Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I tried to go more with the original drawing, but this was mostly me looking at how the segmented armor would look on the head.. and it's not bad. I'm leaving a gap between the front teeth on the lower jaw for the flamer template to fire through.

The head may be a little small, but I think it's alright like that.

I cut the base down about 1/4" all the way around and put a 20 degree bevel in in so it'd match the normal gaming bases.. I realize this may make a bit of a gap on the diorama base, but I don't mind so much.

I also was thinking about something for the base - I can either have the gargant stomping an imperial lascannon emplacement into the ground, with the dudes manning it running for their lives... or someone suggested that I have the turret a step or two ahead of the stompa, with one dude facing completely the wrong way firing it so intensely that he doesn't realize the stompa's coming up on him, with one of his comrades trying to get his attention pointing at it, and a third running away already.

Which do you guys think is better? Each has it's benefits - the first way, the gargant gets to stomp on something, but the second way might have a bit more character.

Just roughing it out. The lower jaw's good, I think, though I'm probably going to redo the top because the armor plating warped a little bit while I was trying to bend it to the curve.

rawr...ahahhaah
me likes it alot.I hope your painting will give it even more justice.

This has got to be one of the (if not the) best scratchbuild. It's coming along nicely.

The head looks pretty good. I think its slightly smaller then the one in the sketch but that isn't necessairly a bad thing.

I do think you should add the ears though. You have a gargant piloted by grots. It needs big pointy ears to match.

yeah! flame breathing Dreadnoughts!

Am I the only one who gets a mental picture of that thing being painted blue, with a pair of googly eyes, charging an Imperial camp while yelling "COOOOOOOOOKIIIEEEES!"?

In all seriousness, though, looking good.

Arrrrrrrrr!?!

Hurry up and get more pictures up!!!

ARRRRRRR

With respect to following the original's jaw design..

Which would you guys say looks best? I placed the teeth in a front-facing fashion to try and portray the typical ork gob.. but the illustration has the teeth turned out, like such:



The right one follows the illustration's design for the jaw, but I don't know if it looks as orky as the teeth-facing-front one on the left.

I don't know if this sort of design would match the top teeth, as well, as they look like they face in the 'forwards' kind of way that the picture on the left portrays.

definitly the left one.

I'd say mix the two styles: Keep the smaller teeth as is and turn the big bulldog teeth out like in the sketch. Maybe thicken those big ones up a bit too.  I'd also make the front teeth the bigger ones like in the sketch or put the bigger ones closer together and make the two front teeth smaller. It seems like in both pics above, the big teeth are more toward the side then those in the sketch.

I still say you'd be well served with cylindrical teeth - kind of like they used the tusks of slain Squiggoths.

 

But if one has to choose from the options presented, I'd go with the left hand picture.

left hand,right one seems too imperial titan-esque than orky.
Side tusks à la right pic could be good but i'd keep it like they are now

My humble suggestions. something looks a little flat with either of the teeth designs pight now, I love how far the bottom jaw jutts out.

I like the bolted-on plate design, tommy. I'll give that a go.

Let's talk about the top jaw. The illustration has a row of smaller, sharp teeth spaced close together, as far as I can see. I pinned the jaw for the teeth should I decide to do them that way.. but which do you guys prefer? Row of small sharp teeth, or larger ones?

I think the larger teeth fit complement the teeth in the jaw better.

The big teeth look more orkish. The smaller teeth look more evil.



For this project, I'd go with the more orkish.

I gave the larger teeth a shot.. they're just pinned in, not glued, so they can come out if I decide to change them. I'm left with a gap between the front two top teeth that I was going to fill in before I started thinking.. If I put a flamer in the mouth behind the teeth, should I.. leave the gap there? So the flamer has some clearance to shoot through the mouth? I don't know if I should remake the top's teeth.

I threw a half-as-long tooth in there for the flames to shoot around.



Anyway, by tomorrow afternoon I hope to have a circuit in hand that I can wire into the head to power the LEDs and flickering light. I'm actually thinking that I should revise the flickering red light from a grotpit light to a 'flamer' light, if it's suitable.. providing a bit of a glowing flicker from inside the jaws where the flamer is tucked away to indicate the 'pilot light' on the thing burning.

I also plan on putting small panes of clear plasticard in the eyes so that I can sand the surface of them a bit and get them to diffuse the light form the LEDs behind it. I think I'm going to hinge the jaw, as well, as it just looks cool to play around with opening and closing it. It'd be cool to open the jaws up when I'm using the flamer anyway. I made the eyes the same square shape.. I considered mismatching them, but it just looked silly and trivialized the face's meanness. The rest of the model's comedy, and the head draws a lot of attention, so I want it to read as ferocious.

Personally I'm very sad you're not going with the "blade" teeth from the original concept sketch.

The look you have now is defnitely more cartoony and less mean because of it. If you dig that look than stick with it, but I think losing the bladed look of the teeth really takes some of the deadliness out of the design.

by Mork!
It keeps getting better doesnt it?
Are you going to mount a flicker light in the flamer barrel by any chance,cause that would be ace

I am just thrown by this model, and if My army every met it on the table it would throw them too. Great job and keep it up. Incredible work

In the interest of fairness, I gave the alternate jaw a try. No huge loss if I don't use it, as it only took about ten minutes to manufacture if I don't use it.. I angled the other teeth forward for the sake of it and left the tusks pointing out. The test jaw is rougher than the other one, so please keep that in mind when choosing between the two of them (It probably needs a tooth on the outsides of the tusks, too, now that I look at it.)

In any event, maybe these comparisons will sway some opinions, as I keep getting mixed results.

Hmm.  You know, now that i see it, I think I like the one on the right with the blade-like tusks.  It looks meaner I think.

yea strangely im gonna have to say the one with tusks perpendicular to the jaw looks better...

Yah, the perpendicular tusks add a lot to it, it fits more with what you would see tusks look like in nature and looks more dangerous

I'm waiting for a few more responses from people regarding the jaw.. It seems that everyone I'm showing it to has their opinions split right down the middle, with some groups liking the traditional warboss look, and others liking the tusks. I may just cointoss it







Shot of the gaming base and the diorama base. I hope to add terrain to them both simultaneously so they match.

I think if you want to do the concept sketcy justice, you shouldn't make the teeth parallel or perpendicular to the jaw. You should make teeth that actually have their own dimensions. Make them look like actual teeth. When I look closely at the concept sketch, I see 3D teeth. The tops are somewhat flat and parrallel to the jaw line and then flare out (4 sided of course) to join to the jaw. Kinda like the teeth for a ripper on a dozer (Like the one on the right).

But if I have to choose between the 2 teeth styles represented... I'd go with the first one (the one parallel to the jaw line). The perpendicular ones just look... wrong.

Doesn't hurt to experiment, so I made the tusks a 3-dimensional blade. It probably needs a bit more 'sharpening', but here's the gist:







Just puttied on, so nothing permanent.. but does this look any better? Figured I'd modify it until I'm happy, since the head is a very prominent and defining feature of the gant anyway.

I think I prefer the other way with the Blade-like tusks.  This one doesn't look orky enough.  I could see an Ork making a tooth out of a sheet of metal and bolting it on.  This one looks too much like a real tooth or a pointy rock.  to me, it doesn't look like the sort of thing an Ork would make.  Just my $.02.

I've been lurking and watching this build in awe, I thought I would finally chip in .02 on the teeth. Of the 3 choices (paralell to jaw, perpendicular to jaw, perpendicular to jaw sharpened) I think the perpendicular to jaw sharpened version looks the worst. The perpendicualr to jaw from the front and side view look good but not so much in the isometric view. If I were you I would extend the jaw out just a bit further and build the tusks like a "T" with the perpendicular portion projecting back IN towards the "throat". The perpendicular sections projecting outwards looks too awkward IMO.

Keep up the good work.