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'm pretty sure I have a couple of them arriving in the next few weeks as I'm pretty sure I ended up going for the FoN army. If I'm having them as earth elementals then I definitely try and do something with the base to be more connected to the earth, so maybe maybe earth and roots entwined around the legs up to about the waist. That arms up pose looks it could work if you had him emerging from the ground? I don't know, I'll have to see the figure up close to really get a good idea what to do.

It will need some work though whatever I decide, as it's a bit too action figure for my taste at the moment. It does look a bit like something from those Skylanders toys.

Has anyone swapped out the heads of the normal rock golems (not the large one)? I love the models but am still searching for a suitable head swap, as those are the only things I don't like about the normal ones.

I'll be running them alongside this model from Rothand (Cronus Golem):


Honestly wouldn't mind swapping the head on it, either but that's a bit larger, and I'm hoping for the normal Mantic golems I can use some bit from a normal kit... but haven't come up with anything yet.

Would the head from the Reaper golem work? What look are you going for?

 judgedoug wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Were you a financial backer

No, but I take it I'm the only one who understands development processes.

Not sure why you keep defending Mantic when they release models that look notably worse than and different to their concept art. Particularly with useless snark like the Dune comment. It's an awful model, and the deviation from the concept art only hurts Mantic as it means discerning people (yeah, like me) won't buy their models based on concept art anymore. I'm not personally butthurt over this one since I didn't buy it. But if I had pre-paid for it, I'd be quite unhappy.

TLDR: Mantic need a full-time art director. As I said when the first KoW KS models started to show themselves.

from facebook

Mantic Games


4 mins ·
.

Right now we're working on customer service issues and massive dispatch operations. We know that there have been problems and we are working as hard as we can to get them resolved, but we also know that what we have now isn't good enough. Ronnie goes through what's happening and changing in the year to come in this blog post
https://manticblog.com/?p=14756&preview=true

 Azazelx wrote:

Not sure why you keep defending Mantic when they release models that look notably worse than and different to their concept art. Particularly with useless snark like the Dune comment. It's an awful model, and the deviation from the concept art only hurts Mantic as it means discerning people (yeah, like me) won't buy their models based on concept art anymore. I'm not personally butthurt over this one since I didn't buy it. But if I had pre-paid for it, I'd be quite unhappy.

TLDR: Mantic need a full-time art director. As I said when the first KoW KS models started to show themselves.

Sorry, but you're plain wrong if you think that your opinion of the model is universal. It's not awful, it's awesome, in my opinion, and plenty of people posting here and on the facebook groups agree with me.

It's also very objectively a close match to the second concept art, so you had plenty of time to lodge complaints, and you really have no leg to stand on when trying to suggest deviation.

The only people repeatedly demanding an art director are the people who don't like the current art direction, and want it to change to something else, so harp on that it has none when clearly it does.

The only model I wish was closer to the concept art is Hapoka. He ended up looking a bit cartoonish and goofy while his art makes him look tough and imposing. This is not game ending though as pretty much all the minis have the same aesthetics.

I was a backer who had to get a refund due to life issues on this. I have since found an all in pledge and got it cheaper than the kickstarter! The only major issue I see with the whole kickstarter is their resin quality. Several minis have massive air bubble issues and I have to green stuff a quarter inch hole at both the base of legendary Hapoka's staff head and the base of his staff.

maybe I should have waited for the metals...

You do know you could just get them replaced, right? Quality issues like that shouldnt really be a problem.

Everyone has an equal right to express their opinion, but that doesn't mean all opinions are equal. Opinions can be ill-informed, poorly worded, in poor taste, etc. That subjectivity is involved does nothing to undermine this basic truth, which in real life if not on internet forums, is widely accepted. I could say that in my opinion, 9/11 was a heroic act (as someone I know actually stated). I don't consider that opinion equally valid with mine, that 9/11 was a craven act of mass murder targeting defenseless victims. Miniature aesthetics aren't an extreme moral issue like that one, sure. But does anyone believe that all opinions are equally substantive, or conversely, equally insubstantial? Truly?

"My opinion is as good as yours, so we cancel each other out, so nobody's opinion matters, so don't act like yours does, so don't talk" is schoolyard thinking. These forums are here first and foremost so people can discuss and debate their opinions with each other. That's the point. Stating in a forum for opinions that an opinion is invalid because it's just an opinion is absurd.

In terms of reasoned debate, arguments aren't won by devaluing opinions, or by saying lots of people agree with one view or another (an advertising tactic.) Lots of people think Justin Bieber is a terrific singer. Lots of people think eating at McDonald's is fine for your health. Lots of people think that global warming is a myth. That's their opinion. There are music scholars and scientists with differing opinions who have better arguments to back up their opinions.

If you like the golem and want to defend it, you might instead talk about why you like it, or what qualities it has that make it a good model. If you make your argument well enough, your supposedly unimportant opinion may actually persuade others to look at the model differently.

Nicely said.

It's still a really cool mini

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Would the head from the Reaper golem work? What look are you going for?

Hmm, I'm not a huge fan of the head on that one, either

I think the head is the hardest part to get right on an earth elemental type model... will keep looking to see if I can find a good swap for my lesser obsidian golem heads.

try working through

http://www.randomplatypus.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1903

many, many elementals in a showcase, you may find a head (or a whole mini)

 NTRabbit wrote:

Sorry, but you're plain wrong if you think that your opinion of the model is universal. It's not awful, it's awesome, in my opinion, and plenty of people posting here and on the facebook groups agree with me.

It's also very objectively a close match to the second concept art, so you had plenty of time to lodge complaints, and you really have no leg to stand on when trying to suggest deviation.

The only people repeatedly demanding an art director are the people who don't like the current art direction, and want it to change to something else, so harp on that it has none when clearly it does.

This. On all counts.

 NTRabbit wrote:
It's still a really cool mini

It really, really isn't.

In respect to Vermonter's excellent point, I'll back up my opinion. The artwork is absurdly proportioned, yes, but the artist understood what he was doing. The legs were short, but very thick with identifiable muscles (not necessary for a stone statue, but visually more convincing). The actual model is like a kid's drawing of a doggie, or an Abrams remake of a classic sci fi movie; at first glance it shares all the important traits, but any investigation beyond the superficial quickly reveals an inept imitation by someone who doesn't really understand what makes the original thing work. The miniature golem's proportions are not informed exaggerations of a masculine physique that convey's strength or prowess. Even Rob Liefeld knew how to draw a hulking brute that didn't look like a Skylander. If the humongous V-shaped torso and tiny legs are supposed to enhance the physique, don't give him a head the size of his rib cage. A head that big compared to the body signifies a toddler. Stubby legs can add to an impression of power, but not if they are sickly thin and amorphous. That's Timmeh. This is not some new concept in artistic design. Even the Gremlins from the film have tiny legs, but no one stops the film over it because they look functional, and they are not supposed to be supporting tons of stone. the concept art didn't raise red flags because it was informed. The miniature itself is ignorant of the very rules it is supposed to be breaking. I could go on, but I doubt it would make any difference. You either see the miniature's huge, obvious flaws or you don't.

As a third party I do think the large golem is one of Mantic's weaker models, but I love the smaller ones

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
try working through

http://www.randomplatypus.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1903

many, many elementals in a showcase, you may find a head (or a whole mini)

Thanks for that! Some great conversion material in there

The smaller golems are pretty much the same concept done right.

I agree with Bob completely on this one. Like he said, it does exaggerated proportions without actually understanding what it's supposed to exaggerate. Technically it looks very amateurish. The concept art isn't necessarily my cup of tea, but it looks professional and well thought-out, basically the complete opposite of the sculpt. The golem RiTides posted is a perfect example of how to do exaggerated proportions (although it doesn't do the tiny legs thing).

 RiTides wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Would the head from the Reaper golem work? What look are you going for?

Hmm, I'm not a huge fan of the head on that one, either

I think the head is the hardest part to get right on an earth elemental type model... will keep looking to see if I can find a good swap for my lesser obsidian golem heads.

Based on the Cronus model you posted, would a hornless Chaos Warrior head with textured paint work?

 .Mikes. wrote:

 NTRabbit wrote:

Sorry, but you're plain wrong if you think that your opinion of the model is universal. It's not awful, it's awesome, in my opinion, and plenty of people posting here and on the facebook groups agree with me.
It's also very objectively a close match to the second concept art, so you had plenty of time to lodge complaints, and you really have no leg to stand on when trying to suggest deviation.
The only people repeatedly demanding an art director are the people who don't like the current art direction, and want it to change to something else, so harp on that it has none when clearly it does.

This. On all counts.

What an absolute surprise that the Australian chapter of the "Mantic can do no wrong" club posts a message not understanding what the phrase "objectively a close match" means. Perhaps the problem is you don't know what objectively means, because objectively these are not a close match. They're perhaps thematically a close match, but not objectively. Nuh-huh. Followed of course by a "me too" from the other one.



Note in the two comparison images above, I've normalised the sizes based on the arm and forearm size. This leave us with the concept art model being quite a bit larger than the final sculpt, with a small amount of increased size in the torso, and a significant difference in the size of the legs. To claim that the model is objectively a close match to the concept art is simply wrong. As demonstrated here by what grown-ups call evidence. Now if you want to argue that it's thematically a match, I might agree. If you want to argue that it's thematically a close match I might differ, but still be happy to let it go.

At no point did I state that my opinion of the model was universal. If your opinion is that it's even better than the concept art, then while I disagree, that's not the point I was making. Now if you, your friend Mike and all of the happy little elves in an echo chamber on Facebook love the model, that's fine. That's cool. Good for you, etc. I don't give a toss either way.

Thanks for playing.

If that mini is how that concept art turned out, and is considered good, I'm sure as hell cancelling my plans for more Kickstarter purchases.

 Vermonter wrote:

In terms of reasoned debate, arguments aren't won by devaluing opinions, or by saying lots of people agree with one view or another (an advertising tactic.)

Opinions have no place in a reasoned debate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azazelx wrote:


What an absolute surprise that the Australian chapter of the "Mantic can do no wrong" club posts a message not understanding what the phrase "objectively a close match" means. Perhaps the problem is you don't know what objectively means, because objectively these are not a close match. They're perhaps thematically a close match, but not objectively. Nuh-huh. Followed of course by a "me too" from the other one.



Note in the two comparison images above, I've normalised the sizes based on the arm and forearm size. This leave us with the concept art model being quite a bit larger than the final sculpt, with a small amount of increased size in the torso, and a significant difference in the size of the legs. To claim that the model is objectively a close match to the concept art is simply wrong. As demonstrated here by what grown-ups call evidence. Now if you want to argue that it's thematically a match, I might agree. If you want to argue that it's thematically a close match I might differ, but still be happy to let it go.

At no point did I state that my opinion of the model was universal. If your opinion is that it's even better than the concept art, then while I disagree, that's not the point I was making. Now if you, your friend Mike and all of the happy little elves in an echo chamber on Facebook love the model, that's fine. That's cool. Good for you, etc. I don't give a toss either way.

Thanks for playing.

Is there a reason why you're comparing concept art for one model to a picture of a different assembled model and then claiming they aren't a close match?

^ That's the point. That *is* the official concept art for that model, the one in the photo.

Crazy box is back for the year, now:

http://www.manticgames.com/mantic-shop/new/crazy-box.html

 scarletsquig wrote:
^ That's the point. That *is* the official concept art for that model, the one in the photo.

Isn't the official concept art this:



Found it on the Mantic blog back in July.

 infinite_array wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
^ That's the point. That *is* the official concept art for that model, the one in the photo.

Isn't the official concept art this:



Found it on the Mantic blog back in July.

That helps. What doesn't help is the photo where someone managed, unintentionally or not, to give it a pose that makes it look really dumb. I can put together figures from any company in a way that makes them look terrible.

 infinite_array wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
^ That's the point. That *is* the official concept art for that model, the one in the photo.

Isn't the official concept art this:



Found it on the Mantic blog back in July.

Now you're just letting facts get in the way of a good hissy fit

You don't see any difference in those legs compared to the concept?

 NTRabbit wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
^ That's the point. That *is* the official concept art for that model, the one in the photo.

Isn't the official concept art this:



Found it on the Mantic blog back in July.

Now you're just letting facts get in the way of a good hissy fit

You're right, the different head totally makes his argument about legs invalid.

I come here for the rumours then leave because of the bickering, surely this 'discussion' is not the best place in a N&R thread.

I think it's an objectively fine model. It looks like a huge walking earth/rock thing, which is what it's meant to be.

Does it match the concept art? Broadly, I guess.

Aesthetically, it's not embarrassing, but it's not great. The biggest problem isn't just that it's a weak model, but it competes with the reaper bones large earth elemental. It's a $7 model that's highly available and looks sharp.