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.

To be honest, I always thought those GW dragons look utterly ridiculous and I think the only reason more people don't think so is because they've grown up with dragon minis that look like that, even a lot of the Bones dragons are pretty similar.

The body is far too long and thin, it's like a sausage dog or a centipede and don't even get me started on the giant clown hands. If it wasn't reared up on it's back legs then it's proportions would look really stupid.

The mantic dragon is getting far too much stick imo, I actually like it, it's just a different style of dragon to the usual snake with legs and wings that most companies go for. When you take into account that it's also designed to be used in a boardgame, so doesn't have any sticking out bits at ground level so figures can properly surround it and touch it's base then it's a decent effort.

It's all opinions though, depends what you want your dragon to look like.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I would take the Mantic dragon over Asarnil any day.

I think that's a fine aesthetic choice to make. I don't care much for the GW serpentine dragons, but fat bodied dragons always throw a 1960s fantasy art vibe that I'd rather start looking for rolling papers than my dice.

My point is simply that saying Mantic has to work within the confines of a base isn't enough of a reason for this model.

Ashardalon started his tabletop life in the D&D skirmish game, and the figures were very much limited in size to their base's footprint, for the very reason to combat base overhang. That's why he fits so good. Heck, most of that line was good about actually staying within the dimensions of the base (with a few exceptions naturally).

Could Bob ski, shoot, and run better than a Mantic dragon though? That's the important question.

 Polonius wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I would take the Mantic dragon over Asarnil any day.

I think that's a fine aesthetic choice to make. I don't care much for the GW serpentine dragons, but fat bodied dragons always throw a 1960s fantasy art vibe that I'd rather start looking for rolling papers than my dice.

My point is simply that saying Mantic has to work within the confines of a base isn't enough of a reason for this model.

I agree with your last point completely. As for the fat bellied dragon...that's not even in the top 3 problems I have with Mantic's model. Not saying it's not a problem, just that it has far worse in my opinion. I personally prefer the kinds of dragons painted by Bob Eggleton, Michael Whelan or Todd Lockwood. Some of the better Bones dragons fit that aesthetic perfectly, while the Mantic dragon does not. Schleich and papo have made some real winners, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
Ashardalon started his tabletop life in the D&D skirmish game, and the figures were very much limited in size to their base's footprint, for the very reason to combat base overhang. That's why he fits so good. Heck, most of that line was good about actually staying within the dimensions of the base (with a few exceptions naturally).

Could Bob ski, shoot, and run better than a Mantic dragon though? That's the important question.

Definitely ski. The others... Not so sure.

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
Ashardalon started his tabletop life in the D&D skirmish game, and the figures were very much limited in size to their base's footprint, for the very reason to combat base overhang. That's why he fits so good. Heck, most of that line was good about actually staying within the dimensions of the base (with a few exceptions naturally).

Could Bob ski, shoot, and run better than a Mantic dragon though? That's the important question.

Yeah, I have a few Chainmail, some of the DDM, and all but the Drizzt boardgame. The pieces aren't always the best sculpts (most are pretty good though) and they are designed intelligently. Mantic seems to lean that way. They're starting with function and then piling some form on top. The dragon was in a $25 add-on for DS. Let's not forget that it came with some tiles and actual 3d props like the plastic dungeon terrain and doors. That seems pretty fair. NOW.. the KoW version was $25 just for the dragon and a rider.. which to me there's no way this is worth that. So if we're talking about value.. it really depends on how you came across your dragon and hey, if people are happy with theirs, more power to them.
I think, given the era that we live in, the other options out there, Mantic isn't doing themselves any favor by not stepping up their game. That dragon is not some old existing model that is just kinda there and that's the way it's been. That's a new model. They're better than that, they just have to want to be.

I imagine the retail price will be closer to $40, like the greater obsidian golem. At that price, I just don't see it being anywhere near worth it.

 NTRabbit wrote:
I have a bunch of the dragons from Bones II, and not a one of them fits inside the 75mmx75mm base size bar the small Silver Dragon, and the very silly Verocithrax. All of the others have either a wing or a tail curling well outside the footprint.

The Pathfinder Red Dragon Bones figure also fits on a 3x3 base - though the tail needs a hot water bath to fit, the tail is thin enough, and flexible enough, that this is not a major operation.

The Auld Grump.

My Dungeon Saga pledge hasn't arrived yet, but I did get to have a poke and prod at the original Dungeon Saga dragon at the UK Games Expo back in May.

I liked him, though the phrase that came to mind was 'chunky' as opposed to fat. In any case, I had no problems with any of the minis I used that day.

The only kinda thing is, like the Dreadball Xtreme models and Fantasy Flight's Imperial Assault minis, the detail is shallower than what most 'proper' miniature wargamers would likely prefer. But then, that's just the material.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:
If only somebody could have predicted that the dragon would look like gak.

Oh. Wait.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

Broken record may be a better metaphor.

I've got the Reaper Bones Cinder dragon on a 50x50 base but I haven't figured out the best elf model that I have to put on top nor how to do it. Basing required some hot water bathing and bending though, it wasn't perfect out of the package.


Sad to see the Mantic dragon. I was hoping for better.

God! Those new mantic dragon and flying creature are very disappointing. The rest is just average. Sad to see that nothing really changed there.

 Ozymandias wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:
If only somebody could have predicted that the dragon would look like gak.

Oh. Wait.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

Broken record may be a better metaphor.

Hey-oh!

 Necros wrote:
Can't wait to get my stuff.. between this and my Blood Rage goodies I'm gonna OD on plasticrack

Also trying to figure out how to set up my blood rage vikings as an Armies of Men army for KOW.. troops are easy enough, but not sure how to handle the giants/ogre sized minis. Was looking over the list last night and there's an option for a warbeast or something that looks to be on a chariot sized base, so maybe I can do the blood rage giants in pairs of 2 on 1 base as a kind of proxy? or would that look silly?

You might be able to use the Varangur list to good effect; they have lots of monsters. Alternately, the orcs list might be good too for giants and ogres/trolls. Either way though, you are probably going to need more models, as one set of BR won't have enough infantry even if you use the ~2/3 rule of thumb for how many bodies in a unit.

Having now had the dragon model in my hands I can say it is actually pretty nice. Just really not a wargame piece but fits well into a dungeon crawler.

 Consul Scipio wrote:
I've got the Reaper Bones Cinder dragon on a 50x50 base but I haven't figured out the best elf model that I have to put on top nor how to do it. Basing required some hot water bathing and bending though, it wasn't perfect out of the package.


Sad to see the Mantic dragon. I was hoping for better.

Go the GW route and strap the model onto the dragons chest like the dreadknight babycarrier

I actually quite like the Dragon in Dungeon Saga, reminds me of that wonderful 80s animated film Flight of Dragons where most dragons looked like that. Plus there was a bit of science behind their flight

Flight of the Dragons is amazing.

For me, Dragons having wings was all the science I needed to explain their flight. That, and dragon magic..

 Wehrkind wrote:

 Necros wrote:
Can't wait to get my stuff.. between this and my Blood Rage goodies I'm gonna OD on plasticrack

Also trying to figure out how to set up my blood rage vikings as an Armies of Men army for KOW.. troops are easy enough, but not sure how to handle the giants/ogre sized minis. Was looking over the list last night and there's an option for a warbeast or something that looks to be on a chariot sized base, so maybe I can do the blood rage giants in pairs of 2 on 1 base as a kind of proxy? or would that look silly?

You might be able to use the Varangur list to good effect; they have lots of monsters. Alternately, the orcs list might be good too for giants and ogres/trolls. Either way though, you are probably going to need more models, as one set of BR won't have enough infantry even if you use the ~2/3 rule of thumb for how many bodies in a unit.

Is Varangur in the new book? I didn’t see that, but I was just kinda skimming. But yeah I was concerned about model count too. I was gonna buy a 2nd box when my FLGS gets it in stock. But, I was thinking I’d combine everyone with spears into a spearman unit, and another with all hand weapons. and do my units like that so there would be a bunch of guys different clan’s guys mixed together, and that would make for some more variety so they look better I was thinking I’d want to keep the clans together as separate units at first, but there’s only like 2 different poses so I was afraid that wouldn’t look as good. Either way as far as unit sizes go I figured I’d be using movement trays that are cut to the right size for the units and just sticking the round base minis on top, and also keep some dice for marking how many are in the unit or still alive. So I could start playing like that and add more minis in over time as I buy em.

 Ozymandias wrote:
Broken record may be a better metaphor.

At least my repeated criticisms of products a company is offering for sale are on topic, unlike this latest pity party about how much of a big meanie I am. You want me to stop saying Mantic's products are gak? Tell them to stop making gak products.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Ozymandias wrote:
Broken record may be a better metaphor.

At least my repeated criticisms of products a company is offering for sale are on topic, unlike this latest pity party about how much of a big meanie I am. You want me to stop saying Mantic's products are gak? Tell them to stop making gak products.

Yeah, like they listen , Next you'll say GW does market research

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Ozymandias wrote:
Broken record may be a better metaphor.

At least my repeated criticisms of products a company is offering for sale are on topic, unlike this latest pity party about how much of a big meanie I am. You want me to stop saying Mantic's products are gak? Tell them to stop making gak products.

I think you misunderstand. Nobody thinks your mean. Being mean can be funny, or righteous, or simply interesting. You are none of those things.

Your posts are boring, shrill, and repetitive. That doesn't make them mean. It makes them annoying.

there are plenty of interesting ways to critique a product. Why you insist on simply posting "Hey, another lousy mantic product!" is beyond me.

Kings of War question- with the whole 2/3 of a unit needing to be present, can I get away with a large infantry 6- figure unit represented as a 5 figure one? Would that be legal?

Trying to figure out the best way to divvy things up (as well as which size trays to purchase).

6 man units have a minimum actual model count of 4, so 5 is perfectly fine (as long as models have broadly similar bulk etc).

Wow, only 4?

I may have to rework my numbers now. I may be able to field a much higher point value army than I initially thought. Hmmm....

So I was checking out the new digital uncharted empires on their site, still not available until November 23. When will Mantic get more up to date with the conversion rates? It's just annoying to see £9.99=$19.99 when the last time the exchange rate was $2=£1 was when they all worked at GW, and we all enjoyed GW games and there was no competition. It really kills me from buying direct from them and at $25 retail even with a discount the shipping costs from people preordering it puts it back above my purchase price threshold, especially given the latest round of their editing.

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
Wow, only 4?

I may have to rework my numbers now. I may be able to field a much higher point value army than I initially thought. Hmmm....

That's not to say that 4 minis to a 6 man unit actually looks good - I find 5 to be the minimum that actually works, visually. But if you can make it work, go for it

decker_cky wrote:
Flight of the Dragons is amazing.

Truth

Re: The dragon: I actually really like it. For DS, its awesome. No bits that stick out, pretty imposing... I do think it could have been a bit slimmer, but I still enjoy the design.The elf rider though... not a fan.

 Polonius wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Ozymandias wrote:
Broken record may be a better metaphor.

At least my repeated criticisms of products a company is offering for sale are on topic, unlike this latest pity party about how much of a big meanie I am. You want me to stop saying Mantic's products are gak? Tell them to stop making gak products.

I think you misunderstand. Nobody thinks your mean. Being mean can be funny, or righteous, or simply interesting. You are none of those things.

Your posts are boring, shrill, and repetitive. That doesn't make them mean. It makes them annoying.

there are plenty of interesting ways to critique a product. Why you insist on simply posting "Hey, another lousy mantic product!" is beyond me.

Don't forget - when the Trident Realms are released I'm sure we'll see another batch of posts about how he came up with the idea many moons ago and our implementation OBVIOUSLY sucks because we didn't listen to his ideas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bolognesus wrote:

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
Wow, only 4?

I may have to rework my numbers now. I may be able to field a much higher point value army than I initially thought. Hmmm....

That's not to say that 4 minis to a 6 man unit actually looks good - I find 5 to be the minimum that actually works, visually. But if you can make it work, go for it

Yeah definitely 5. 4 looks really, really sparse. Infantry you can kinda get away with 50%+1 if you go all out on the scenic basing but with Large Infantry it looks way too sparse even with excessive scenery.