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 it looks impressive, if the price is right I may pick on up just to build it. I don't think the lighter paint scheme does it any justice, that sort of thing makes most models look bad. E.g. Horrors of Tzeentch, and Minotaurs.

JSK-Fox wrote:As much as I like some parts, the only really good part, in all honesty, is the scythe. I love that scythe. Everything else is overall, meh. It doesn't help that the thread on the base left me with a bad taste in the mouth over Ex Illis.

Ditto. I'm sorta meh on the models, too. This one looks awful with the blue paintjob. The red one version is significantly better. Overall the design is missing something. Whatever I think of the models, that other thread turned me off completely. I don't care for shills.

Despite it being a plastic kit, by the number of examples shown, I can see what I always feared about Ex Illis models...

A complete lack of customisation options.

It looked a lot more awesome when I saw it at a distance and thought it had an ordinary (if demonic) head. Now that I see close-ups, hey another major miss on this front. Kudos to anyone who converts the crap out it though. Wonder how much it's gonna go for.

Mebbe hack that head off and graft on a.........hell, mebbe a bloodthirster?

This thing actually comes as a multi-part model on a hard-plastic sprue. In spite of knowing Ex Illis was usually plastic, I had the assumption that this thing would be resin/metal. It has some great conversion potential as even a Great Unclean One provided the price is right. How much would it cost for a monster whose scythe blade alone is three times the height of a human?

I'm getting some of their Priest models, so hopefully they'll be easy to convert as well.

Seeing the normal boxed prices of Ex Illis I'd imagine this kit to be quite pricey... I have mixed feelings about the sculpt itself... it's something that I wouldnt buy but wouldnt throw away...

cucritow wrote:Here's a pict they have posted on their wiki, showing much more details.

The "face" is horrible, no focal point to the model, and not "coherent" with itself or the rest of the model.

There's no coiled dynamic tension in the body to match the arms. It's a poor mix of static and active.

And it appears the sculptors have no idea how a scythe / warscythe looks (or works). (GW is guilty here, too!)

The belly sewer gate is just silly. The monster is a hollow shell?

Not impressed, but as others note, possible basis for (heavy) conversion.

Hack that scythe apart and I'd put it on a Bloodthirster. I'd throw the majority of the rest of it away. It just looks to stupidly unreal to be appealing, and the hair on the hooves makes me want to kill something.

OOOoooo, this is my 750th post!

I pre-ordered mine for $40
I believe msrp is $50

Not liking it. Ugly model, and not Ugly in a cool way. The individual elements don't work together well.

Admittedly, a gracious price compared to something of comperable size from FW. Literally a fraction. But............man, I just don't see it.

I would have to hack off the entire maw/head and find something to put in place. Prolly end up re-sculpting so much just to get it to be something I could put on the table top and not snigger at.

Too much time and money to go into it to bother. Yeah, even at that price, it seems like too much money. Guess that shows my value of the model from what I have seen to be just that low.

Pity, too. It was really starting to look a lot better in that red paint job. But there is just still way too much that needs to go on to make it worth anything game wise.

Meh.

As others have already noted, some elements on it are good (I like the scythe's look, and I like the armor) but the "face" is awful and so is the belly.

What a canvas for greenstuff'd chaos daemons!

JohnHwangDD wrote:<snip>

The "face" is horrible, no focal point to the model, and not "coherent" with itself or the rest of the model.

There's no coiled dynamic tension in the body to match the arms. It's a poor mix of static and active.

And it appears the sculptors have no idea how a scythe / warscythe looks (or works). (GW is guilty here, too!)

The belly sewer gate is just silly. The monster is a hollow shell?

Not impressed, but as others note, possible basis for (heavy) conversion.

While I recognize that all of the complaints here boil down to "I don't like it, because I don't", the bolded one seems a particularly odd complaint. The notion of diabolic beings having the souls of the damned/the whole of the damned be within them is scarcely novel, and it's clearly what they are going for here. It's a long standing, theologically poignant idea, so, yes, it would appear that "The monster is a hollow shell", that would, in fact, be the point.

Seriously, it's very clear that this model is a reference to a tradition that's centuries old (it could have walked straight out of Bosch's The Garden of Earthly Delights, which was painted in the fifteenth century). It's like having someone present a Prius to a crowd, and hearing people complain that it won't win any speed records. Is it a legitimate observation? Sure, but it missed the point of the endeavor.

By the by, lest there be any confusion, I don't like this model all that much, and I don't like it, because I don't like it.

As a less serious note: the lack of a second handle means "the sculptors have no idea how a scythe / warscythe looks (or works)"? If the two models are to anything like scale, then the scythe must be like 30+ feet long. The lack of a second handle seems scarcely the article that would draw ire. The three-fingered, face-nosed deamon the size of a brownstone would, one would suspect, sell the notion that this is operating according to something other then the rules of the medieval 4H club.

Buzzsaw wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:And it appears the sculptors have no idea how a scythe / warscythe looks (or works). (GW is guilty here, too!)

The belly sewer gate is just silly. The monster is a hollow shell?

The notion of diabolic beings having the souls of the damned/the whole of the damned be within them is scarcely novel, and it's clearly what they are going for here. It's a long standing, theologically poignant idea, so, yes, it would appear that "The monster is a hollow shell", that would, in fact, be the point.

As a less serious note: the lack of a second handle means "the sculptors have no idea how a scythe / warscythe looks (or works)"?

The three-fingered, face-nosed deamon the size of a brownstone would, one would suspect, sell the notion that this is operating according to something other then the rules of the medieval 4H club.

Having the Daemon be literally as hollow as the plastic it's made from is patently ridiculous, and as amateurishly handled as humanly imaginable. The various GW conversions with faces / hands literally coming out of the skin / body of the Daemon are far more effective at driving the point home, instead of using a sewer grate / door

I've seen Bosch, and this no Bosch. Bringing it up is a cop-out.

Noting it's not real is likewise a cop-out. We *know* it's not real, but clumsily-executed details like the belly and scythe make the model more cartoon and parody than anything else.

Buzzsaw: You make some good points about daemonic monsters having the souls of the damned within them (there is even some of this worked into 40k, albeit reversed in that the daemons are within something else), however those references are not necc. as clear to Joe Wargamer as they may be to you. Not all of us have the background to make such connections. Not all of us would be even remotely interested in obtaining that background. Point being, that if this was indeed the point of the creature, maybe it was a bit oblique to the general background of it's intended audience for said audience to appreciate it? There's missing the point; and then there is missing your intended audience.

lol@"medieval 4H club", good shooting sir!

mikhaila wrote:Not liking it. Ugly model, and not Ugly in a cool way. The individual elements don't work together well.

This got me thinking...

Is that a bad thing, it being ugly, but "not Ugly in a cool way"? I hadn't really thought about it, but from an artistic point of view, must things always be "cool"?

Like I referenced above, to me, the model has a quality very reminiscent of Hieronymus Bosch; but I don't think I would call any of his works "cool", and most I would call ugly. That's scarcely an indictment of him.

Now, of course, from a commercial standpoint, it may be that coolness is an inherently desired quality for retail sales, but that's secondary to what we're talking about here. But is there a market for a model of something that ought to be ugly by rights, and actually is ugly?

Suppose you collect firearms; if we look at an AK-47, most would agree it's ugly. But is it cool too? And if it isn't, does that impact on whatever artistic value it has?

I apologize, this is wandering off topic. It just got me thinking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:And it appears the sculptors have no idea how a scythe / warscythe looks (or works). (GW is guilty here, too!)

The belly sewer gate is just silly. The monster is a hollow shell?

The notion of diabolic beings having the souls of the damned/the whole of the damned be within them is scarcely novel, and it's clearly what they are going for here. It's a long standing, theologically poignant idea, so, yes, it would appear that "The monster is a hollow shell", that would, in fact, be the point.

As a less serious note: the lack of a second handle means "the sculptors have no idea how a scythe / warscythe looks (or works)"?

The three-fingered, face-nosed deamon the size of a brownstone would, one would suspect, sell the notion that this is operating according to something other then the rules of the medieval 4H club.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Having the Daemon be literally as hollow as the plastic it's made from is patently ridiculous,

Why?

JohnHwangDD wrote:and as amateurishly handled as humanly imaginable.

How?

JohnHwangDD wrote:The various GW conversions with faces / hands literally coming out of the skin / body of the Daemon are far more effective at driving the point home, instead of using a sewer grate / door

In what way?

JohnHwangDD wrote:I've seen Bosch, and this no Bosch. Bringing it up is a cop-out.

First, I pointed out that this was "a long standing, theologically poignant idea" and pointed to Bosch as an exemplar of that ideal. That said, how is it a "cop-out" to bring up what, at first glance, certainly seems to be the motif they are referencing? Are you denying that that could be what they are going for? Like I said, you seem to be complaining about the Prius' top speed...

This reaction is frankly far more interesting to me then the actual model, almost as if it's imperative that the model be seen as not only ugly, but wrong. "patently ridiculous", "as amateurishly handled as humanly imaginable", "more cartoon and parody "...

Like I said, the objections are all boiling down to "I don't like it because I don't like it", but this is impressive.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Noting it's not real is likewise a cop-out. We *know* it's not real, but clumsily-executed details like the belly and scythe make the model more cartoon and parody than anything else.

grizgrin wrote:Buzzsaw: You make some good points about daemonic monsters having the souls of the damned within them (there is even some of this worked into 40k, albeit reversed in that the daemons are within something else), however those references are not necc. as clear to Joe Wargamer as they may be to you. Not all of us have the background to make such connections. Not all of us would be even remotely interested in obtaining that background. Point being, that if this was indeed the point of the creature, maybe it was a bit oblique to the general background of it's intended audience for said audience to appreciate it? There's missing the point; and then there is missing your intended audience.

lol@"medieval 4H club", good shooting sir!

What's fascinating here, is that griz is failing the model for precisely the opposite of one of the failing noted above: seriously, do a google image search of scythes, and the popular conception is in agreement with the model. If, on the other hand, one is obsessed with medieval farm implements, the lack of a second handle at the end of the main handle drives one to distraction.

Perhaps this model should be called Ceasar, for it seems to be all things to all men?

Nah, I fail the model in greatest part due to that damned (pun intended) head and the feth ton of work I would have to do to be able to fix it to my tastes. The quote you have me on right there is just musings on your observations.

"more cartoon and parody "

I'm confused, I didn't think this was a thread about GW daemons.

I'm not a big fan of the Ex Illis demon myself, but it's still scarier/more disturbing than this:

I rather like the plastic demon prince. What's wrong with it?

Buzzsaw wrote:Is that a bad thing, it being ugly, but "not Ugly in a cool way"? I hadn't really thought about it, but from an artistic point of view, must things always be "cool"?

Suppose you collect firearms; if we look at an AK-47, most would agree it's ugly. But is it cool too? And if it isn't, does that impact on whatever artistic value it has?

I would not agree. But even if you do, the AK-47 is ugly because it is utilitarian, like the ISO Standard Human Spaceship, which has its own aesthetic appeal. This has been made ugly by making it less utilitarian, which just makes it .

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Its pointless to debate each others tastes, especially with people who have stated they would bash anything ex-illis at every chance they get.

The model seemed to be very well received at the con. So much so, that they began taking pre-orders, even though it was initially not part of the plan. Maybe something gets lost in the photo vs seeing it in person?

It looks like a graphic from a cheap computer game, particularly the hooves.

A conversion possibility is to cut off the head with the horns coming out of the eyes and either leave smooth or add one or more eyes.

The prison whatsit needs to be blended into the body more too.

Done better with smaller miniatures by GW (Forgeworld demons), Rackham (Flesh Golem, Baal) of Helldorado (Flayed Ones).

And they score over this model for several reasons:

Coherence: the thing is many parts but not a whole, while other minis tell a story this one looks like a toy shop/bits box accident.

Execution: as others mentioned the execution is lackluster with the texture not fitting at the seems or the belly-cage not being a cave in the miniature but the whole hollow monster.

Scaling: It looks like a 3-up but not like a miniature that's actually supposed to be sold in this size. What turns out right on a 3-up when scaled down just looks wrong on this one.

All in all a nice idea, but it really lacks in execution.

MadNes wrote:Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Its pointless to debate each others tastes, especially with people who have stated they would bash anything ex-illis at every chance they get.

The model seemed to be very well received at the con. So much so, that they began taking pre-orders, even though it was initially not part of the plan. Maybe something gets lost in the photo vs seeing it in person?

Pintless to debate tastes? I dont think so. I think that an open-minded consideration of someone elses viewpoints, even in something as subjective as taste, can lead at least to exposure to ideas and thoughts you might not necc. have come up with on your own. That in of itself makes it a worthwhile endeavor. Now ARGUING tastes; yeah there's an exercise in futility.

IMHO I think the model looks cheap!

I think that model would be great a a tzneetch critter - with some greenstuff blending and a wild but coherent color scheme. The only thing that would really give me trouble would be the mouth and ear - I would probably get rid of those to emphasize the small face with horn eyes.

Duncan_Idaho wrote:Coherence: the thing is many parts but not a whole, while other minis tell a story this one looks like a toy shop/bits box accident.

I sincerely laughed my off. That was a good way of saying it, and I wholeheartedly agree.

You know, it kinda looks like the cookie monster went through the warp for 25 years and got out by a warp portal into the Ex Illis range.

Noisy_Marine wrote:I rather like the plastic demon prince. What's wrong with it?

Listen, I'm not crazy about the Ex Illis demon, but I'm not going to agree that the GWS Demon prince exactly trumps it. Going with the version that has an image posted (I rather like the red, 40k themed one) - the face sculpt is terrible, the horns look dumb pointing up like that, it is of very limited posability, it has no sense of menace or dynamism, I don't really like how the wing-arms look, and the chest-carved chaos star? Dubious.

I've considered buying the model because I do so like the red one, though. The alternate builds are terrible, imo.