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.

Seriously I was looking at the Great Taurus, admiring how such an old model is still on par with GW's current models. As you can see it's not like GW doesn't know how to sculpt bulls.



How did we end up with screw-ups that look like this?

Don't know Cheesecat.
Bad day at the office?
Mixed up the reference photos during the design process? A naked turtle was morphed with a 1970's hairy chested body builder and goodness knows what for the legs. Can only think of slugs when looking at those legs.
Maybe a pic of a slug orgy was used instead bovine limbs.

Poor beastmen :(

I don't know... I actually really like the minotaurs, and am not a huge fan of that old taurus model (although it's great for nostalgia...).

I realize I'm in a minority (at least on the forum) about that, and that they're not perfect. But they use such high contrast paint jobs that it really shows the muscle-on-muscle syndrome... which might not be as evident with another style of painting.

I'd love to have an army full of them! Or any monstrous infantry... I have quite a miniatures-related fetish for those types of models

Conscious decision.

They did not want the Minotaur to be the 'classical' Minotaur. That doesn't fit with Beastmen, not in GW's vision. Beastmen are not one-off hybrids, but rather their own race created through exposure to corrupting magicks.

The feet alone should be the biggest tell of that simply because rather than hooves like you'd see in a classical Minotaur--they have toed feet with 'hoofclaws'.

Still think they are not the best sculpts but take your point Kanners.
The musculature isn't convincing and it definitely isn't helped by being over accentuated by the painting like RiTides said.

Kanluwen wrote:Conscious decision.

They did not want the Minotaur to be the 'classical' Minotaur. That doesn't fit with Beastmen, not in GW's vision. Beastmen are not one-off hybrids, but rather their own race created through exposure to corrupting magicks.

The feet alone should be the biggest tell of that simply because rather than hooves like you'd see in a classical Minotaur--they have toed feet with 'hoofclaws'.

Which I find odd, considering most of the beastmen have bovine characteristics and it would make more sense to stick to that theme rather than deviate as it goes against the imagery of the rest of the army.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Still think they are not the best sculpts but take your point Kanners.

Biggest problem, in my opinion, is that everyone knows what a Minotaur looks like. It's a man with a bull head and hooves, as per Greek mythos.
If something retains the name 'Minotaur' but goes against the grain...you have a little voice in the back of your head saying "That's not right...", even if you don't necessarily realize it.

The musculature isn't convincing and it definitely isn't helped by being over accentuated by the painting like RiTides said.

The paint scheme, period, is just awful on them. I'd have done a much lighter skin tone with a reddish or brown fur bit personally, and a light wash of Ogryn Flesh and Gryphonne Sepia.

I have the same problem with many of the Ogre models from the new range. They overdid the verdigris effect.

Cheesecat wrote:Which I find odd, considering most of the beastmen have bovine characteristics and it would make more sense to stick to that theme rather than deviate as it goes against the imagery of the rest of the army.

I think that's part of the idea, personally. They felt they went too 'in line' for what is supposed to amount to genetic aberrations created through the fusion of dark magicks and Warpstone.

Kanluwen wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Still think they are not the best sculpts but take your point Kanners.

Biggest problem, in my opinion, is that everyone knows what a Minotaur looks like. It's a man with a bull head and hooves, as per Greek mythos.
If something retains the name 'Minotaur' but goes against the grain...you have a little voice in the back of your head saying "That's not right...", even if you don't necessarily realize it.

The musculature isn't convincing and it definitely isn't helped by being over accentuated by the painting like RiTides said.

The paint scheme, period, is just awful on them. I'd have done a much lighter skin tone with a reddish or brown fur bit personally, and a light wash of Ogryn Flesh and Gryphonne Sepia.

I have the same problem with many of the Ogre models from the new range. They overdid the verdigris effect.

Cheesecat wrote:Which I find odd, considering most of the beastmen have bovine characteristics and it would make more sense to stick to that theme rather than deviate as it goes against the imagery of the rest of the army.

I think that's part of the idea, personally. They felt they went too 'in line' for what is supposed to amount to genetic aberrations created through the fusion of dark magicks and Warpstone.

I understand where you're coming from, but still I would have liked GW to have stuck with one theme or the other, otherwise the army stops looking consistent in it's imagery and ends up looking like a

hodge-podge of ideas rather than a cohesive force. Then again, I might be too obsessive with the concept of a Greco-Roman styled Minotaur.

That's the problem though.

Beastmen aren't a consistent force. They are a hodge-podge of ideas and a cruel mirror of mankind created by the Ruinous Powers. They're not supposed to look the same all across the board.

Kanluwen wrote:That's the problem though.

Beastmen aren't a consistent force. They are a hodge-podge of ideas and a cruel mirror of mankind created by the Ruinous Powers. They're not supposed to look the same all across the board.

While you're right, GW seems to always want to give a unified appearance to there armies whether it contradicts fluff or not.

I agree about the conditioning, and the Greek manbull image being so deeply ingrained.
It is not a problem for me that the GW minotaurs are plantigrade (hehe learnt a new word) as in humans, ie knee at the mid point of the leg small foot etc, rather than the long foot walking on toes typical of ungulates.

It isn't so much that I am comparing to the traditional beastie that spoils the models but rather the way the muscles are just token big tough guy bodies.
They are not well designed. The other beastmen posted by Cheesecat have stylised torsos, but they look right.

If the bodies are supposed to be deformed by chaos, the muscles still need to be convincingly sculpted.

My brain is now deformed by lack of sleep sorry if that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I agree about the conditioning, and the Greek manbull image being so deeply ingrained.
It is not a problem for me that the GW minotaurs are plantigrade (hehe learnt a new word) as in humans, ie knee at the mid point of the leg small foot etc, rather than the long foot walking on toes typical of ungulates.

It isn't so much that I am comparing to the traditional beastie that spoils the models but rather the way the muscles are just token big tough guy bodies.
They are not well designed. The other beastmen posted by Cheesecat have stylised torsos, but they look right.

If the bodies are supposed to be deformed by chaos, the muscles still need to be convincingly sculpted.

My brain is now deformed by lack of sleep sorry if that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Gotta admit, with messed up muscular structure like that, and their ability to move pretty darn fast, it would be a scary sight to see something hobbling at you with ungodly speed.

I actually rather like the Minotaurs. I think they did a pretty good job of showing the corruption.

That's why I sculpt all of mine. I like the old metal minotaurs though.

Kanluwen wrote:That's the problem though.

Beastmen aren't a consistent force. They are a hodge-podge of ideas and a cruel mirror of mankind created by the Ruinous Powers. They're not supposed to look the same all across the board.

This has nothing to do with anything haha, the figure just looks slowed. Its looks bad, theres good art of WH minotaurs, its not the conception thats bad just the miniature.

These models are the reason I still use my old metal minotaurs.

Well, that and I'm too cheap to shell out more $$ for a new set of models when the old ones look just fine.

Las wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That's the problem though.

Beastmen aren't a consistent force. They are a hodge-podge of ideas and a cruel mirror of mankind created by the Ruinous Powers. They're not supposed to look the same all across the board.

This has nothing to do with anything haha, the figure just looks slowed. Its looks bad, theres good art of WH minotaurs, its not the conception that's bad just the miniature.

Do you even know what "concepts" are?

They're what you work from before you create a finished product. Somewhere along the line of redoing the Beastmen army book, they decided they wanted to dramatically emphasize the fact that these are not the Greek/classical mythos Minotaur.

There's quite a few beasts where they've done such a thing. It's not unheard of, they're trying to make it so that while it may be something they lifted from popular culture--they want it to fit into WHFB with no real problems.

IMHO AoW minotaurs just hit the sweet spot.

Just awesome.

I like the new minotaurs, I have just toned down the badly sculpted muscles with a darker paintjob on my own. While the muscles look corrupted, they also like a wee bit too unnnatural to me.

Kanluwen wrote:

Las wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That's the problem though.

Beastmen aren't a consistent force. They are a hodge-podge of ideas and a cruel mirror of mankind created by the Ruinous Powers. They're not supposed to look the same all across the board.

This has nothing to do with anything haha, the figure just looks slowed. Its looks bad, theres good art of WH minotaurs, its not the conception that's bad just the miniature.

Do you even know what "concepts" are?

They're what you work from before you create a finished product. Somewhere along the line of redoing the Beastmen army book, they decided they wanted to dramatically emphasize the fact that these are not the Greek/classical mythos Minotaur.

There's quite a few beasts where they've done such a thing. It's not unheard of, they're trying to make it so that while it may be something they lifted from popular culture--they want it to fit into WHFB with no real problems.

Right, and theres nothing wrong with that at all. As I said, the GW conception of a 'minotaur' is great, as shown by the minotaur artwork. The actual finished model just doesnt look very good, imo. It could have been done a better sculpt of their current conception. I dont think you understand my point. Aint nothing wrong with hoof toes.

Actually after reading the description for the minotaur and looking at GW's paintings of them I'm pretty sure they're meant to be like the classical minotaurs.

That painting doesn't show the most 'hotly contested' piece of the Minotaur--its feet.

Kanluwen wrote:That painting doesn't show the most 'hotly contested' piece of the Minotaur--its feet.

I'm seeing hooves on the Minotaur's feet in the first pick.

Cheesecat wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That painting doesn't show the most 'hotly contested' piece of the Minotaur--its feet.

I'm seeing hooves on the Minotaur's feet in the first pick.

And they overlap a bit like the ones on the model, so...

Kanluwen wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That painting doesn't show the most 'hotly contested' piece of the Minotaur--its feet.

I'm seeing hooves on the Minotaur's feet in the first pick.

And they overlap a bit like the ones on the model, so...

On the right leg maybe but it's hard to tell, because that leg is darker.

Not just the lack of holves but the legs. That doesn't look like muscle it just looks wierd same thing with the abs, and a little more fur would be nice.

Their muscular structure reminds me of Bo Abobo from that Double Dragon movie. Man that was a bad movie...

A Black Ram wrote:That's why I sculpt all of mine. quote]
We wanna see
pics or linky please

Kanluwen wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That painting doesn't show the most 'hotly contested' piece of the Minotaur--its feet.

I'm seeing hooves on the Minotaur's feet in the first pick.

And they overlap a bit like the ones on the model, so...

Even then that's not the worst part of the Minotaur minis I would say the faces are the worst, followed by the horrendous musculature and then the random patches of fur.

The first pic definitely has old school hooves.

Anyways it justs lends itself to the point; being that the GW minotaur conception is fine, as shown by the artwork. Unfortunately the translation into model just didnt turn out.