I not outline that from beginning?
"For me bigger problem is that I just do not understand a thematic connection of a Beatmen upright cow with the "High-Elfs" I know they are not HighElfs, yet they LOOK like they are kin. "
"I was talking about Thematic connection of a Cygor draped in Elven armor. "
"I saw the unit and was like,,, Are Elfs and beast men are now allies on this new unit? "

 Mothsniper wrote:

NIce! Wow , Sorry I am still not convinced. Those seem to you condescending?! That is your personal issue mate, with perhaps childhood undressed guilt and adult established inadequacies lead you to take simple replies as insults.
Learning something about people everyday Care to share more of who you are?

Cmon mate, this is DakkaDakka. We all know smartass insulting comments when we see them. Don't play dumb.

 Mothsniper wrote:

"Why did you draw them like that, and not like this? "
Why did I draw those lines very jagged? For same exact reason I drew lines jagged on the sorceress as well.
Lets have a discussion, Why do you think I drew jagged lines on both Spirit and Sorceress?

Look, I'm not doing your homework for you. I'm not just gonna guess at what point you're trying to make. If you want someone to agree with you, you have to tell them why. You bounce back and forth between "these concepts are so simple that explaining them would be condescending to a five-year-old" and "You obviously can't understand such advanced concepts without all the schooling I've had!".

 Mothsniper wrote:

Get off your high horse! lolz are you a politeness police here to put me back into my place? Nothing I said was offensive, that does not mean that some people might still take offense to it, and that is not my problem but theirs.

If something's offensive, it's because it's "something that offends". As you say below, we can't know what you're actually thinking, we just have your words to go on. If you say something that causes offense, what else are we to assume other than that you're trying to be offensive? Especially when you do it over and over, after multiple people leave comments to the effect of "dude, you're being offensive". Don't pretend to be so naive that you don't know how your comments come across. Everyone here (you included) knows exactly what you're doing.

 Mothsniper wrote:

Ima try to explain this - You see I am just sitting here and typing, YOU HAVE NO IDEA with what intent I am typing things, Infact, I can put an emoji but you don't know if that is my honest intent or sarcastic! And when you read it (even though you have no idea my intent) you interpret what I wrote how you want it. Accurately or not.
Check your self before schooling me on politeness (dont take it the wrong way) ... dont take the ( dont take it the wrong way) the wrong way...

See, this is the whole crux of the issue people have with your posts. If you want someone to understand what you're saying, and convince them you're correct, the onus is on you to make yourself understood. If you come across as a sarcastic , you can be 100% right and still no one will want to listen to you. All communication is imperfect - we could be talking face to face and I can still have no idea what you're thinking or trying to say to me. As you said, we only have what you type here to judge you on. Don't get upset when we judge you by what you say, and not by whatever unknowable intentions are in your head. If the words of your argument aren't convincing anyone, find better words. We're not being deliberately obtuse or stupid; you're making a bad argument for why you're right.

 Mothsniper wrote:

"Now that you mention WoW, it actually brings up an interesting point of comparison: "
Yes it is much better design. Why? Many reasons and lets start with one.
It is not using same or half ratios, Want to overlay the rulers from the legs vs tors vs head and compare that the the Spirit?

Yes, please do. Lay out the reasons. Draw your lines and explain why. Convince me. You've spilled far more (digital) ink picking fights with other posters than it would take to clearly explain your ideas, I think.
What are same or half ratios? I don't know, I didn't go to school for that. Why are they important? So far you've only offered up "because my school said so" and "because Left4Dead guy said so". If Disney or whoever offers better examples, show me! I've gone and looked at images of Mickey Mouse and Star Wars characters, and I still don't have any idea what you're talking about.

I'll ask you for an example you've cited more directly:



Is this a silhouette of a good guy or a bad guy? How can you tell?



To me, these legs/torso/head boxes look more like the ones you drew on our Elf Cow Man here, than on the other (WoW?) character. What should I take away from that? Does this mean that this is bad design? It occurs to me that these seem like pretty human proportions - like, a person's torso is about twice the height of their head, and their legs twice as long as their torso? Why is it bad for a humanoid character to have body dimensions similar to that of a real person?

To that point, it's folly to try and assume the 'goodness' of a character just by it's appearance or silhouette.

A conniving bandit in a sharp coat and wide-brimmed hat wielding a wicked rapier could be a bad guy. Or, that same silhouette could be a valiant, daring-do musketeer-type. It's about context, actions, expression.

The only thing that makes the silhouette you're using as an example, recognizable as a bad guy, is because it looks roughly like a Stormtrooper or Clone Trooper (Revenge of the sith, where they are baddies). That falls in to the realm of context and expression.

That silhouette could be a stormtrooper or a rebel fighter. Both wear helmets of a roughly similar outer shape.

I'd agree - if you recognize the specific character than you know if they're good or bad, but what if you hadn't seen Star Wars already? I don't think there's anything about the silhouette that specifically communicates "this character is a good guy/is a bad guy".

I thought the same briefly, but the rounded shoulder guards and the shin... things and hip protection made me think that it had to be a clone/storm trooper.

Even in a video game, silhouette detection only matters if you know what that thing is, and what it can do. Some brand-new player to TF2, a game with probably the best silhouette work out of any game might recognize that the enemy they see at a glance is different from another, but until they play and know from context and experience what it's capable of, it doesn't matter.

 Wasteland wrote:

 Mothsniper wrote:

NIce! Wow , Sorry I am still not convinced. Those seem to you condescending?! That is your personal issue mate, with perhaps childhood undressed guilt and adult established inadequacies lead you to take simple replies as insults.
Learning something about people everyday Care to share more of who you are?

Cmon mate, this is DakkaDakka. We all know smartass insulting comments when we see them. Don't play dumb.

"Cmon mate, this is DakkaDakka. We all know smartass insulting comments when we see them. Don't play dumb"
Like condescendingly telling some one to stop playing dumb?
We all know indeed, perhaps not in your case if you can't tell the difference between an insulting and calling someone out for going off topic.


"Look, I'm not doing your homework for you. I'm not just gonna guess at what point you're trying to make. If you want someone to agree with you, you have to tell them why. You bounce back and forth between "these concepts are so simple that explaining them would be condescending to a five-year-old" and "You obviously can't understand such advanced concepts without all the schooling I've had!". "
I did answer your question
"For same exact reason I drew lines jagged on the sorceress as well."
Why can't you answer mine?
"Why do you think I drew jagged lines on both Spirit and Sorceress? "

"If something's offensive, it's because it's "something that offends". As you say below, we can't know what you're actually thinking, we just have your words to go on. If you say something that causes offense, what else are we to assume other than that you're trying to be offensive? Especially when you do it over and over, after multiple people leave comments to the effect of "dude, you're being offensive". Don't pretend to be so naive that you don't know how your comments come across. Everyone here (you included) knows exactly what you're doing. "
Not pretending to be naive lolz, just telling you that you are wrong in your assesment.

"See, this is the whole crux of the issue people have with your posts. If you want someone to understand what you're saying, and convince them you're correct, the onus is on you to make yourself understood. If you come across as a sarcastic , you can be 100% right and still no one will want to listen to you. All communication is imperfect - we could be talking face to face and I can still have no idea what you're thinking or trying to say to me. As you said, we only have what you type here to judge you on. Don't get upset when we judge you by what you say, and not by whatever unknowable intentions are in your head. If the words of your argument aren't convincing anyone, find better words. We're not being deliberately obtuse or stupid; you're making a bad argument for why you're right. "
... So far there is one person here getting upset. Convincing anyone of anything is not my goal at all! I already said that earlier. did you miss it?

"
Yes, please do. Lay out the reasons. Draw your lines and explain why. Convince me. You've spilled far more (digital) ink picking fights with other posters than it would take to clearly explain your ideas, I think.
What are same or half ratios? I don't know, I didn't go to school for that. Why are they important? So far you've only offered up "because my school said so" and "because Left4Dead guy said so". If Disney or whoever offers better examples, show me! I've gone and looked at images of Mickey Mouse and Star Wars characters, and I still don't have any idea what you're talking about. "
Picking fights with other posters, so far only you have done that
Why are they important?
- I already said it.. will just be copy and pasting then if you are too triggered to read (because that creates interest and attracts the eye and keep eye engaged longer.) (Impact and Payoff)
"Impact" (impact is a term referring to the strong composition design, color, and tone that immediately catches the eye)
"Payoff" (Payoff is a term referring to the richness of information and details present when the image is examined closer)
So Impact is what catches the eye and payoff is what keeps the eye. Does that make senes?

"I'll ask you for an example you've cited more directly: "
"Is this a silhouette of a good guy or a bad guy? How can you tell? "
"To me, these legs/torso/head boxes look more like the ones you drew on our Elf Cow Man here, than on the other (WoW?) character. What should I take away from that? Does this mean that this is bad design? It occurs to me that these seem like pretty human proportions - like, a person's torso is about twice the height of their head, and their legs twice as long as their torso? Why is it bad for a humanoid character to have body dimensions similar to that of a real person? "
EXACTLY! human proportions, those are exactly normal human proportions. And there is nothing wrong with normal human proportions.
Your Tauren image has those normal, standard ,default, human proportions skewed into tiny legs, huge torso, and offset small head.
The BAD part comes in if your Tauren character had normal, standard ,default, human proportions. It would of been a boring Fantasy character with normal, standard ,default, proportions.
I hope this is making sense, because I do not know how else to explain it other jumping on discord with screenshare.
That is why a good design plays with exaggerating proportions and avoids default standard boring normal proportions! that is why the Spirit unit is not as strong as it could of been.
I also hope that is making sense.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thadin wrote:
To that point, it's folly to try and assume the 'goodness' of a character just by it's appearance or silhouette.

A conniving bandit in a sharp coat and wide-brimmed hat wielding a wicked rapier could be a bad guy. Or, that same silhouette could be a valiant, daring-do musketeer-type. It's about context, actions, expression.

The only thing that makes the silhouette you're using as an example, recognizable as a bad guy, is because it looks roughly like a Stormtrooper or Clone Trooper (Revenge of the sith, where they are baddies). That falls in to the realm of context and expression.

Silhouette is primarily there for readability and recognition.
silhouette does play bit role into the good vs bad character design.

I was saying that silhouette plays into the characterization of the character. And having an obvious "evil spiky" silhouette for a good character is not a good design.

The storm trooper is a default human silhouette, and that silhouette perfectly characterize the character! Because the character is a default normal duplication, insignificant and numerous. and the design and color and silhouette underlines that characteristic. If would be bad design if storm trooper silhouette was opposite of the "normal" look

I hope this makes sense.

A solid point on the stormtrooper.

While spikes and sharp angles are typically the realm of the baddies, I don't believe that the points and angles of the Alarith spirit are the sort that give off an evil vibe. Graceful curves leading in to sharp points give me a sense of lethal grace, that are often associated with elven motifs. It can be found in the traditionally 'good' elven styles of Warhammer, extending even in to 40k with it's Craftworlders.

 Mothsniper wrote:

"Cmon mate, this is DakkaDakka. We all know smartass insulting comments when we see them. Don't play dumb"
Like condescendingly telling some one to stop playing dumb?
We all know indeed, perhaps not in your case if you can't tell the difference between an insulting and calling someone out for going off topic.

No no, it's much too late to claim ignorance now. If you didn't know you're coming across as an , and you didn't want to come across as an , you would have changed your approach after it was pointed out to you way back on page one, and many times since.

 Mothsniper wrote:

I did answer your question
"For same exact reason I drew lines jagged on the sorceress as well."
Why can't you answer mine?
"Why do you think I drew jagged lines on both Spirit and Sorceress? "

Because they both have some jagged parts? Those aren't the parts I'm talking about. Go back and look at the images I posted. On the sorceress, you followed the curve of her robe with a nice, gentle line of your own. On similarly curved lines on the spirit, you've followed the outline with rough, straight lines like a bad vector image. Why are the curved lines on one treated differently that the curved lines on the other?

 Mothsniper wrote:

Convincing anyone of anything is not my goal at all! I already said that earlier. did you miss it?

So why are you still talking? Leave us in our happy ignorance, then.

 Mothsniper wrote:

- I already said it.. will just be copy and pasting then if you are too triggered to read (because that creates interest and attracts the eye and keep eye engaged longer.) (Impact and Payoff)
"Impact" (impact is a term referring to the strong composition design, color, and tone that immediately catches the eye)
"Payoff" (Payoff is a term referring to the richness of information and details present when the image is examined closer)
So Impact is what catches the eye and payoff is what keeps the eye. Does that make senes?

Yes, but you've failed to explain how something has good impact vs bad impact, good payoff vs bad payoff. You've defined the terms, but haven't explained how they apply or lead you to your conclusions. When I look closely at the spirit, I see the details of the little tassels, the elements that appear to be moving with the wind, all the little lines in the armor that I don't see at first glance. Are these not examples of payoff? Why not?

 Mothsniper wrote:

"I'll ask you for an example you've cited more directly: "
"Is this a silhouette of a good guy or a bad guy? How can you tell? "
"To me, these legs/torso/head boxes look more like the ones you drew on our Elf Cow Man here, than on the other (WoW?) character. What should I take away from that? Does this mean that this is bad design? It occurs to me that these seem like pretty human proportions - like, a person's torso is about twice the height of their head, and their legs twice as long as their torso? Why is it bad for a humanoid character to have body dimensions similar to that of a real person? "
EXACTLY! human proportions, those are exactly normal human proportions. And there is nothing wrong with normal human proportions.
Your Tauren image has those normal, standard ,default, human proportions skewed into tiny legs, huge torso, and offset small head.
The BAD part comes in if your Tauren character had normal, standard ,default, human proportions. It would of been a boring Fantasy character with normal, standard ,default, proportions.

And there is nothing wrong with normal human proportions.
The BAD part comes in if your Tauren character had normal, standard ,default, human proportions

Honestly not sure what to make of that.

Rather than just saying that the humanlike proportions are bad, don't you think it could be communicating other things? Like, couldn't the familiar proportions make the character more familiar or relatable to us despite being a giant mountain-backed cow man?

That's not to say that the WoW Tauren is bad, but it seems to be following different rules to create a specific style. The things you're saying don't seem to be wrong per se, but you're treating them like ironclad, inviolate rules when they don't apply equally to everything.

Like, the concepts of "stretch and squish" are important concepts and vital parts of traditional western-style animation, and can be used to communicate movement very effectively. But the fact that something like Ghost in the Shell doesn't use them does not make Ghost in the Shell poorly animated.

 Mothsniper wrote:

I was saying that silhouette plays into the characterization of the character. And having an obvious "evil spiky" silhouette for a good character is not a good design.

The storm trooper is a default human silhouette, and that silhouette perfectly characterize the character! Because the character is a default normal duplication, insignificant and numerous. and the design and color and silhouette underlines that characteristic. If would be bad design if storm trooper silhouette was opposite of the "normal" look

I hope this makes sense.

Yes, that does make sense. Is it fair to say then that a well-designed bad guy character may have a smooth, innocuous silhouette? Like, that particular part of their design communicates something other than "good/evil"? Couldn't you have, say, a good character or design with big spiky dragon wings? Or a unique, one-of-a-kind good guy character with a bulky, smooth silhouette like the stormtrooper, showing how he's set apart from normal humanity (for example Robocop?)

 Wasteland wrote:

 Mothsniper wrote:

"Cmon mate, this is DakkaDakka. We all know smartass insulting comments when we see them. Don't play dumb"
Like condescendingly telling some one to stop playing dumb?
We all know indeed, perhaps not in your case if you can't tell the difference between an insulting and calling someone out for going off topic.

No no, it's much too late to claim ignorance now. If you didn't know you're coming across as an , and you didn't want to come across as an , you would have changed your approach after it was pointed out to you way back on page one, and many times since.

 Mothsniper wrote:

I did answer your question
"For same exact reason I drew lines jagged on the sorceress as well."
Why can't you answer mine?
"Why do you think I drew jagged lines on both Spirit and Sorceress? "

Because they both have some jagged parts? Those aren't the parts I'm talking about. Go back and look at the images I posted. On the sorceress, you followed the curve of her robe with a nice, gentle line of your own. On similarly curved lines on the spirit, you've followed the outline with rough, straight lines like a bad vector image. Why are the curved lines on one treated differently that the curved lines on the other?

 Mothsniper wrote:

Convincing anyone of anything is not my goal at all! I already said that earlier. did you miss it?

So why are you still talking? Leave us in our happy ignorance, then.

 Mothsniper wrote:

- I already said it.. will just be copy and pasting then if you are too triggered to read (because that creates interest and attracts the eye and keep eye engaged longer.) (Impact and Payoff)
"Impact" (impact is a term referring to the strong composition design, color, and tone that immediately catches the eye)
"Payoff" (Payoff is a term referring to the richness of information and details present when the image is examined closer)
So Impact is what catches the eye and payoff is what keeps the eye. Does that make senes?

Yes, but you've failed to explain how something has good impact vs bad impact, good payoff vs bad payoff. You've defined the terms, but haven't explained how they apply or lead you to your conclusions. When I look closely at the spirit, I see the details of the little tassels, the elements that appear to be moving with the wind, all the little lines in the armor that I don't see at first glance. Are these not examples of payoff? Why not?

 Mothsniper wrote:

"I'll ask you for an example you've cited more directly: "
"Is this a silhouette of a good guy or a bad guy? How can you tell? "
"To me, these legs/torso/head boxes look more like the ones you drew on our Elf Cow Man here, than on the other (WoW?) character. What should I take away from that? Does this mean that this is bad design? It occurs to me that these seem like pretty human proportions - like, a person's torso is about twice the height of their head, and their legs twice as long as their torso? Why is it bad for a humanoid character to have body dimensions similar to that of a real person? "
EXACTLY! human proportions, those are exactly normal human proportions. And there is nothing wrong with normal human proportions.
Your Tauren image has those normal, standard ,default, human proportions skewed into tiny legs, huge torso, and offset small head.
The BAD part comes in if your Tauren character had normal, standard ,default, human proportions. It would of been a boring Fantasy character with normal, standard ,default, proportions.

And there is nothing wrong with normal human proportions.
The BAD part comes in if your Tauren character had normal, standard ,default, human proportions

Honestly not sure what to make of that.

Rather than just saying that the humanlike proportions are bad, don't you think it could be communicating other things? Like, couldn't the familiar proportions make the character more familiar or relatable to us despite being a giant mountain-backed cow man?

That's not to say that the WoW Tauren is bad, but it seems to be following different rules to create a specific style. The things you're saying don't seem to be wrong per se, but you're treating them like ironclad, inviolate rules when they don't apply equally to everything.

Like, the concepts of "stretch and squish" are important concepts and vital parts of traditional western-style animation, and can be used to communicate movement very effectively. But the fact that something like Ghost in the Shell doesn't use them does not make Ghost in the Shell poorly animated.

 Mothsniper wrote:

I was saying that silhouette plays into the characterization of the character. And having an obvious "evil spiky" silhouette for a good character is not a good design.

The storm trooper is a default human silhouette, and that silhouette perfectly characterize the character! Because the character is a default normal duplication, insignificant and numerous. and the design and color and silhouette underlines that characteristic. If would be bad design if storm trooper silhouette was opposite of the "normal" look

I hope this makes sense.

Yes, that does make sense. Is it fair to say then that a well-designed bad guy character may have a smooth, innocuous silhouette? Like, that particular part of their design communicates something other than "good/evil"? Couldn't you have, say, a good character or design with big spiky dragon wings? Or a unique, one-of-a-kind good guy character with a bulky, smooth silhouette like the stormtrooper, showing how he's set apart from normal humanity (for example Robocop?)

"No no, it's much too late to claim ignorance now. If you didn't know you're coming across as an , and you didn't want to come across as an , you would have changed your approach after it was pointed out to you way back on page one, and many times since. "
Lolz, what are those ? Come on say it. What are you calling me? Can't just type it out? pathetic.
I see nothing wrong with my approach, and will not change it because I am good with it.

"Because they both have some jagged parts? Those aren't the parts I'm talking about. Go back and look at the images I posted. On the sorceress, you followed the curve of her robe with a nice, gentle line of your own. On similarly curved lines on the spirit, you've followed the outline with rough, straight lines like a bad vector image. Why are the curved lines on one treated differently that the curved lines on the other? "
Yes because they both do have jagged lines! so I am not favoring one design over the other just to make a point. I put jaded lines to indicate areas that are busy, because it is an illustration of a BUSY vs CALM concept. The Jagged lines I A REPRESENTATION OF AN AREA THAT IS BUSY, JAGGED LINE IS NOT AN ACTUAL LINE THAT OUTLINES A SHAPE OF THE DESIGN, IT IS A REPRESENTATION OF AN AREA THAT IS BUSY TO ILLUSTRATE THE CONCEPT OF BUSY vs CALM.
Sorry for camps, I am not yelling, just trying to be as clear as my person will allow.
Curved lines are traded differently because jagged lines are representing an area that is BUSY with details, not actually outlining the shape...
You know what, my bad, I though that was self explanatory, if we I talk about busy vs calm and put an example image of busy vs calm, it never even crossed my mind that someone will ignore the actual busy vs calm concept that we are talking about and starts picking at the way I drew the busy example line. My communication skills are seriously lacking, no surprise though, because what do you expect from a total am I right

"So why are you still talking? Leave us in our happy ignorance, then."
Is that why you jumped in, to shut up this !
Why am I here, Because I already said why I am still here, lolz right after I talked about not trying to convince anyone, guess you missed that too.

"Yes, but you've failed to explain how something has good impact vs bad impact, good payoff vs bad payoff. You've defined the terms, but haven't explained how they apply or lead you to your conclusions. When I look closely at the spirit, I see the details of the little tassels, the elements that appear to be moving with the wind, all the little lines in the armor that I don't see at first glance. Are these not examples of payoff? Why not? "
This should be self evident, but if it is not then away we go:
Good Impact grabs the attention, Bad impact doesn't grab jack. Good Payoff keeps attention, bad payoff doesn't keep jack.
Example: If you are fillping through google images of Elfs and scrolling through them quickly and Boom! one catches you eye, and you stop, go back, and open it so you get a closer look at it. But when you open it you realize that the image is more of a sketch and there is not much else to look at. ( That would be strong impact and weak payoff)
Example: You are still scrolling through google images of Elfs, and you scroll pass one of the images that is actually a well crafted and detailed battle scene with alots of details and characters and epic story ets. (That is an example of weak Impact but strong payoff)
Concepts of Impact and Payoff are terms coined by Craig Nelson, amazing illustrator (One of the guys who painted those photo real old school movie posters) and amazing Fine artist who's class I had an honor of attneding.
Yes, you are right that is a perfect example of payoff. And that is why the design is not strong. Because good design, in advertisement adds, needs strong Impact alone to grab attention quickly, In art you need both in equal measure to not only grab attention, but keep the attention on you piece of art long enough for the audience to get the story or a point that the artist was trying to communicate. In a sculpture you need both as well, in 3D model you need both, in a moving picture you need both, in a computer game you need both, otherwise you will lose the attention of the audience! But in all of those mediums, Impact is always more important than payoff.
That is another way Spirit is bad in design and could of been designed, posed, in a much much stronger way!
I hope this makes sense.

"Rather than just saying that the humanlike proportions are bad, don't you think it could be communicating other things? Like, couldn't the familiar proportions make the character more familiar or relatable to us despite being a giant mountain-backed cow man? "
Human proportions are bad for a fantasy creature because it renders creature "boring", imagine orks elfs goblins ets all being of same proportion despite difference in height and scale, that would be weird.
Yes, If I wanted audience to relate to the fantasy creature more I would most defiantly stick to "human" proportions more!

"That's not to say that the WoW Tauren is bad, but it seems to be following different rules to create a specific style. The things you're saying don't seem to be wrong per se, but you're treating them like ironclad, inviolate rules when they don't apply equally to everything."
Well, there are rules, and they are not iron clad but they are in a way. Same for music, some rules you can break but some rules will just break the tune. There are rules that can be bent or bypassed sure, but there are also defiantly ironclad rules in creating impactful image.
For example: To paint a miniature that will read well and look cool you could use contrast (ie opposte) colors, yes it is a rule, because contrast colors just automatically work very well in anything. But that rule can be broken by painting miniatures with Analogous colors, or limited palette, or black and white, or monochrome, or solid flat, rainbow, or all colors together, ets. So by breaking color rule you can still end up with a cool mini that reads well!
But if you break tonal rule (Tone - a range from dark to light) or value rule (Value - also, range from light to dark) then you will lose the contrast and miniature will not read. And stronger the tone - then higher the contrast and better mini will read, weaker the tone - less contrast - mini will read less.
And Silhouette is one of those rules in a design that is hard to dismiss because it is the rudimentary shape that sets the direction for rest of the model down to the finest detail. Rhythm of busy vs calm however can be avoided, it will not make or break the design.
I hope this makes sense.

"Like, the concepts of "stretch and squish" are important concepts and vital parts of traditional western-style animation, and can be used to communicate movement very effectively. But the fact that something like Ghost in the Shell doesn't use them does not make Ghost in the Shell poorly animated."
Yep I agree, that is why Spirited Away is better ! ----------runs for cover - Oh boy If I though I was getting some heat before, I will get it now.

"Yes, that does make sense. Is it fair to say then that a well-designed bad guy character may have a smooth, innocuous silhouette? Like, that particular part of their design communicates something other than "good/evil"? Couldn't you have, say, a good character or design with big spiky dragon wings? Or a unique, one-of-a-kind good guy character with a bulky, smooth silhouette like the stormtrooper, showing how he's set apart from normal humanity (for example Robocop?)"
You could have good character or design with big spiky dragon wings yes, if it is done right.
Yes you could, that is not the rule, however let me attempt to explain the concept!
The whole point is this:
Think of a nike LOGO
1-The Most optimally minimum amount of design without any unnecessary details or information
2-That Maximally communicates the entire mission statement and direction and about-ness of a company

Silhouette is that.
Example: If you took a marker and scribbled scribbles on a page and showed it you your friend, and you friend said "Oh cool evil wizard"
That is a strong design! With most minimal amount of information you where able to communicate exactly what you wanted and it read clearly enough for the audience to ID it at a quick glance!

Audience did not have to make up excuses or dig deep to explain the design!
Pulling obsquer mythos to explain the connection of a cow and a mountain, dig deep into the lore or history to explain why they holding hammers ets, why there are mountains of shoulders, why there are horned and hoofed creature in an elf army, ets.
The deeper you have to dig to explain things in the design the weaker the design is. Folk here do not get that digging deeper into the lore and cultures, The VISUAL design should be self evident if it is not, it is not strong design.

Now do you think that a design with big spiky dragon wings will read at a quick glance as a "good" character?
I say yes, but only if it is done correctly.

Sorry dudes, Spirit is a bad character design, both in theme and execution.

You still haven't actually 'proven' anything. You've just drawn squiggly lines and spouted off your opinion.

Phil Kelly, the guy who helped write the fricking lore for the army, says these things are constructs. Phil Kelly says that the design is based off a Ymetrican Longhorn buffalo, a mountain dwelling creature of Hysh(that's the Realm of Light, aka where the Lumineth Realmlords are from).
The 'mountain' on their backs? It's a literal representation of the Alarith('mountain') rune and mountains.

Nobody has 'made up' anything beyond you here. You've chosen not to understand why these things look the way they do. That's cool. But stop pretending that it doesn't make sense.

 Mothsniper wrote:

"No no, it's much too late to claim ignorance now. If you didn't know you're coming across as an , and you didn't want to come across as an , you would have changed your approach after it was pointed out to you way back on page one, and many times since. "
Lolz, what are those ? Come on say it. What are you calling me? Can't just type it out? pathetic.
I see nothing wrong with my approach, and will not change it because I am good with it.

No, you have absolutely come across as rude, condescending and demeaning in many of your posts and you really need to change that. Read back through what you have written and see how you come across to other people who read it and think how you can change the words you use to no longer do so. You may not have an issue with it but the primary rule of this site is "Be polite" and you need to to start obeying it. That goes for everyone else in this thread as well.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You still haven't actually 'proven' anything. You've just drawn squiggly lines and spouted off your opinion.

Phil Kelly, the guy who helped write the fricking lore for the army, says these things are constructs. Phil Kelly says that the design is based off a Ymetrican Longhorn buffalo, a mountain dwelling creature of Hysh(that's the Realm of Light, aka where the Lumineth Realmlords are from).
The 'mountain' on their backs? It's a literal representation of the Alarith('mountain') rune and mountains.

Nobody has 'made up' anything beyond you here. You've chosen not to understand why these things look the way they do. That's cool. But stop pretending that it doesn't make sense.

"But stop pretending that it doesn't make sense"
Crushing position that I never took
It makes sense, my position is that it is poorly executed.
Good design is self evident
Keep digging my digga!

You still haven't proven me wrong on the design.
As one Great man once said -
"This does come off more as a whine/troll thread. You haven't posted anything worth discussing as of yet. "

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ingtaer wrote:

 Mothsniper wrote:

"No no, it's much too late to claim ignorance now. If you didn't know you're coming across as an , and you didn't want to come across as an , you would have changed your approach after it was pointed out to you way back on page one, and many times since. "
Lolz, what are those ? Come on say it. What are you calling me? Can't just type it out? pathetic.
I see nothing wrong with my approach, and will not change it because I am good with it.

No, you have absolutely come across as rude, condescending and demeaning in many of your posts and you really need to change that. Read back through what you have written and see how you come across to other people who read it and think how you can change the words you use to no longer do so. You may not have an issue with it but the primary rule of this site is "Be polite" and you need to to start obeying it. That goes for everyone else in this thread as well.

Demeaning?
A bit
Condescending?
Not intentionally
Abrasive on purpose to specific comments
Yes
But I am still good with it.

Fair enough!
My bad dudes! (not sarcastically)

This has become a bit of a pointless argument and seems to be going around in circles and becoming a little too personal. We can all agree to disagree and move on, I’m sure. The initial post wasn’t about anything other than a guy not liking a design, we all put different opinions up, got a bit heated.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what any of us think to any of us, other than to ourselves, trying to convince anyone of a viewpoint that they don’t see is futile (myself included). So let’s just let Mothsniper, and the others who agree, see it as a poor design, and peeps like me and the others posting (a little too) passionately, who enjoy the design, like it and move on.

 Mothsniper wrote:

 Wasteland wrote:

 Mothsniper wrote:

"Cmon mate, this is DakkaDakka. We all know smartass insulting comments when we see them. Don't play dumb"
Like condescendingly telling some one to stop playing dumb?
We all know indeed, perhaps not in your case if you can't tell the difference between an insulting and calling someone out for going off topic.

No no, it's much too late to claim ignorance now. If you didn't know you're coming across as an , and you didn't want to come across as an , you would have changed your approach after it was pointed out to you way back on page one, and many times since.

 Mothsniper wrote:

I did answer your question
"For same exact reason I drew lines jagged on the sorceress as well."
Why can't you answer mine?
"Why do you think I drew jagged lines on both Spirit and Sorceress? "

Because they both have some jagged parts? Those aren't the parts I'm talking about. Go back and look at the images I posted. On the sorceress, you followed the curve of her robe with a nice, gentle line of your own. On similarly curved lines on the spirit, you've followed the outline with rough, straight lines like a bad vector image. Why are the curved lines on one treated differently that the curved lines on the other?

 Mothsniper wrote:

Convincing anyone of anything is not my goal at all! I already said that earlier. did you miss it?

So why are you still talking? Leave us in our happy ignorance, then.

 Mothsniper wrote:

- I already said it.. will just be copy and pasting then if you are too triggered to read (because that creates interest and attracts the eye and keep eye engaged longer.) (Impact and Payoff)
"Impact" (impact is a term referring to the strong composition design, color, and tone that immediately catches the eye)
"Payoff" (Payoff is a term referring to the richness of information and details present when the image is examined closer)
So Impact is what catches the eye and payoff is what keeps the eye. Does that make senes?

Yes, but you've failed to explain how something has good impact vs bad impact, good payoff vs bad payoff. You've defined the terms, but haven't explained how they apply or lead you to your conclusions. When I look closely at the spirit, I see the details of the little tassels, the elements that appear to be moving with the wind, all the little lines in the armor that I don't see at first glance. Are these not examples of payoff? Why not?

 Mothsniper wrote:

"I'll ask you for an example you've cited more directly: "
"Is this a silhouette of a good guy or a bad guy? How can you tell? "
"To me, these legs/torso/head boxes look more like the ones you drew on our Elf Cow Man here, than on the other (WoW?) character. What should I take away from that? Does this mean that this is bad design? It occurs to me that these seem like pretty human proportions - like, a person's torso is about twice the height of their head, and their legs twice as long as their torso? Why is it bad for a humanoid character to have body dimensions similar to that of a real person? "
EXACTLY! human proportions, those are exactly normal human proportions. And there is nothing wrong with normal human proportions.
Your Tauren image has those normal, standard ,default, human proportions skewed into tiny legs, huge torso, and offset small head.
The BAD part comes in if your Tauren character had normal, standard ,default, human proportions. It would of been a boring Fantasy character with normal, standard ,default, proportions.

And there is nothing wrong with normal human proportions.
The BAD part comes in if your Tauren character had normal, standard ,default, human proportions

Honestly not sure what to make of that.

Rather than just saying that the humanlike proportions are bad, don't you think it could be communicating other things? Like, couldn't the familiar proportions make the character more familiar or relatable to us despite being a giant mountain-backed cow man?

That's not to say that the WoW Tauren is bad, but it seems to be following different rules to create a specific style. The things you're saying don't seem to be wrong per se, but you're treating them like ironclad, inviolate rules when they don't apply equally to everything.

Like, the concepts of "stretch and squish" are important concepts and vital parts of traditional western-style animation, and can be used to communicate movement very effectively. But the fact that something like Ghost in the Shell doesn't use them does not make Ghost in the Shell poorly animated.

 Mothsniper wrote:

I was saying that silhouette plays into the characterization of the character. And having an obvious "evil spiky" silhouette for a good character is not a good design.

The storm trooper is a default human silhouette, and that silhouette perfectly characterize the character! Because the character is a default normal duplication, insignificant and numerous. and the design and color and silhouette underlines that characteristic. If would be bad design if storm trooper silhouette was opposite of the "normal" look

I hope this makes sense.

Yes, that does make sense. Is it fair to say then that a well-designed bad guy character may have a smooth, innocuous silhouette? Like, that particular part of their design communicates something other than "good/evil"? Couldn't you have, say, a good character or design with big spiky dragon wings? Or a unique, one-of-a-kind good guy character with a bulky, smooth silhouette like the stormtrooper, showing how he's set apart from normal humanity (for example Robocop?)

"No no, it's much too late to claim ignorance now. If you didn't know you're coming across as an , and you didn't want to come across as an , you would have changed your approach after it was pointed out to you way back on page one, and many times since. "
Lolz, what are those ? Come on say it. What are you calling me? Can't just type it out? pathetic.
I see nothing wrong with my approach, and will not change it because I am good with it.

"Because they both have some jagged parts? Those aren't the parts I'm talking about. Go back and look at the images I posted. On the sorceress, you followed the curve of her robe with a nice, gentle line of your own. On similarly curved lines on the spirit, you've followed the outline with rough, straight lines like a bad vector image. Why are the curved lines on one treated differently that the curved lines on the other? "
Yes because they both do have jagged lines! so I am not favoring one design over the other just to make a point. I put jaded lines to indicate areas that are busy, because it is an illustration of a BUSY vs CALM concept. The Jagged lines I A REPRESENTATION OF AN AREA THAT IS BUSY, JAGGED LINE IS NOT AN ACTUAL LINE THAT OUTLINES A SHAPE OF THE DESIGN, IT IS A REPRESENTATION OF AN AREA THAT IS BUSY TO ILLUSTRATE THE CONCEPT OF BUSY vs CALM.
Sorry for camps, I am not yelling, just trying to be as clear as my person will allow.
Curved lines are traded differently because jagged lines are representing an area that is BUSY with details, not actually outlining the shape...
You know what, my bad, I though that was self explanatory, if we I talk about busy vs calm and put an example image of busy vs calm, it never even crossed my mind that someone will ignore the actual busy vs calm concept that we are talking about and starts picking at the way I drew the busy example line. My communication skills are seriously lacking, no surprise though, because what do you expect from a total am I right

"So why are you still talking? Leave us in our happy ignorance, then."
Is that why you jumped in, to shut up this !
Why am I here, Because I already said why I am still here, lolz right after I talked about not trying to convince anyone, guess you missed that too.

"Yes, but you've failed to explain how something has good impact vs bad impact, good payoff vs bad payoff. You've defined the terms, but haven't explained how they apply or lead you to your conclusions. When I look closely at the spirit, I see the details of the little tassels, the elements that appear to be moving with the wind, all the little lines in the armor that I don't see at first glance. Are these not examples of payoff? Why not? "
This should be self evident, but if it is not then away we go:
Good Impact grabs the attention, Bad impact doesn't grab jack. Good Payoff keeps attention, bad payoff doesn't keep jack.
Example: If you are fillping through google images of Elfs and scrolling through them quickly and Boom! one catches you eye, and you stop, go back, and open it so you get a closer look at it. But when you open it you realize that the image is more of a sketch and there is not much else to look at. ( That would be strong impact and weak payoff)
Example: You are still scrolling through google images of Elfs, and you scroll pass one of the images that is actually a well crafted and detailed battle scene with alots of details and characters and epic story ets. (That is an example of weak Impact but strong payoff)
Concepts of Impact and Payoff are terms coined by Craig Nelson, amazing illustrator (One of the guys who painted those photo real old school movie posters) and amazing Fine artist who's class I had an honor of attneding.
Yes, you are right that is a perfect example of payoff. And that is why the design is not strong. Because good design, in advertisement adds, needs strong Impact alone to grab attention quickly, In art you need both in equal measure to not only grab attention, but keep the attention on you piece of art long enough for the audience to get the story or a point that the artist was trying to communicate. In a sculpture you need both as well, in 3D model you need both, in a moving picture you need both, in a computer game you need both, otherwise you will lose the attention of the audience! But in all of those mediums, Impact is always more important than payoff.
That is another way Spirit is bad in design and could of been designed, posed, in a much much stronger way!
I hope this makes sense.

"Rather than just saying that the humanlike proportions are bad, don't you think it could be communicating other things? Like, couldn't the familiar proportions make the character more familiar or relatable to us despite being a giant mountain-backed cow man? "
Human proportions are bad for a fantasy creature because it renders creature "boring", imagine orks elfs goblins ets all being of same proportion despite difference in height and scale, that would be weird.
Yes, If I wanted audience to relate to the fantasy creature more I would most defiantly stick to "human" proportions more!

"That's not to say that the WoW Tauren is bad, but it seems to be following different rules to create a specific style. The things you're saying don't seem to be wrong per se, but you're treating them like ironclad, inviolate rules when they don't apply equally to everything."
Well, there are rules, and they are not iron clad but they are in a way. Same for music, some rules you can break but some rules will just break the tune. There are rules that can be bent or bypassed sure, but there are also defiantly ironclad rules in creating impactful image.
For example: To paint a miniature that will read well and look cool you could use contrast (ie opposte) colors, yes it is a rule, because contrast colors just automatically work very well in anything. But that rule can be broken by painting miniatures with Analogous colors, or limited palette, or black and white, or monochrome, or solid flat, rainbow, or all colors together, ets. So by breaking color rule you can still end up with a cool mini that reads well!
But if you break tonal rule (Tone - a range from dark to light) or value rule (Value - also, range from light to dark) then you will lose the contrast and miniature will not read. And stronger the tone - then higher the contrast and better mini will read, weaker the tone - less contrast - mini will read less.
And Silhouette is one of those rules in a design that is hard to dismiss because it is the rudimentary shape that sets the direction for rest of the model down to the finest detail. Rhythm of busy vs calm however can be avoided, it will not make or break the design.
I hope this makes sense.

"Like, the concepts of "stretch and squish" are important concepts and vital parts of traditional western-style animation, and can be used to communicate movement very effectively. But the fact that something like Ghost in the Shell doesn't use them does not make Ghost in the Shell poorly animated."
Yep I agree, that is why Spirited Away is better ! ----------runs for cover - Oh boy If I though I was getting some heat before, I will get it now.

"Yes, that does make sense. Is it fair to say then that a well-designed bad guy character may have a smooth, innocuous silhouette? Like, that particular part of their design communicates something other than "good/evil"? Couldn't you have, say, a good character or design with big spiky dragon wings? Or a unique, one-of-a-kind good guy character with a bulky, smooth silhouette like the stormtrooper, showing how he's set apart from normal humanity (for example Robocop?)"
You could have good character or design with big spiky dragon wings yes, if it is done right.
Yes you could, that is not the rule, however let me attempt to explain the concept!
The whole point is this:
Think of a nike LOGO
1-The Most optimally minimum amount of design without any unnecessary details or information
2-That Maximally communicates the entire mission statement and direction and about-ness of a company

Silhouette is that.
Example: If you took a marker and scribbled scribbles on a page and showed it you your friend, and you friend said "Oh cool evil wizard"
That is a strong design! With most minimal amount of information you where able to communicate exactly what you wanted and it read clearly enough for the audience to ID it at a quick glance!

Audience did not have to make up excuses or dig deep to explain the design!
Pulling obsquer mythos to explain the connection of a cow and a mountain, dig deep into the lore or history to explain why they holding hammers ets, why there are mountains of shoulders, why there are horned and hoofed creature in an elf army, ets.
The deeper you have to dig to explain things in the design the weaker the design is. Folk here do not get that digging deeper into the lore and cultures, The VISUAL design should be self evident if it is not, it is not strong design.

Now do you think that a design with big spiky dragon wings will read at a quick glance as a "good" character?
I say yes, but only if it is done correctly.

Sorry dudes, Spirit is a bad character design, both in theme and execution.

Speaking of bad execution....
Do you think you could learn to use the quote button like the rest of us? Or say, just put two ** before each of your replies? Because it's really hard to decipher your crap from others the way your doing it. All I see is a giant wall of text with bits & pieces I think I've read before. So whatever point you're trying to make is getting lost.

 Mothsniper wrote:

Silhouette is that.
Example: If you took a marker and scribbled scribbles on a page and showed it you your friend, and you friend said "Oh cool evil wizard"
That is a strong design! With most minimal amount of information you where able to communicate exactly what you wanted and it read clearly enough for the audience to ID it at a quick glance!

Audience did not have to make up excuses or dig deep to explain the design!
Pulling obsquer mythos to explain the connection of a cow and a mountain, dig deep into the lore or history to explain why they holding hammers ets, why there are mountains of shoulders, why there are horned and hoofed creature in an elf army, ets.
The deeper you have to dig to explain things in the design the weaker the design is. Folk here do not get that digging deeper into the lore and cultures, The VISUAL design should be self evident if it is not, it is not strong design.

Now do you think that a design with big spiky dragon wings will read at a quick glance as a "good" character?
I say yes, but only if it is done correctly.

Sorry dudes, Spirit is a bad character design, both in theme and execution.

I think you're confusing the concept of "strong character design" with "familiar design"

Familiar is what you are getting at. An "evil wizard that looks like an evil wizard" is based upon designs that came before and have established tropes and themes. There's nothing bad in that, but at the same time it doesn't make it the only way to design a bad wizard. Indeed what you're angling for is a curtailing of creative options. GW is far more interested in cool stuff and that means both following familiar established designs (a good number of which they actually established/helped establish in the market); and also being bold in taking new approaches. In pushing things and trying something different as well.

Asides look at this thread; the cow design hasn't just caught your attention, its also had a long lasting impression. I'd say its done both catching your eye and maintaining your eye. Sure you might not like it, but its still had those two influences on you directly. Meanwhile there are others who like the design and those who are likely in the camp of "Well its not my favourite, but I'm going to play that army anyway and I will use one - maybe I'll convert it a bit." And heck I've often noticed that a persons impression of a model changes from seeing it in photos to seeing it in reality. Both in terms of "I didn't like it till I saw it" and "I used to like it but now I hate it" *




*this one often comes with models that are difficult to assemble/tricky to paint. It might also include models where the advertised model had extensive detail painted onto it whereas the original model has a more bland design. Or it can come when they've assembled their 10000th clan rat and they just want to be done with clan rats for a bit

But isn't this a bit of a problem, for people that waited for their not evil elfs a long time. Now they are suddenly given cow elfs in their armies. And knowing GW to have a working army one or two are probably going to be required to play it.

Cows are just not cool. There is a ton of other animals GW could have picked which could have been cool.

Maybe the whole cow thing wouldn't have been as much impactful, if the army had more non character non cow units.

Karol wrote:
But isn't this a bit of a problem, for people that waited for their not evil elfs a long time. Now they are suddenly given cow elfs in their armies. And knowing GW to have a working army one or two are probably going to be required to play it.

Cows are just not cool. There is a ton of other animals GW could have picked which could have been cool.

Maybe the whole cow thing wouldn't have been as much impactful, if the army had more non character non cow units.

There's only 3 Alarith models. The titan, a mage and the hammer warriors. Of the latter two the only thing people hate are the horns on the helms, which can be modified. Sure that's a lot of the army now, but we know there's another 3 temples so that's potentially another 9 models for 9 niches that are yet to be added and that's before considering non-temple units being added to the army.

Karol wrote:
Cows are just not cool. There is a ton of other animals GW could have picked which could have been cool.

Maybe the whole cow thing wouldn't have been as much impactful, if the army had more non character non cow units.

*Looks at the Wildfire Taurus, minotaurs, Cygor, and Ghorgon.*

Sure, you keep thinking that. (Admittedly, the last Bullgor sculpts could have been sculpted a little better, but the idea still holds.)

Is this just about GOOD cows and not BAD cows or all cows all together? Right now, that's just coming across as a bunch of bull.

Karol wrote:
But isn't this a bit of a problem, for people that waited for their not evil elfs a long time. Now they are suddenly given cow elfs in their armies. And knowing GW to have a working army one or two are probably going to be required to play it.

Cows are just not cool. There is a ton of other animals GW could have picked which could have been cool.

Maybe the whole cow thing wouldn't have been as much impactful, if the army had more non character non cow units.

The thing is I appreciate the fact that the concept artists for the Lumineth didn't pick a predatory animal as the totem for the Mountain aspect. I think going with the choice they did has hint at a reluctance for war. Or at very least, a far less aggressive undertaking way of war than going with any mountainous predator totem could indicate. It might be a tough sell for 21st western (or mostly western) culture to go that direction as Karol you are correct that the domesticated cow has no respect. Which I think is largely what most of the push back is about combined with the usually AoS isn't WHFB even in terms aesthetics. Time and differing experiences sometimes can change that. I mean before really playing D&D, elves were little people living in the North Pole making presents for Santa Claus to me. After several decades of games and movies I doubt that is the image that comes to mind anywhere close the same percent of people now. Santa's little helpers isn't what comes to my mind anymore that's for sure.

As Overread already mentioned, The Mountain Aspect a.k.a. Alarith are but one a few aspects. Even with such a small roster of warscrolls, they are hardly necessarily for a Lumineth army. In a lot of ways, the spearmen (Wardens) do the same job as the hammer aelves (Stone Guard). I personally think that Behemoths are that critical in AoS, and specifically for Lumineth tough to field if you also plan to be Teclis. I would suggest to anyone that like the Vanari's more traditional models just go with them and maybe wait until one of the other Temples or Tyrion's great nations come around. Which admittedly could be awhile. Could always wait completely on starting Lumineth until something in the faction does strike their fancy.

The spoiler below are my battle cattle more at an angle that one is likely to see them at. Again, on purely design criteria, I don't see any faux-pas. Taste will always largely be a matter of personal preference. I know I am bias though as I really like the models, and how I interpret them in the context of the setting.

Sidenote:

There's been some mumbling that Tyrion's return might be tied to dragons making an appearance for the Lumineth. We'll have to wait and see--but I really hope so.

Karol wrote:
But isn't this a bit of a problem, for people that waited for their not evil elfs a long time. Now they are suddenly given cow elfs in their armies. And knowing GW to have a working army one or two are probably going to be required to play it.

Nope. Fully playable without a single cow themed unit.

Karol wrote:
But isn't this a bit of a problem, for people that waited for their not evil elfs a long time. Now they are suddenly given cow elfs in their armies. And knowing GW to have a working army one or two are probably going to be required to play it.

Cow's aren't needed.

Teclis isn't needed.

Most of tournament wins with lumineth so far have been with neither...You want to see what IS in competive lists? Calthallar(veiled wizard), wardens(the pike) and sentinels(archers). Maybe endless spells.

Cathallar, Wardens, Sentinels just so happens to be one of the best/most easily accessible(in terms of models) Warscroll Battalions in the book...


Auralan Legion: 1 Cathallar, 2-4 Sentinels and an equal number of Wardens. Nets you reroll save rolls of 1 while within 3" of any other friendly units from the same Battalion.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
The spoiler below are my battle cattle more at an angle that one is likely to see them at. Again, on purely design criteria, I don't see any faux-pas. Taste will always largely be a matter of personal preference. I know I am bias though as I really like the models, and how I interpret them in the context of the setting.

Spoiler:

Yep, once I got them and the Stoneguard in hand, I took a look at them from all around, with a down-wards diagonal angle, and found myself feeling pretty alright with them. I still much, much prefer the Spirits and the Vanari over the Stoneguard, but I atleast don't hate them anymore. The armor, the poses and capes are fantastic, I'd love it more if the helmets were better.

They are just hideous. It's sad to see what Fantasy has become.

 Thadin wrote:
Yep, once I got them and the Stoneguard in hand, I took a look at them from all around, with a down-wards diagonal angle, and found myself feeling pretty alright with them. I still much, much prefer the Spirits and the Vanari over the Stoneguard, but I atleast don't hate them anymore. The armor, the poses and capes are fantastic, I'd love it more if the helmets were better.

I never really had an issue with the Stone Guard's appearace. To be certain, yes; the helmets are too tall and the horns a little silly. Games Workshop elves, aelves and eldar usually have tall helmets. It just what they like to wear into combat. That is what I expect from GW every now and again. Every now and again they do something to remind everyone their setting are always grim and dark with everyone having brooding cowls and 5 o'clock shadows including the women and children. I doubt they do it on purpose, it's just something in company's DNA that creates these "happy little accidents."

You're right about the rest of the model being really good as well as the tallness of the helmets not being as much of an issue when looked at a foreshortened angle typical of how they'd look on a table. I too love the flow of the robes along with cape. Even if I didn't like the helmets, I could easily look past them based on the lore of the Alarith alone. I totally get why others would have issues with them though.

It is such a shame, because I think there was a really interesting discussion to be had about the Lumineth design here.

I feel like the Lumineth design is simply one that will take time to become accustomed to. There are elements I would convert if I bought some of the models, and elements I would keep. My main point would be to say that it is better for a quarter the people to really like it and three-quarters to really dislike it than for everyone to say "They're okay, I guess." I'd say that, at least, is a win for GW. You get sales of things people really like, not things people think are okay.

Mothsniper, I'd like to ask you to do several things. Firstly, and most importantly, the wall of text approach, gainsaying every point, over and over again, actually undermines your points, not strengthens them. It is the way I used to argue online fifteen to twenty years ago, and comes across like someone in real-life talking over people instead of listening to them, which is not even good argument, let alone conversation. Winning an argument means convincing someone your points are correct, not just wearing them down to the point they can't be bothered to keep talking to you. Conversation means listening, considering and responding, not automatically trying to counter what they have said. Secondly, you do have a condescending manner, and if people's attempts to point that out to you seem condescending too, then that is on you. Please accept this. Finally, use of terms such as Lolz seem out of place when asking for a discussion as opposed to "banter". I'm sure your points would feel more constructive without them.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:


The thing is I appreciate the fact that the concept artists for the Lumineth didn't pick a predatory animal as the totem for the Mountain aspect. I think going with the choice they did has hint at a reluctance for war. Or at very least, a far less aggressive undertaking way of war than going with any mountainous predator totem could indicate. It might be a tough sell for 21st western (or mostly western) culture to go that direction as Karol you are correct that the domesticated cow has no respect. Which I think is largely what most of the push back is about combined with the usually AoS isn't WHFB even in terms aesthetics. Time and differing experiences sometimes can change that. I mean before really playing D&D, elves were little people living in the North Pole making presents for Santa Claus to me. After several decades of games and movies I doubt that is the image that comes to mind anywhere close the same percent of people now. Santa's little helpers isn't what comes to my mind anymore that's for sure.

I like the cavalery, spear and bowmen models a lot. As well as the ghost light dude. Cows aren't very mountain either. I understand that goats are already taken, but why not make them eagles or hawks. Even wood bison would be better, or hill boars or bears. those are mountain linked and no one thinks those are weak animals. I just don't understand the line of thought that made the designers pick cows. Its like having a biker gang and deciding to have a mormot as the gang animal.

Ah and to me elfs are things that replace children of good people of those of their own, and that is how you get bad, sick or miss behaving children. At least that is what I thought about them, before reading LoTR.

Cow's aren't needed.

Teclis isn't needed.

that is nice to hear. I don't have enough points to play AoS games, but the armies I see local all include at least a faction building and some big thing like nagash, bloodthirsters, undead dragons, keepers of seeker. And in general I think that aside for nagash and arkhan, I always see 2 of them.
Ah tzeench armies run two of their big demons too, at least localy.

How many times do people have to inform you lot that they're buffalo not cows?

Karol wrote:
Cows aren't very mountain either. I understand that goats are already taken, but why not make them eagles or hawks. Even wood bison would be better, or hill boars or bears. those are mountain linked and no one thinks those are weak animals. I just don't understand the line of thought that made the designers pick cows. Its like having a biker gang and deciding to have a mormot as the gang animal.

Avalenor and the Spirit of the Mountain aren't cows are even based on cows (well maybe the Texas Longhorn but I have my doubts). At least not the domesticated ones you are thinking they are. To my mind they are far more based on Asian water buffalo, or better yet, the wild yak. And only inspired by and not a direct copy of any known animal fro Earth. In the setting the golem that is the Spirit of the Mountain is based on a creature called the Ymetrican Longhorn. Which is AoS is a rugged beast thought be immortal found in the mountains of the Great Nation of Ymetica which also happens to be the nation with some most impressive mountain ranges in all of Hysh. The cow thing is usually used as a thinly veiled insult that GW is so clueless as to pick domesticated cattle as a champion of battle for a faction.

I think what the creator(s) trying to suggest picking such an animal totem is mountainous monastic orders of the Himalayas. At the same time, I think AoS is trying to be a little (or lot) less _______ earth culture but in out setting that was largely what Warhammer Fantasy was. The Greek and Tibetan/Hindi/Nepalese influences are there, but not so much as to clash against each other or even really define the culture of the Lumineth as a composite of those cultures to any great degree.

Eagles and Hawks don't really work since they fly. The wind is a one of the other important elements of the Lumineth. Neither really embody enduring rugged fortitude of mountains either. Boars don't generally strike me as a beast that would be native to the elevations that a yak would typically thought to be more of a forest dwellers (though I am sure breeds or boars find themselves high up in mountain ranges. Additionally, while boars are known to be tenacious, it is an aggressive tenacity constantly charging which also fits less with a contemplative mountain hermit/monk the Alarith are attempting to sell visually. Bears are also known to be very dangerous when provoked and probably still a bit aggressive for what the creators were going for as known for for their strength compared to their constitution. Nor are bears as obviously connected to tall mountains as yak are. Although, I will admit it took me some thought as to why bears weren't a good fit.

As I mentioned, I think going with a beast close to a yak reveals the Alarith temple as one not devoted to war. Rather forced to it instead. Age of Sigmar is not 40k. In the time of Myth there was a whole lot more than war. I think going with an animal totem that is not something associated with war or furiosity helps remind the audience that the Mortal Realms weren't always a few steps from hell.

I think just for that using yaks as the animal totem was pretty clever or daring at the very least. Which I think should be celebrated for making the attempt. There isn't that much of a shortage of classic fantasy tropes even in miniatures form these days. And a lot of them look pretty good too. I don't want GW to play it safe less we get re-hashes of the same-old, same-old until Stormcast Eternals are spammed ad nauseam with slightly different weapons and Bonereaper players are complaining they haven't go a new model since 2019 and the internet is full of what about xenos Grand Alliance Death memes.

Haven't looked at anything AoS related in a while, saw this thread and ogled the mini in question for giggles.

So, thoughts. As a miniature, it's extremely impressive as a display piece in terms of composition, complexity, textures, size, etc.

However, my biggest issue with it is that, as painted and photographed on GW's website, it basically looks like a World of Warcraft raid boss or a very skinny Tauren player character in a fancy set of raid armor, not a typical Warhammer monster. I also think the hammers are dumb looking as designed, both on the Stoneguard an the monster guys, they just look too much like cartoon Bugs Bunny hammers, and are just really awful combat weapons to boot. If your plan is to go drive giant fence-posts into the ground, the hammers those elves and monsters are carrying will be great, but if they're gonna try fighting stuff, especially if it's got armor, you probably want your hammer to look more something like this.

Karol wrote:

I like the cavalery, spear and bowmen models a lot. As well as the ghost light dude. Cows aren't very mountain either. I understand that goats are already taken, but why not make them eagles or hawks. Even wood bison would be better, or hill boars or bears. those are mountain linked and no one thinks those are weak animals. I just don't understand the line of thought that made the designers pick cows. Its like having a biker gang and deciding to have a mormot as the gang animal.

At a glance? It's a very real world Minoan/Greek art motif going on. Think of the art on Greek urns & such.
Also a touch of India & thereabouts tossed in there (you see a lot of bulls/winged bulls depicted in ancient Sumarian etc art).
In a nutshell, the ancients were not depicting bulls because they're apex predators, but rather because they ARE strong creatures & were important to their daily lives.
And so it is with our new fantasy elves.

That and uh...Aurochs. You know, the last megafauna in Europe.

A few fun facts

1) Most predator hunts fail. A predator might have to make many hunts to get one single meal. As a result even if they are the apex predator of an ecosystem, it doesn't mean that they are a winner in every fight.
In fact most are quite cowardly and will target weak/sick/young/old/isolated prey.

2) The only predator species that is known for targeting healthy, fit and often best of the herd/prey is humans. Most of that is because we use ranged weapons and traps which allow ourselves to be removed from the dangerzone and thus allows us to select the best of a group instead of the weaker elements.

3) In a natural system most prey controls predator populations more than predators control prey populations.
Predators will have an influence and can affect grazing times; resting times and breeding rates and such; but overall because they select the weaker elements and often rely on abundance of prey to survive; they are far more reliant on prey numbers.

4) Many prey species are not in any way weak. They might not eat meat, but they have formidable defences to avoid getting eaten. A bull (even domestic) is a powerhouse of muscle, thick hide and brawn. They are more than capable of fighting off predators; of using their horns as weapons, kicking and lashing out with hooves.
By no means are they weak, lesser or otherwise not capable of combat.

5) A lot of prey species will have a flight instinct rather than a fight instinct. This is just good survival, its far better to avoid combat than engage.

Indeed prey and predators alike who compete with their own kind for resources (territory; mates; food etc..) will often have far more posturing than fighting. Fights and conflicts are to be avoided as even if you are stronger you don't want to be hurt - there's no A&E to patch you up.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I also think the hammers are dumb looking as designed, both on the Stoneguard an the monster guys, they just look too much like cartoon Bugs Bunny hammers, and are just really awful combat weapons to boot.

I think the invading army just interrupted the Stoneguard's game of croquet...

Crispy78 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I also think the hammers are dumb looking as designed, both on the Stoneguard an the monster guys, they just look too much like cartoon Bugs Bunny hammers, and are just really awful combat weapons to boot.

I think the invading army just interrupted the Stoneguard's game of croquet...

Someone should model that.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Haven't looked at anything AoS related in a while, saw this thread and ogled the mini in question for giggles.

So, thoughts. As a miniature, it's extremely impressive as a display piece in terms of composition, complexity, textures, size, etc.

However, my biggest issue with it is that, as painted and photographed on GW's website, it basically looks like a World of Warcraft raid boss or a very skinny Tauren player character in a fancy set of raid armor, not a typical Warhammer monster. I also think the hammers are dumb looking as designed, both on the Stoneguard an the monster guys, they just look too much like cartoon Bugs Bunny hammers, and are just really awful combat weapons to boot. If your plan is to go drive giant fence-posts into the ground, the hammers those elves and monsters are carrying will be great, but if they're gonna try fighting stuff, especially if it's got armor, you probably want your hammer to look more something like this.

My issue with this is what do you define as a typical warhammer monster? Because when i consider the question, the only thing that really comes to mind are the greater deamons. Which i think could be definied as warhammer, but none of the other monsters really strike me as having a "warhammer" look.

That's one of those "intangibles", hard to define, but you know it when you see it. There's a lot of stuff that, when you see it, immediately and without any labels or iconography, you know where it's from even if you've never seen it before, but you can't necessarily define why. With this particular thing, if I just saw an image of it outside a GW-related board, Age of Sigmar probably wouldn't be the first IP I thought of, honestly I'd probably ask what WoW raid boss someone 3D printed

Granted, there's a degree of subjectivity there and there's always overlap with fantasy stuff, and part of it may just be the paintjob, but that's how it feels to me.

 Vaktathi wrote:
That's one of those "intangibles", hard to define, but you know it when you see it. There's a lot of stuff that, when you see it, immediately and without any labels or iconography, you know where it's from even if you've never seen it before, but you can't necessarily define why. With this particular thing, if I just saw an image of it outside a GW-related board, Age of Sigmar probably wouldn't be the first IP I thought of, honestly I'd probably ask what WoW raid boss someone 3D printed

Granted, there's a degree of subjectivity there and there's always overlap with fantasy stuff, and part of it may just be the paintjob, but that's how it feels to me.

I don't know that it is an "I know it when I see it" here; I'm going to go out on a limb and say that things get accused of being "WoW monsters" because they're large, overdesigned, and contextless. Nothing about the model means anything other than "hey, this looks cool", no thought was put into what setting it fits into or how it fits into the setting. It's the product of people saying "It's magic, move on". Why do the elves have cow monsters? Because magic. Why are the horns that wide? Because it looks cool. What are the mountains on its shoulders for? Nothing, they just looked cool. Not even a tiny fraction of anything on the design is in any way grounded or rational.

I'm not seeking to be perjorative here; there are plenty of people who enjoy the flights-of-fancy no-connection-to-reality aesthetic that makes people accuse something of being a "WoW monster". It produces fanciful and striking things. But some people, myself included, finds it tortures our suspension of disbelief a bit.

But..that's any monster...without context a dragon is just a fat lizard with wings, patently absurd because no hexapod vertebrates exist in reality.
A tzeench greater demon is again, a flamingo with arms that put on a bathrobe, what kind of stupid design is that?!
Without the context of the in-game lore, they all are just dumb toys.

Cronch wrote:
But..that's any monster...without context a dragon is just a fat lizard with wings, patently absurd because no hexapod vertebrates exist in reality.
A tzeench greater demon is again, a flamingo with arms that put on a bathrobe, what kind of stupid design is that?!
Without the context of the in-game lore, they all are just dumb toys.

The difference between a "WoW-monster" and something that makes a lick of sense is that within the context of the game lore it's still just a dumb toy.

oh, so you have no clue what you're talking about and just want to gak post, go it.

I admit to having not read the Lumineth battletome before attempting to define "WoW-monster" as "thing that makes no sense in any context." Would you like to attempt to explain a) why cow-monsters, b) why the shoulder-mountains, or c) why the giant mallets instead of a weapon that make sense without saying "they look cool, stop asking questions!" or "it's magic, stop asking questions!"? I'm prepared to retract my definition if it turns out that there are explanations for these things, but every peice of GW lore I've read for the past ten years has taught me that there probably won't be.

A) It's a Ymetrican Longhorn Buffalo as the inspiration for the construct. They dwell only on the Hyshian peaks, so are tied to mountains. They're peaceful enough but can be extremely violent when threatened. Also, functionally immortal unless their horns are removed.

B) The 'shoulder-mountains-, again, are an aspect of them being constructs and not living animals. Each of these constructs is effectively the 'centerpiece' of an Alarith Temple. It's a lifetime labor for the Stonemages and Stoneguard of that Temple. The faceplate? It's what allows the literal spirit of the mountain to 'bind' itself to the construct in question.
Every single step of crafting the construct involves material from the mountain itself. The peaks are shaped to echo the mountain, with living Tohnasai trees carefully tended to echo the cloudbark copses that grow on the mountains. The masks and armour they wear? It's ensorcelled armour made of sunmetal that has been quenched in the mountain's lakes and waterfalls. The banners that they wear, hanging off their armour? The likeness and runes of the mountain spirit that is to possess and animate the body are proudly displayed.
Avalenor the Stoneheart King is...unique. No Aelementari Temple built that body nor the weapons. The 'theory' is that the mountain Avalenor itself created their war form(which is what the constructs are called) after Celennar(the Spirit of the Moon that aids Teclis) convinced it to join the fight in purifying the Realms from Chaos.

C) Why mallets and picks? Again, it ties to the mountains. There's two distinctive types of Alarith Stoneguard and each take a different approach to their weapons and ideas. The hammers contain enchanted granite 'bequeathed' to them by the mountains they've devoted themselves to. Part of the Aelementari Temple initiation is to give themselves over to the element in question and for the genius loci of a place to accept them.
In the case of Alarith(mountain) temples? They isolate themselves on the peaks, surrendering their food and armor and equipment to the mountain and relying only upon what the mountain offers. The first Alarith Stonemages had algae and moss start growing around them where they sat. Creatures literally came out of the cracks to bare their throats to them so they wouldn't starve. The mages are able to turn themselves and other Alarith into living stone.

There's two 'schools' of each of the Aelementari Temples, from what we've seen. For Alarith it's the mountains themselves or the ores and minerals that make them up. It's the whole vs the parts, seemingly, with the mallets being enchanted granite (as mentioned) from the mountain. The picks are diamond cored, harvested from the mountain.

The champions of the Stoneguard? They can, if they choose, wield paired hammers of enchanted sedimentary stone from the mountains...or possibly leftover from the Spirefall that necessitated the formation of the Aelementari Temples in the first place.

Also note that hammers were a very normal weapon in armies. Once you get things like plate mail it becomes much harder to slice or attack with a sword. So you swap for a hammer. You bash into the armour. You might dent it, which in the right spot might hinder movement; but also that force is carried through into the body underneath the armour. Even with metal, chain and padding, you could bruise and break bodies under the armour.

Many knights also had a weapon (I forget its name) which had a hammer one side and a pick the other; one to smash and bash armour; the other to puncture through it.

Swords are popular in stories and films and games, but in reality they were not often the best weapon for every situation.






So hammer wielding units in the magical realms makes sense; they are clearly aimed at being heavy damage dealing units to heavy armour. If you want to go magical classic then they are also very effective against the undead who typically either don't have any organs or skin (skeletons) or don't really care if you hack chunks off them with a sword. Again breaking bones is a very valid and viable strategy in war.

 Overread wrote:
Also note that hammers were a very normal weapon in armies. Once you get things like plate mail it becomes much harder to slice or attack with a sword. So you swap for a hammer. You bash into the armour. You might dent it, which in the right spot might hinder movement; but also that force is carried through into the body underneath the armour. Even with metal, chain and padding, you could bruise and break bodies under the armour.

Many knights also had a weapon (I forget its name) which had a hammer one side and a pick the other; one to smash and bash armour; the other to puncture through it.

Swords are popular in stories and films and games, but in reality they were not often the best weapon for every situation.






So hammer wielding units in the magical realms makes sense; they are clearly aimed at being heavy damage dealing units to heavy armour. If you want to go magical classic then they are also very effective against the undead who typically either don't have any organs or skin (skeletons) or don't really care if you hack chunks off them with a sword. Again breaking bones is a very valid and viable strategy in war.

A hammer is a completely normal weapon. There is a difference, however, between a warhammer (which generally has a small striking surface and a long dense head to apply a large amount of force to a small area in order to break things) and a mallet (which has a very broad head to apply a controlled amount of force to a wide area without breaking it). One is designed to be an efficient weapon. The other is a tool designed for a completely different purpose that can be repurposed as a weapon but isn't going to do a very good job.

I want to stress here that this is a matter of verisimilitude rather than realism, and as such is something of a subjective bar (it's about suspension of disbelief), but the Lumineth giant broad flat-faced hammers look to me like the rough equivalent of someone giving a model scissors instead of a sword. They do broadly the same thing (cut things), and I could totally back-fit an explanation as to why the scissors are there if I wanted to, but the fact that they're scissors still looks ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
B) The 'shoulder-mountains-, again, are an aspect of them being constructs and not living animals. Each of these constructs is effectively the 'centerpiece' of an Alarith Temple. It's a lifetime labor for the Stonemages and Stoneguard of that Temple. The faceplate? It's what allows the literal spirit of the mountain to 'bind' itself to the construct in question.
Every single step of crafting the construct involves material from the mountain itself. The peaks are shaped to echo the mountain, with living Tohnasai trees carefully tended to echo the cloudbark copses that grow on the mountains. The masks and armour they wear? It's ensorcelled armour made of sunmetal that has been quenched in the mountain's lakes and waterfalls. The banners that they wear, hanging off their armour? The likeness and runes of the mountain spirit that is to possess and animate the body are proudly displayed.
Avalenor the Stoneheart King is...unique. No Aelementari Temple built that body nor the weapons. The 'theory' is that the mountain Avalenor itself created their war form(which is what the constructs are called) after Celennar(the Spirit of the Moon that aids Teclis) convinced it to join the fight in purifying the Realms from Chaos...

Where else in the setting does this idea of a sympathetic link created both by objects and by retaining the shape of the object occur? Writing a long and detailed explanation of the one thing doesn't help it fit into the broader context of the setting, it's world-building on the level of Harry Potter where the setting is made up of random isolated bits of stuff that sounded cool at the time but have no relationship to each other. Something that makes sense only in the context of its own page in the army book doesn't necessarily make sense in the context of the broader setting.

I accuse the giant goat monsters of being "contextless" because there's no indication that anything resembling them in any way exists or is possible outside their own fluff.

None of which really changes that yes, there's been a lot of thought into this whole concept. WoW/MMO designs just tend to be busy for the sake of being busy based on the enemy.

PS:
The mallets are described as being used as you said. Long handled mallets, wielded with grace+skill with controlled strikes.

Where else in the setting does this idea of a sympathetic link created both by objects and by retaining the shape of the object occur? Writing a long and detailed explanation of the one thing doesn't help it fit into the broader context of the setting, it's world-building on the level of Harry Potter where the setting is made up of random isolated bits of stuff that sounded cool at the time but have no relationship to each other. Something that makes sense only in the context of its own page in the army book doesn't necessarily make sense in the context of the broader setting.

Nobody else has seemingly attempted to interact with the genius-loci of the Realms. It's a whole thing with regards to this book. Teclis was able to interact with the first of them(Celennar), and through that the other Aelementari Temples ended up happening.

The idea of the genius-loci did exist prior by the by. Both the Sylvaneth and Wanderers had that going. Neither of those factions though had anything close to an 'avatar' that those spirits could potentially inhabit.

The Idoneth did have an 'avatar' in the form of the Eidolon of Mathlaan, which is soul-stuff of fallen Idoneth coalescing into the form of Mathlaan, a slain god of the Aelfs that Teclis taught them about.

The goalposts, they be moving like the Brinam Wood!

 Kanluwen wrote:
...Nobody else has seemingly attempted to interact with the genius-loci of the Realms. It's a whole thing with regards to this book. Teclis was able to interact with the first of them(Celennar), and through that the other Aelementari Temples ended up happening.

The idea of the genius-loci did exist prior by the by. Both the Sylvaneth and Wanderers had that going. Neither of those factions though had anything close to an 'avatar' that those spirits could potentially inhabit.

The Idoneth did have an 'avatar' in the form of the Eidolon of Mathlaan, which is soul-stuff of fallen Idoneth coalescing into the form of Mathlaan, a slain god of the Aelfs that Teclis taught them about.

Does any fluff anywhere else in the game suggest that there are "genus loci of the Realms" in the way the Lumineth book talks about?

I would say that the Idoneth Avatars and the Sylvaneth are not contextless in the way the cow-monsters are, because perhaps the most defining conflict of the setting is that the gods are fighting over who gets the soul-stuff of dead people to use to make more soul-golems to fight each others' soul-golems over who gets the soul-stuff. Soul-golems are connected to plot elements that exist outside their own books. Genus loci aren't.

Before I'm accused of splitting hairs here I refer back to Kanluwen's explanation of the visual design of the model: Everything about the cow-monsters is apparently informed by the fact that they're sympathetic links to mountains to make the mountain-spirits inhabit them. Without the distinction between soul-golems and genus-loci-golems there's no reason for them to look the way they do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
...PS:
The mallets are described as being used as you said. Long handled mallets, wielded with grace+skill with controlled strikes...

My point was that a mallet is designed to apply force to things without breaking them, which makes them not much of a weapon.

Yes but that's partly a function of density and weight.

A dense and very heavy head on a mallet would be near useless for a person because you'd run out of strength to use it.

 Overread wrote:
Yes but that's partly a function of density and weight.

A dense and very heavy head on a mallet would be near useless for a person because you'd run out of strength to use it.

Given two hammers of equivalent density/weight the one shaped like a warhammer (long head with a narrow jaggedy striking face) is a more effective weapon than the one shaped like a mallet (broad flat head with a large striking face).

Whether or not you can make a physics-based argument that in the context of the game the mallet is still a functional weapon that doesn't change the fact that to the observer the mallet looks like a tool rather than a weapon.

I can't say I'm a fan of these cow-elves.

To me there's a weird disconnect between the shape of the model and the actual theme. I mean, cows (and bulls for that matter) aren't exactly well-known for being slender animals. And this a cow with mountains growing out of it which is also wielding a hammer . . . but for some reason it's also really, really thin. It looks a cartoon character that's just been deflated.

Each to their own, of course, but to me it just looks like a bit of a mess both visually and conceptually.

However, I should add that I don't particularly care for anything in the new High Elf (or whatever the pretentious, trademarked name is) range. I don't think the colour scheme helps. It looks like they were wearing UN uniforms, before someone vomited the entire Dulux range of whites onto them.

 Overread wrote:
Yes but that's partly a function of density and weight.

It's also an aspect of material, too. Wood and plastic are often used to provide an absorbing factor and spread the force out, while hammers tend to be more destructive.

 Overread wrote:
A dense and very heavy head on a mallet would be near useless for a person because you'd run out of strength to use it.

A lot depends on capacities of the individual and how much training they have. Human endurance is actually quite good if developed, and that's not even considering the differences in anatomy between humanity here and all the species created on Sigmar's multi-planed world.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Where else in the setting does this idea of a sympathetic link created both by objects and by retaining the shape of the object occur? Writing a long and detailed explanation of the one thing doesn't help it fit into the broader context of the setting, it's world-building on the level of Harry Potter where the setting is made up of random isolated bits of stuff that sounded cool at the time but have no relationship to each other. Something that makes sense only in the context of its own page in the army book doesn't necessarily make sense in the context of the broader setting.

I accuse the giant goat monsters of being "contextless" because there's no indication that anything resembling them in any way exists or is possible outside their own fluff.

So how do you add anything new to the setting if everything added has to either already exist or be implied to exist?

In this case? You've simply learned something new about the setting. And in the future? Any other sympathetic links will have the foundation you demand.

These cow warriors seem really odd design. Shame, i was pretty excited to see new elf warriors, but ultimately I'm not gonna get any of them. They're just too silly for me.

ccs wrote:
So how do you add anything new to the setting if everything added has to either already exist or be implied to exist?

I know I wasn't the one you were asking, but if you're intent is to work something into the setting that feels natural (rather than a random ass-pull that you're desperately trying to retcon), I would think the best option would be to comb through the preexisting fluff. It wouldn't surprise me if there were already creatures mentioned or alluded to in the fluff which have never been given models. Failing that, you could instead attempt to extrapolate out from the existing fluff. e.g. if a race uses elemental magic (and maybe even small elementals), then you could give them a larger elemental. In the fluff, this could be justified as an extension of their existing abilities, perhaps requiring rare materials, significant sacrifice and/or being potentially dangerous to their creators (to explain why it hadn't been done before, or why they're not used more often).

That would be my best suggestion, anyway.

The AoS pre-existing fluff is kinda super flexible and not all that nailed down. Armies like Lumineth are basically hardly mentioned save for subtle mentions here and there.

You can't really use the fluff, GW hasn't written it fully yet. We are in the early stages (yes I know its 2.0 but between launch (which wasn't even 1.0) and 2.0 there was a bit of a mess) and much of the lore is still up in the air.

Heck the Realm of Shadow is hardly explored in the lore and is waiting for Malarion's army to make its appearance. Same for the Realm of Light until Lumineth made their appearance.

 vipoid wrote:

ccs wrote:
So how do you add anything new to the setting if everything added has to either already exist or be implied to exist?

I know I wasn't the one you were asking, but

Nor did you understand the question I asked.

"AoS has no fluff!"
Here's some new fluff!
"No, not like that, you were supposed to understand I meant "make it more like the Old World" when I asked for more fluff"

Every damn time. Just move on to 40k please, or 9th age to play with Janusz and Krzstof....

To be fair over half of AoS is just Old World stuff in a new setting.

Even the gods are all Old World stuff


Btu yeah GW has very clearly shown that AoS is not the Old World in style, themes or lore. A fact that makes Gotrek very grumpy.

The model range looks elegant, graceful yet powerful.

The aesthetic going with the range is not one that I like, but I can easily see what theme they were shooting for, which is a great compliment to any army's model range.

See I love the range, I think its one of the best elf sets GW has released other than the Daughters of Khaine.

 Mothsniper wrote:
Is it just me?
Or the new Stonehart cow units are lame...

Yes, it's you. They're fething sweet.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Cathallar, Wardens, Sentinels just so happens to be one of the best/most easily accessible(in terms of models) Warscroll Battalions in the book...


Auralan Legion: 1 Cathallar, 2-4 Sentinels and an equal number of Wardens. Nets you reroll save rolls of 1 while within 3" of any other friendly units from the same Battalion.

Yeah I realized that and I think I will focus my lists on that and dawnriders because I don't like the stoneguard nearly as much as I thought I would.

They are essentially monk versions of the white lions of chrace and hopefully we will see swordmasters at some point because these guys seem more like white lions than swordmasters.

Which is what I am exctied about with this range. Vanari are incredibly awesome, the sentinels are the only bad models in my opinion in that they are so boring looking in poses. I wish I could do more to customize them but you really can't but thats an AOS i've been told.

On the cow motiff... they aren't really cows, more buffalo or yaks. Buffalo are fething terrifying, if they charge you, you will be dead. American Cows are very domesticated to the point they are giant dogs. People only call them cows because they don't know their histories at all and don't know other species as well. Its always a vieled insult against GW products especially because GW AOS has always been targeted by people who don't even play the hobby or collect it. I switched to AOS because of the 40k community and I enjoy the Yak bois and their lore and their entire model range. Which I think is leagues better than most 40k models.

Once you have the lumienth on hand and actually look at them you realize how awesome they are. I am excited to see what they do with them overall.

Something I am really interested in is their River, Wind, and Zenith Temples which they talk about. With Zenith or the Winged Elves they talked about briefly in the battletome. Apparently the Zenith Temples are incredibly rare. And I can't wait to see what other Tyrionic kingdoms there are, as we still have half the race is missing, along with 75% of the faction. Which I am very interested in.

I also really unironically like the fact that Sigmar has rightfully pissed off by Tyrion and Teclis, and even Malekith in the book it hints that he has used the light of hysh for his storm vaults. Despite my love of storms I think sigmar is a complete arse and is an aggorant jerk. Which I would say about the lumineth but they are more elitist than "I know everything and I am always in the right." They had the spirefall which has humbled them as a species. Which is what is so history. The spirefall event and almost every major historical event in the lumineth lore is just incredibly well written. Whomever does the lore for the Lumineth needs a bloody promotion cause that was some stellar writing.

How about you guys or should I start a new thread to talk about their lore cause its some pretty interesting stuff.

The "spirefall" is the worst part imo, it's literally just Fall of Eldar but less dramatic.

Honestly I like it better because the fall of the eldar is less interesting this was also fantasy based. I get not liking it though, but it was far easier to comprehend and a much more tamer.

I do like how that is the one thing some people have latched onto but okay.

Please don't spam the forum- ingtær.

I'm interested to see how they expand the Lumineth in future, but that just raises a question of when that will end up happening.

One of the issues the system and its model range has at the moment is that so many armies feel very unfinished and not fleshed out. You'd have expected at least some updates to them by now since many are on a 2nd book but they've had pretty much nothing in terms of model releases. And personally a single new character model isn't really enough for me.

So yeah, all the extra teased Lumineth shrines and spirits sound fascinating, but will I even care about them when they finally get round to adding just one of them to the roster in AOS 4.0 in 6 years time?

Oh and for a system and storyline which people like to fellate for being "new" and "unique," tying the Lumineth into Slaanesh and giving them a Fall from Grace background isn't exactly groundbreaking.

Honestly whilst it says AoS 2.0 its really 1.0.

Launch didn't even have rules and wasn't a wargame; 1.0 was a rush job fix. 2.0 is the launch AoS "should have had" and its delay means that we are several years behind where it could be.

 Bosskelot wrote:

One of the issues the system and its model range has at the moment is that so many armies feel very unfinished and not fleshed out. You'd have expected at least some updates to them by now since many are on a 2nd book but they've had pretty much nothing in terms of model releases. And personally a single new character model isn't really enough for me.

You know this faction is only 6 months old, right? So why would you expect them to already have an update/2nd book?

ccs wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

One of the issues the system and its model range has at the moment is that so many armies feel very unfinished and not fleshed out. You'd have expected at least some updates to them by now since many are on a 2nd book but they've had pretty much nothing in terms of model releases. And personally a single new character model isn't really enough for me.

You know this faction is only 6 months old, right? So why would you expect them to already have an update/2nd book?

Yes, that's why I was talking about other factions in that paragraph.

Lumineth book two has to be a few years off at least, but I’m already so excited. Chariot being pulled by cows? Swordsmen? Tyrion riding a giant bull? Anything could be coming, but I’m keen.

The only one of those with merit is the swordsmen bit...and that's the River Temple, seemingly.

The chariots are horse-drawn, per the fluff. Enough of the "LULZ COWS!!1!!" nonsense.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The only one of those with merit is the swordsmen bit...and that's the River Temple, seemingly.

The chariots are horse-drawn, per the fluff. Enough of the "LULZ COWS!!1!!" nonsense.

Eh, who knows. Fluff changes. By the time such a 2nd book arrives GW could just as easily decide that Lumineth chariots are now pulled by _____.

I got in to the army for the cows, I’d certainly love to see the theme continued. Ymetrica forever!

I get why people don't like the "cows" on the alarith helmets, but I don't see why people take such issue with it as representation of the mountain spirit. Aren't bulls often seen a symbols of strength, aggressiveness, and power? The little bit of subversion of the elf stereotype makes things a bit more interesting. Conversions to either use the helmet top as a mask or to just remove the top of the alarith helmets easily solves the issue. Could probably swap in warden helmets as an option as well.

For me, it's because the cow thing just feels crowbarred in - the spearmen infantry are LOVELY, and evoke a kind of classical greco-roman vibe. The mountain theme, and hoity-toity elves being really zen and having bonsai trees and living in the mountains also works quite nicely.

I'm not going to dismiss cow elves out of hand, either. GW COULD have gone for a kind of Hindu theme, and evoked classical Indian art and militaries - Kshatriya Elves, anyone? Equally, they could've scrapped the mountain thing, or at least sidelined it more, and leaned harder (the odd thing is, through all this design chaos, this is probably what they lean hardest into) into the minoan theme. God knows, it'd be refreshing for GW to try to dip it's toes into a fantasy setting that wasn't just European in it's conception of a pre-modern society.... but that's a rant for another thread.

A thing that really irks me about the "cows are big and powerful, just like a mountain" is that...

...cows almost never live in mountain environments. They're plains animals. I've lived in two really mountainous parts of the world, and cattle? Historically SUPER rare here.

Bulls are big and powerful, sure, but they aren't known so well for their grace. Particularly the western breeds of cow GW evoke with their sculpting are timid herd animals that live on grassland. Imagine a GW elf in a china shop. Then imagine a bull. GW could've worked to reconcile that, but instead they've got a confused design ethos between classic pointy elves, light, mountains, cows, psuedo minoan greco-roman classicism also bonsai trees somehow and also hammers.

It feels like there were too many ideas, and as with, imo, too much stuff with elves in AOS, slapped them together with too little nuance.
Introducing cows as a dominant theme was going to be straight up difficult to do, because of the Beastmen already existing. Doing mountains well was going to be difficult because of Dwarfs already existing. Doing elves that had a specific kind of animal motif was going to be hard to do because of fish elves.

People clown on the Lumineth because... GW didn't really hit any of those nails on the head hard enough, and I think it's perfectly reasonable that big parts of the community clown on them because at the end of the day, GW just made messy cow elves, and that's all they're going to be for a while.

(also that teclis model fething sucks! WTF were they thinking my god take two nice minis and just glue 'em together holy moly who doesn't hate that thing)

While overall I like the Lumineth, they are a very obvious case of GW's schizophrenic design philosophy when it comes to AOS. On the one hand GW wants to pander to nostalgia by slapping Teclis and Eltharion's names on random models, but then they seem almost embarrassingly desperate to try and differentiate their design away from Warhammer Fantasy as much as possible. And this isn't a bad thing necessarily but I do think the range and design of the faction as a whole has a lot of instances of trying to do something weird and out-there and it not particularly being executed as well as it could. All this so people can say "Oh AOS isn't derivative, it's incredibly unique..." meanwhile you have Fall-from-Grace Elves who are opposed to Slaanesh and the main posterboy faction of the setting looking like they're straight out of a Blizzard game.

Either/Or wrote:
I get why people don't like the "cows" on the alarith helmets, but I don't see why people take such issue with it as representation of the mountain spirit. Aren't bulls often seen a symbols of strength, aggressiveness, and power? The little bit of subversion of the elf stereotype makes things a bit more interesting. Conversions to either use the helmet top as a mask or to just remove the top of the alarith helmets easily solves the issue. Could probably swap in warden helmets as an option as well.

That's the route I went. I looked at the cow helmets & decided that it'd take longer & be more work to convert each helmet than it'd be worth vs just spending a few more $s & putting off building the unit for another few days.

I know the cow thing as a joke and all, but I thought the fluff was that it was a goat or ram of some sort?

Edit - Looked it up: "sculpted in the likeness of the sacred Ymetrican Longhorn, that rugged alpine beast that is said to be immortal and, therefore, embodies the mountain more than any other creature."

It could be a bull, cattle or some other bovine, just going off the Longhorn wording and appearance of the models themselves. Longhorn is a term I've only ever seen used for bovine, not goats or rams

Longhorn = bovine = cow warrior

Some people seem to say it like it's a bad thing that it's a cow mountain. I personally don't see it as a bad thing to call it a cow. Especially not when a giant cow mountain tears through the enemy with ease

 posermcbogus wrote:
...cows almost never live in mountain environments. They're plains animals. I've lived in two really mountainous parts of the world, and cattle? Historically SUPER rare here.

I mean... yaks are cows. It is true that the most popular mountain cattle animal is the goat, though.

 Albertorius wrote:

 posermcbogus wrote:
...cows almost never live in mountain environments. They're plains animals. I've lived in two really mountainous parts of the world, and cattle? Historically SUPER rare here.

I mean... yaks are cows. It is true that the most popular mountain cattle animal is the goat, though.

There are also Scottish highland cattle.
Personally, I work with a Swiss breed, Simmental, but they're more notable for resistance to weather (they cope well with any two of cold, windy or wet), than actually dealing with rough mountain terrain. Horns have largely been bred out of the breed, though, at least in the US. Same with any colors but black or dark red (with a few white patches).

Thadin wrote:It could be a bull, cattle or some other bovine, just going off the Longhorn wording and appearance of the models themselves. Longhorn is a term I've only ever seen used for bovine, not goats or rams

Yeah. Goat and ram horns rarely sweep wide like that (and those that do are usually from a different angle)

Regardless they're still ridiculous looking and impractical.

"Ya hear that 'Nor, we're supposed to be on the plains and our horns are impractical."

It may very well be the point that the symbolism seems obscure and strange to us---it is supposed to be aelf symbology after all.

Symbolism stops being symbolism, if you don't understand the symbols. And it is not like we are looking at an actual real life elf civilisation, but at something humans from UK decided to implement in to a table top game. If it is hard to relate to, then it is kind of a the designers fault.

There are also Scottish highland cattle.

Aren't they kept in the flat parts of the highlands and the valleys though? There is a no way a few hundreds Kg bull is walking and grazzing on 45 degree or stepper inclines. We have mountains too, and cows are only present in places that are flat, everywhere else there are only sheep and goats.

When you consider that goats can stand on the upright side of dam walls I think we are underestimating the capability and skill of an animal to survive in regions to which we are unfamiliar.

Sure highland cattle are not standing on dam walls, but they are capable of surviving in mountainous terrain. They don't have to climb over sheer flat rock walls, but they will survive in upland, rocky, mountainous terrain. Just because you're the beast of the mountain doesn't mean you have to climb to the top (that's just a daft thing humans do )

And as noted horns are often essential for this kind of species used to harsh winters where their horns are used to help push away snow to reach food underneath.

Karol wrote:
Symbolism stops being symbolism, if you don't understand the symbols. And it is not like we are looking at an actual real life elf civilisation, but at something humans from UK decided to implement in to a table top game. If it is hard to relate to, then it is kind of a the designers fault.

Yes, exactly. I am arguing the possibility that it being hard to relate to is the point and it was intentionally written that way. At the same time it is not completely alien--as our mountain dwelling bovine friends explained above!

It's not even really that hard to "relate" to, provided one actually reads the heckin' lore. Don't even need to read a novel for it--it's explained in the Lumineth army book fairly well.

Yeah but it's much much easier for people on internet forums to look at it and whine about it endlessly, rather than digging an inch in to lore and language. My favorite is when people try and claim that the new 40k Primaris models have meaningless names

 Thadin wrote:
Yeah but it's much much easier for people on internet forums to look at it and whine about it endlessly, rather than digging an inch in to lore and language. My favorite is when people try and claim that the new 40k Primaris models have meaningless names

Meaningless no, silly and pointlessly hard to remember yes.

We need itorators, led by Captain Latinius.

oops, another chamber opened.

Also horns are very practical for cattle, otherwise they'd not have it.duh.

Cronch wrote:
oops, another chamber opened.

Also horns are very practical for cattle, otherwise they'd not have it.duh.

You say that, but there's theory that steady increase of woodland terrain in Ireland was a major contributing factor in the final extinction of Irish Elk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_elk
Not the only factor and more recent theories also include increased human hunting (which is one of the going theories for why we lost a lot/most of the mega fauna during this interglacial period)


So the AoS cattle are fine until Alariel floods the mountains with forests!

And then we have to wait a few thousand years and they'll be all gone