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 think the failure squarely rests on calling them hounds. It's a very real world approach that is based on dogs pretty much exclusively filling the role of domesticated hunting and war beast and the Flesheater delusion lacking in imagination by drawing so strictly on (pseudo-)historical royal or knightly courts. There's no sense that these guys live in the Mortal Realms that have for thousands of years seen all manner of creatures domesticated. I'm not entirely sure since it's been a little while since I last read a battletome, but I think the flying boyos aren't even pegasus knights but plain old horseback knights. As in, Bretonnians are more fantastic than the delusion has been made out at one point in the army's history at least.
I don't find the idea that a ghoul degenerates into a baboon like creature a particular problem. Calling it a doggo instead of, say, a Ghyran tracker ape is where it breaks down for me. Because the latter should be a thing, because magical realms. It doesn't have to be puppies all the time. That just shows a lack of imagination and, frankly, inability or unwillingness to do proper world building.
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Those Offal Hounds are Pumbagore levels of bad. They might be GW's worst minis in a while.
Yeah, I gotta strongly disagree with that one. I understand if one doesn't like the Offal Hounds conceptually, but I think the miniatures are well executed. Whereas the Razorgor is a mess of a sculpt that makes no sense and doesn't even match the artwork.
Geifer wrote: I think the failure squarely rests on calling them hounds.
The name has nothing to do with it. The previous band in Underworld had bats the ghouls saw as hunting falcons. Even thought they have nothing in common.
It's really a problem of personnal perception than actual "failure" of the miniature. Some guys deciding it looks like an ape and calling it "bad" doesn't make it the truth.
I mean, even if you wanted to go the comically tragic / darkly funny route, you could have better concepts, like the Hounds being actual ravenous beast, scavengers etc. like Hyenas that just hang around the Ghouls to eat their filth, but the ghouls are convinced they're noble hounds.
Oh man, this is actually a really good idea. I might have to find some hyenas miniatures to replace the babouls.
Oh, these ghouls are bad. Boring and they seem even worst that the normal plastic kits. And SCE are as boring and kitsch as ever. By far the worst Warcry box. Easy pass
lost and damned log
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/519978.page#6525039
Geifer wrote: I think the failure squarely rests on calling them hounds.
The name has nothing to do with it. The previous band in Underworld had bats the ghouls saw as hunting falcons. Even thought they have nothing in common.
It's really a problem of personnal perception than actual "failure" of the miniature. Some guys deciding it looks like an ape and calling it "bad" doesn't make it the truth.
They... do look like monkeys, though (a lot of design cues from baboons and mandrills). While this set has a couple decent ghouls for a change (the ones that are upright rather than post apocalyptic mutant orks), most of the plastic ghouls are still far worse than these things.
streetsamurai wrote: Oh, these ghouls are bad. Boring and they seem even worst that the normal plastic kits. And SCE are as boring and kitsch as ever. By far the worst Warcry box. Easy pass
Amount of terrain seems to have shrunk, too. That ziggurat takes up far too much sprue space. Given that its the lizardman terrain piece with a few bits bolted on, its rather silly that its eating space here.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/05/06 02:36:54
The ghoul miniatures are a pain to build properly with a ton of gap filling necessary, but I love their look. I don't like the more animal hind quarters of these new ghouls
NinthMusketeer wrote: Huh, ghouls look great to me. Some of that is the current plastics setting a low bar, but still.
I want to say it depends on whether you're cool with the hunchbacked reimagining Ghouls got when they got their plastic kit, but I'm not sure I'd call these new ones great even compared to the plastic regiment. They're more HD, which is good, but otherwise the majority is just more of the same. I'm not sure we needed that. I suppose the ones standing up straight and flaunting their glorious crotch manes are enough of a deviation to get excited about?
If you're one of the people who might be pleased to see them wear stuff to get closer to the delusion, you get a few models like that, but to me the bone armor parts highlight how much stuff is just thrown on instead of trying to emulate actual armor and equipment with bone and scrap metal. Which is to say, what's the point if both the naked and armored Ghouls require the same depth of delusion (or for the wargamer, the same amount of pretense/suspension of disbelief) to envision them as anything from peasant levies to noble knights? I see two gorgets, two pauldrons and two helmets. Not even an attempt to have a faux breastplate, which you could argue makes some sense in the context of the warband if you really wanted to.
I mean, this is what the reveal article has to say:
GW wrote:These gallant warriors must contend with the Royal Beastflayers. These coteries of cannibal courtiers act as gameskeepers for their vampiric kings, stalking terrible beasts – or innocent bystanders, but who’s counting – that threaten their noble kingdom. Employing grotesque Offal Hounds to track their supposed quarry, they return in glory with bloody pelts and trophies.
So, this particular group believes itself to be hunters. Not soldiers, not knights, just hunters. So I'm not insisting on a breastplate for this group in particular even though I think leather armor would be justified for hunters. But does a gorget, pauldron and helmet actually evoke the image of a hunter? How many miniatures of hunters do we have that resemble that combination of armor? The dude wearing hide is about as close as it gets to that description, if you think of it as a pelt he wears as a decoy or for camouflage on the hunt. Or even just as a trophy pelt.
The thing is, some of us were just hoping for a measure of physical representation of the delusion on the models going forward. A knight wearing a shoddy set of bone, metal, wood, stone, whatever, fashioned to resemble functional armor. Even if you have to squint. By all means keep the peasants naked with bone piercings to keep the baseline intact and old models relevant. But for knights, show that they wear armor. Have hides on your hunters. Flayed skin on nobles. Some rusty weapons, sticks, bone clubs, so when the Ghoul thinks he's hitting someone with a sword, he is at least holding some tool in his hand. Stuff like that would be nice to see. Instead we get more naked Ghouls who look like any other naked Ghoul. I just can't bring myself to consider it good model design if you can't tell three Ghouls apart, but one of them is supposed to be a peasant, the other one a knight, and the last one the court jester.
Clearly the sculptors sometimes get that idea. They applied it to the phantom of the opera and his hide hatted helper. But then they just stopped and made the other Ghouls look normal. It's one reason why I like the Babouls. You look at the models and can believe that they are hunting beasts that go with the theme of the warband. They are significantly different from a normal Ghoul, they have no equipment because they have no need for equipment and they have poses to match their role.
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
This is a Warcry warband not proper units. The minis were made and some fluff was dreamt up afterwards. From a design standpoint they probably want to have some distance between FEC and Greenskins who have the same thingyourecognisebutwrong bit.
JSG wrote: The minis were made and some fluff was dreamt up afterwards.
Flesheater Courts in a nutshell. It was cute while the army was entirely based on old Fantasy models, but I had hoped for more once they actually started getting AoS models. Side game or not.
I suppose it goes well with the idea that the sculptors do their own thing and fluff and rules are handled separately and after the fact. If they don't take feedback from the fluff guys, there isn't a whole lot that can be done.
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
Yes, the miniatures are made first then they add background / rules to it. That's indeed the GW way. That doesn't mean the sculptors don't have a general design as guide.
Flesh-eater courts' main design is to be cannibalistic monsters at the core. Adding them proper equipment make them look more civilized and less monsters than being naked / covered with bones and remains of their victims. That's why the Battle design renders that aspect well : you can't help but being disgusted by how they look and immediately think "monsters" when you see them.
Being naked and distorted also gives them a sense of pity, because at the core they're poor creatures who devolved into this mostly because of despairation. AoS just added the illusion part in their mind, but the miniatures show their real aspect.
I'm not surprised they kept going that same road with this Warcry band. It totally makes sense. Could they have chosen another way to render them ? Sure, but there are many interpretations on the market already. If you'd like weapons, you can check Bestiarum Miniatures or Artisan Guild.
Liking miniatures is always a subjective opinion, anyway. People may like or not the design, the sculpture's style or their proportions, but since it's in the end just an artistic representation of something real or not - it can't be inherently "bad", just subject to personnal interpretation. People talking about the hounds as "babouls" or "ape ghouls" is just one of them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/06 10:47:21
NinthMusketeer wrote: Huh, ghouls look great to me. Some of that is the current plastics setting a low bar, but still.
I want to say it depends on whether you're cool with the hunchbacked reimagining Ghouls got when they got their plastic kit, but I'm not sure I'd call these new ones great even compared to the plastic regiment. They're more HD, which is good, but otherwise the majority is just more of the same. I'm not sure we needed that. I suppose the ones standing up straight and flaunting their glorious crotch manes are enough of a deviation to get excited about?
If you're one of the people who might be pleased to see them wear stuff to get closer to the delusion, you get a few models like that, but to me the bone armor parts highlight how much stuff is just thrown on instead of trying to emulate actual armor and equipment with bone and scrap metal. Which is to say, what's the point if both the naked and armored Ghouls require the same depth of delusion (or for the wargamer, the same amount of pretense/suspension of disbelief) to envision them as anything from peasant levies to noble knights? I see two gorgets, two pauldrons and two helmets. Not even an attempt to have a faux breastplate, which you could argue makes some sense in the context of the warband if you really wanted to.
I mean, this is what the reveal article has to say:
GW wrote:These gallant warriors must contend with the Royal Beastflayers. These coteries of cannibal courtiers act as gameskeepers for their vampiric kings, stalking terrible beasts – or innocent bystanders, but who’s counting – that threaten their noble kingdom. Employing grotesque Offal Hounds to track their supposed quarry, they return in glory with bloody pelts and trophies.
So, this particular group believes itself to be hunters. Not soldiers, not knights, just hunters. So I'm not insisting on a breastplate for this group in particular even though I think leather armor would be justified for hunters. But does a gorget, pauldron and helmet actually evoke the image of a hunter? How many miniatures of hunters do we have that resemble that combination of armor? The dude wearing hide is about as close as it gets to that description, if you think of it as a pelt he wears as a decoy or for camouflage on the hunt. Or even just as a trophy pelt.
The thing is, some of us were just hoping for a measure of physical representation of the delusion on the models going forward. A knight wearing a shoddy set of bone, metal, wood, stone, whatever, fashioned to resemble functional armor. Even if you have to squint. By all means keep the peasants naked with bone piercings to keep the baseline intact and old models relevant. But for knights, show that they wear armor. Have hides on your hunters. Flayed skin on nobles. Some rusty weapons, sticks, bone clubs, so when the Ghoul thinks he's hitting someone with a sword, he is at least holding some tool in his hand. Stuff like that would be nice to see. Instead we get more naked Ghouls who look like any other naked Ghoul. I just can't bring myself to consider it good model design if you can't tell three Ghouls apart, but one of them is supposed to be a peasant, the other one a knight, and the last one the court jester.
Clearly the sculptors sometimes get that idea. They applied it to the phantom of the opera and his hide hatted helper. But then they just stopped and made the other Ghouls look normal. It's one reason why I like the Babouls. You look at the models and can believe that they are hunting beasts that go with the theme of the warband. They are significantly different from a normal Ghoul, they have no equipment because they have no need for equipment and they have poses to match their role.
So I do agree with you, all of that would have really pushed the bar into the 'sheer greatness' territory of miniature design GW is known for. I think the difference in our opinions is expectation; I did not expect a huge new rework, I just expected some Crypt Ghouls +1 and that's what we got. As a sidenote the lack of gear is not critical to me, as I am a big converter who will add/sculpt additional derails anyways!
At any rate thank you for the detailed explanation, it was an interesting and informative read.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Sarouan wrote: Some guys deciding it looks like an ape and calling it "bad" doesn't make it the truth.
I don't think it looks bad because it's an ape. If anything, a horrific ape-like create makes sense for the degenerative style that goes with Ghouls. I think they're bad because I think they look bad. I think they're awful, ugly sculpts that detract from the rest of the group and don't really represent what GW is capable of their plastics.
Genoside07 wrote: But will this be available longer than five minutes on preorder??
I think so, Warcry is not as popular as Kill Team and this box's content is a bit specific so I don't think they're that appealing to a lot of Warcry players.
I'll take it for the collection because I really love Warcry as a game.
No stealth increase again, neat. And as someone who just started Seraphon, I appreciate being able to get an alternative version of their terrain piece without having to buy it separately further down the line.
The Realmshaper is a new sprue - I wonder if they will rename them if it gets a separate release so that there is a Coalesced and Starborne version.
Stormcast have an interesting layout 1 mini sprue per body with lots of options - these were probably designed with something else in mind, At least the tactical rock is a separate piece.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/12 22:13:17
DaveC wrote: The Realmshaper is a new sprue - I wonder if they will rename them if it gets a separate release so that there is a Coalesced and Starborne version.
Spoiler:
Stormcast have an interesting layout 1 mini sprue per body with lots of options - these were probably designed with something else in mind, At least the tactical rock is a separate piece.
If I remember the reviews/leaks from the new book correctly, there already is a separate warscroll for both Coalesced and Starborne
stahly wrote: Here is my unboxing of Nightmare Quest, inc. high-res sprue pics, all assembly options, and a size comparison of the new Flesheater Courts models.
So having read the fluff snippet, I think it is worth nothing the baboon-hound-ghouls actually used to be 'regular' ghouls... they've been transformed much like what happens to humans from the Ghurish surge.
