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.

Osbad wrote:

Breotan wrote:

Wolfun wrote:The GW one has always been horrible, I'm not sure why RH used it as a base design.

What makes you think they did? Have you never seen any pictures of ancient Babylonian statues?

It's an interesting point isn't it. Were RH copying that excrescence of a GW sculpt, or where they simply inspired by this:



Clearly GW were in no way derivitive in their original concept at all...

Yet, you seem to completely miss my point...
GW originally made their Lammasu to have 'bat' style wings and have that weird dwarf-style beard, as well as a massive head (Possibly to link with Dwarves large heads?). Not to mention the fact that GW gave their Lammasu 8 beard braids.
RH have a very similar concept.

Even in the picture you posted, it's quite clear that it has feathered wings, a clean beard, and quite a small head in comparison to the rest of its body.
Which is no where similar to the GW one. Or the one that RH made.

Wolfun wrote:

Osbad wrote:

Breotan wrote:

Wolfun wrote:The GW one has always been horrible, I'm not sure why RH used it as a base design.

What makes you think they did? Have you never seen any pictures of ancient Babylonian statues?

It's an interesting point isn't it. Were RH copying that excrescence of a GW sculpt, or where they simply inspired by this:



Clearly GW were in no way derivitive in their original concept at all...

Yet, you seem to completely miss my point...

And you miss his: that GW's legal claim is of very, very dubious quality. This is made even more obvious (ironically) by examining what is purported to be a defense of GW;

Wolfun wrote:GW originally made their Lammasu to have 'bat' style wings and have that weird dwarf-style beard, as well as a massive head (Possibly to link with Dwarves large heads?). Not to mention the fact that GW gave their Lammasu 8 beard braids.
RH have a very similar concept.

Even in the picture you posted, it's quite clear that it has feathered wings, a clean beard, and quite a small head in comparison to the rest of its body.
Which is no where similar to the GW one. Or the one that RH made.

Virtually every element listed is either the result of independent conception, indistinct (seriously, big head as a protectable element?), or inherent to the idea of a lammasu.

Interestingly, the first one (bat wings) is one of the few times that we, as the public, can actually verify without doubt that it is the result of independent creation: how? Because the lamassu is merely a head put onto the existing manticore body, and we saw the evolution of that sculpt, and the eventual suggestion that it would make a passable lamassu here.

Sadly, the loss of the RH Lamassu is simply the most explicit example of a larger company using the threat of litigation against a smaller rival to protect their economic interests, with the price being paid by the consumer.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Surtur wrote:Thanks everyone for fixing my post since obviously my intent wasn't to point out that GW took an established name and made zero connection to the original concept. I obviously wanted to show off a bunch of models that are better sculpted and would have muddied my point based on that.

Anytime

See, the thing is, we all got your point, just nobody cares. GW is hardly the first to do this (see Final Fantasy). And I wouldn't say that they made zero connection to the original concept. Manticores, Cokcatrice, and Chimaerae are all 'chimera' creatures, a hodgepodge of animals combined to create a new creature. GW kept true to that in all 3 instances. Really, I don't really think you can successfully make the argument you're attempting to, considering that all three creatures have evolved considerably since their original inception. Research any of them, and you will find that as time went on the descriptions and appearances changed, elements were added and taken away. This is just a natural progression in an evolution that has been underway for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Oh, and that Chimera mini I posted still looks awesome as hell.

Ah, I see. I present to you the new banana:



The both have a peel and are fruit. I may therefore stake the claim that this is therefore a banana following GW's naming logic.

A quick trip to wikipedia tells me tat the creatures really haven't changed as much as you seem to think and that D&D is responsible for several of those changes itself. What does matter is that GW is taking tremendous liberties in calling a three headed thing, one dragon head with an enormous goiter, one I don't know and one we really didn't care head, a chimera. The manticore also suffers from the we made some head and threw it on a lion body with veiny wings and called it a mythical creature. The cockatrice looks like a combination between a chicken, Dr. Evil's cat and a lizard with a mane. How are these added or subtracted elements evolution? D&D's chimera used the chimera's fire breathing to throw on a dragon head to bring it up to 3 heads (magic number 3), made the manticore less human like and made the cockatrice more reflective of it's name rather than a dragon with a rooster head. D&D took liberties yes, but kept the core of the creature.

What also matters is if I can take this beyond GW and use it else where without people scratching their heads, squinting or making fun of the model for not making sense in addition to being ugly. If I DM and I decide I want my players to see a chimera, why would I use this model? It is based on nothing established as being part of a chimera. I can't recognize any of the heads of any of their new creatures. They're masses of fur and beaks and teeth and random tusks and horns. Why not just make new names and let it be at that?

As for whether or not final fantasy has done it before is hardly relevant because it is a Japanese game that has been translated into English. The name choices are more likely than anything else, the result of marketing.

And a final note, I resent the implication that my post should be devalued because you do not care.