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.
Azazelx -
Yeah, that's kinda my point.. it's really hard to know what to expect right now. We can suppose this company or that company will or won't do that but it really is a new age. Hell, I could bang out a gnoll in zbrush and next week it's a model. I don't know anything about making that into a retail ready kit but it shows that just like that.. bam.. we have whatever. I know that's not plastic tooling for a multipart kit but it also isn't that far off either in the grand scheme.
On the tone.. yeah.. I added it after the fact and didn't use emoticons and all that.. seriously though, it's funny when you think about it.. We get worked up about little non-important BS details.. then it goes up on CMoN (people still do that right?) and it looks like it's been dunked and drybrushed. To me that's like going to a Chinese restaurant and getting upset about your fried rice having salt or something.. then smothering it in soy sauce.. I dunno.. I try to find things to laugh about in everything..
Well, the tooling is a pretty big hurdle. Look at the drama and angst that both Shieldwolf and Tre' Manor (Red Box) are going through trying to produce plastics. Fantasy plastics seem to be a bit of a harder niche when compared to historicals these days - the Perrys and Warlord are both going gangbusters right now.
On the tone.. well I didn't take it personally personally, because I consider myself to be quite a decent painter, but I interact with a lot of other hobbyists on that very side of the hobby between the P&M and Wordpress blogs, and to a person they're good guys and girls who do their best and do care about the sculpts they work on - so without the joking tone being obvious it felt like you were gaking on them for no real reason.
-iPaint- wrote: Not sure where everyone is seeing cartoony for the soldiers....they look on par with offerings from Gripping Beast and Fireforge. And when painted in less-gaudy colors, I think they turn out ok.
Spoiler:
A few of the cultist heads are a bit exaggerated, though, and I've refrained from using them for mine. But the rest of the kit is actually pretty nice, and the details are improved from the soldier kit.
I'll postpone my judgement on the gnolls until I have plastic in hand. Often times, painted 3-ups have a tendency to misrepresent the plastic model at actual size.
~iPaint
To look at it another way, compare the Frostgrave model's hyena bits to the hyenas from the Lion King:
Heavily stylized, but you know they are hyenas instantly. All the characteristics that trigger "hyena" in our brains are there. When looking at the Frostgrave gnolls, honestly if they showed the model without saying what it was "gnoll" might not be my first guess. The digitigrade legs help, but that face could be simian or any other combination of animal and man done poorly. Or a goblin.
This is a great post. There is nothing hyena like about them. Honestly, they look more like goblinoid mice men. I got boxes of both the soldiers and cultists, and I regret buying the soldiers.
I hate to call out the sculptor, but honestly what I really want is a plastic kit from a small shop not done by Bob Naismith. The sculpts don't even look like he looked at any reference images of hyenas at all. The ears are so clearly the wrong shape it is painful. Little details like that make a big difference on how a model reads visually. I have bought a ton of fireforge, shieldwolf, mantic, and frostgrave plastics, and I am just ready to give somebody else a shot at making sculpts that don't fulfill my expectations.
I will say that the frostgrave cultists are some of Bob's finest work, and really a great kit. I also like most of the fireforge stuff, and the shieldwolf orcs, etc. But I wonder what they could have looked like if the manufacturers had ponied up and paid for somebody with some more classical sculpture training. There is a lot of talent out there.
2016/02/27 06:20:58
Subject: Re:Frostgrave - Plastic Gnolls in July p.31
Actually.. I think he looked at reference for hyenas.. maybe people shouldn't look at Disney hyenas before passing down judgement?
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also.. all the people saying they needed longer slender snouts.. maybe you're thinking of dogs or wolves or something.. which.. hyenas are not..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 06:23:38
MLaw wrote: Actually.. I think he looked at reference for hyenas.. maybe people shouldn't look at Disney hyenas before passing down judgement?
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also.. all the people saying they needed longer slender snouts.. maybe you're thinking of dogs or wolves or something.. which.. hyenas are not..
Start with just the ears, do the ones on the sculpts shown look anything like the images you just posted? Honestly? If your answer is yes we literally perceive geometry different.
That is OK, to each their own etc. But to my eyes, those images are just painful reminders of what might have been.
2016/02/27 08:39:03
Subject: Re:Frostgrave - Plastic Gnolls in July p.31
Between Frostgrave, Otherworld, and reaper gnolls, I would actually say Frost grave comes the closest to proper ear shape. lol I find the frost grave gnolls have more hyena looking faces, witch is probably why i like them so much.
Edit:Off topic but.... I just noticed. Reaper Makes actual Hyena minatures, and they look nothing like actual hyenas lol The faces are just... wrong.... They match reaper's gnolls, but when brought back to hyena it made me realize how divergent the reaper stuff is from the animals that inspired the monsters.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/02/27 08:46:45
2016/02/27 15:38:56
Subject: Re:Frostgrave - Plastic Gnolls in July p.31
MLaw wrote:Actually.. I think he looked at reference for hyenas.. maybe people shouldn't look at Disney hyenas before passing down judgement?
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also.. all the people saying they needed longer slender snouts.. maybe you're thinking of dogs or wolves or something.. which.. hyenas are not..
I'll quote what I said elsewhere, about the first previewed pic:
I think the hands of the plastic mini are a just a wee bit stiff-looking; I think it could've used claws on it's feet instead of hooves; and I wish people didn't assume 'digitigrade' meant 'walking along with legs folded up'. But all that's small potatoes. I could accept all that. The main problem in my opinion, the thing that reminds me of those old, bad skaven, is the head. That whole, big, round, peg-toothed muppet mouth. What I mean is, it's apparently snarling so hard that it's showing it's gums all the way round, but all of the round muzzle, and lips, look too even and as flat as Bangladesh. It's some kind of uncanny valley effect that really does remind me of fake teeth and things stuck in a sock puppet's unexpressive mouth. I imagine it's based on photos like this, but even there you can see how the lips, muzzle, and even the nose are pulled right up and wrinkled, and the corners of the mouth pulled away from the tooth rows. (And also subtly pulled upwards) And I have to focus on that bit because I'm not sure what's going on with the rest of the head.
Gallahad wrote:I hate to call out the sculptor, but honestly what I really want is a plastic kit from a small shop not done by Bob Naismith.
I'm glad you said it first. Some gamers and shop owners alike regard a few oldschool sculptors as the be-all end-all of mini sculpting, no questions asked. Best I can think is that they're competent, and have extensive back-catalogues, and that's about it. I agree that the first couple of Frostgrave kits are pretty nice, but I've thought Bob wasn't averse to a bit of phoning-in since the first 6mm releases for Dark Realm Miniatures.
adamsouza wrote:Compared to these bad boys, the Frostgrave ones look magnificent
Spoiler:
That might not be saying much...
scarletsquig wrote:It is refreshing to see digitigrade legs done properly, the otherworld sculpt is an example of them done badly.
Well, yes, the Otherworld gnoll has bad examples of digitigrade legs - because they're plantigrade.
And like I said, I don't think the Frostgrave legs are good examples of digitigrade legs either, because they have the same flaw as so many digitigrade fantasy minis, and double the leg over at the knee. The point of digitigrade legs is to lengthen the leg and the stride. Point me out some photos of digitigrade animals trotting along with their heels up to their backsides and their knees almost scraping the ground.
Wehrkind wrote:To look at it another way, compare the Frostgrave model's hyena bits to the hyenas from the Lion King:
Heavily stylized, but you know they are hyenas instantly. All the characteristics that trigger "hyena" in our brains are there. When looking at the Frostgrave gnolls, honestly if they showed the model without saying what it was "gnoll" might not be my first guess. The digitigrade legs help, but that face could be simian or any other combination of animal and man done poorly. Or a goblin.
Yup. The Disney studios have a history of researching the heck out of the species that featured in their animated films, bringing live reference in from the thirties up 'til said lion film, at the least. Whatever thoughts or feelings pop into your head with the word 'Disney', their animators earned their chops. And knew 'em.
It's a bit different for starving mini sculptors working out of a room in their house rather than in a huge, wealthy corporation (believe me, I know) but it's not completely impossible, especially with the grand inventions of Google Images and streaming video, as MLaw has shown us. It just takes a little care and attention to detail. And maybe a book or two on the subject.
TheAuldGrump wrote:I am in a somewhat different camp - the one that thinks that the models do not look as good as the box art, but will probably be 'good enough for mooks'.
Sometimes... 'good enough' is good enough.
Aye. Twenty gnolls for twenty pounds is good enough. But I'm already wondering if someone might pull a Chapterhouse and produce alternate heads.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:They didn't part ways with GW till just a few years ago, when they finished the last of their sculpts for The Hobbit trilogy. Michael lost his arm in 1996, two decades ago.
And he can still sculpt like a maniac. I hate that guy.
(I found myself standing next to him at a game table at Salute, a couple of years ago. I had a private, starstruck fanboy moment...)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 16:58:20
MLaw wrote: Actually.. I think he looked at reference for hyenas.. maybe people shouldn't look at Disney hyenas before passing down judgement?
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also.. all the people saying they needed longer slender snouts.. maybe you're thinking of dogs or wolves or something.. which.. hyenas are not..
You might be misreading my post. The Disney hyenas were an example of how stylization can be done correctly, not as an example of what a wild hyena actually looks like. The problem with the FG gnoll snouts is that they are rounded like a gorilla/chimp, not longer and rectangular like a hyena. Compare these two skulls:
Now it is a little hard to see on the bottom pic, but the top pic makes roughly an equilateral triangle from the end of the snout to the outside of the eye sockets, and the bottom doesn't. The top skulls also have the eyes outside the line of the snout, while the bottom photo has the eyes nearly touching in the middle. The top of course is a picture of two hyena skulls, the bottom a gorilla. I think the gnolls shown in the sculpt have heads shaped more like the gorilla skull, while those in the art work look a look more like the top picture.
As to other pictures of hyenas, I think this one sums up most of what people associate with them:
Note the slope from hind legs to shoulder, going up, then the downward slop from shoulders to back of the head. To me, that says hyena, as it is a rather strange shape, and one that doesn't show up in any of the animals humans usually hang out with other than some of the more exotic cattle. (Turns out bears also have that shape, just you can't see it due to the hair.) Note also the fairly narrow muzzle instead of the broad, heavily lipped face of a gorilla (or the FG gnolls). Also, that funny little mohawk of hair down the spine. Now, I am not trying to claim that my perception of 'hyenaness' is the end all be all, but I think it is fair to say that people define things as 'hyena' due to a few specific characteristics (and importantly not looking like dogs, cats or humans) and the Frost Grave models miss a lot of those characteristics while the artwork shown for the set do not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 17:19:03
This articulate thread on hyena proportions and aesthetics, capped by Wehrkind's sublimely reasoned post above, is a prime example of why I love this forum.
That is not sarcasm.
Dakkadakka: Bringing wargamers together, one smile at a time.™
2016/02/27 18:00:30
Subject: Re:Frostgrave - Plastic Gnolls in July p.31
Any company that bothers to do even a modicum of market research (i.e. not GW) will know that there is a demand for plastic Gnoll kits but take notice of the vocal criticism of the Frost Grave kit and take steps to address those criticisms.
I'm honestly guessing that Frostgrave chose Gnolls over Orc or Goblins and such, to be different, and sell a model that there isn't any competition for. In 30+ years of gaming I haven't seen a multipart plastic Gnoll kit, from anyone. They are essentially creating a demand for them by writing rules that encourage their use in sizable numbers.
Outside of that, I'm not sure where you are seeing a "demand" for them. Sure that are probably a lot of us that will by them because there has never been a way to grab cheap Gnolls before, but there isn's a tabletop game where there has been a need for many Gnolls before.
Anyone can critisize, and designs by committee, when that committee is made up of random denizens of the net, never make everyone happy.
They chose an art direction and went with it. If you don't like it, that doesn't mean they were wrong, it just means you don't like it.
Despite the vocal minority that dislike it, I'd be willing to wager they still Nickstarter it, without changes, and it will sell well.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/27 18:54:11
adamsouza wrote: Anyone can critisize, and designs by committee, when that committee is made up of random denizens of the net, never make everyone happy.
Design by committee, is one thing. Being satisfied with creaky design or execution (from about twenty years ago), and ignoring the resulting dissatisfaction as 'internet noise' is another. You might not be able to please all of the people all of the time, but it's daft to assume that means you shouldn't try to please anybody.
it will sell well.
It could've sold even better. A lot of people got themselves all excited by the box art, then said 'erm, no thanks' when the actual sculpts rolled around. You call them the vocal minority. Do you have much proof of that? Are they that unrepresentative of gamers? Or do you pull a GW and say 'the Frostgrave gnoll market is people who buy Frostgrave miniatures'?
Edithae's right. This topic's inspired a lot of interest in gnoll minis, and not all of it regarding Frostgrave gnolls. But rather than a 'committee' pulling in all different directions to create something awful*, I see two fairly distinct camps: the people who are satisfied with the models, and the people who think they haven't reached their potential, and pretty much agree on a small set of straightforward improvements. The one thing I disagree with, the really frustrating thing, is that I think this is going to be the only plastic gnoll kit for a long time. Especially if only Frostgrave is driving demand for large numbers of gnolls.
* I've seen this used to justify GW's rules-writing abilities, in that 'the community' couldn't possibly do it right, let alone do any better. After the living rule books of the specialist games and now 9th Age, it looks like it holds less and less water.
Anyone can critisize, and designs by committee, when that committee is made up of random denizens of the net, never make everyone happy.
They chose an art direction and went with it. If you don't like it, that doesn't mean they were wrong, it just means you don't like it.
Despite the vocal minority that dislike it, I'd be willing to wager they still Nickstarter it, without changes, and it will sell well.
I'm sure they'll still sell a decent amount. Many people will always buy whatever the models are to have the "correct" models regardless of quality or better options. We've seen that with so many different GW models through the years - even long after GW stopped running games and hosting tournaments, when the "official only" sticker had long peeled off. Northstar made a smart choice to go with gnolls, since they're relatively rare in miniature form and no plastic multipart HIPS kit exists - so people won't just use their citadel goblins or bones goblins or whatever - and they can also sell them to D&D players.
I know people like to crap on Bob Naismith, but he's turned out some really good stuff in recent years as well. (Mantic's Ghouls/Zombies for example) - so he's not a crap sculptor - just uneven. Is it possible that Northstar has the same kind of issue that Mantic have - in terms of a lack of strong art direction and/or the willingness to tell sculptors to fix it or do it again? Either that or being awesomestruck by things made for you.
Now I'm not actually here to piss on anyone's parade, and I intend to bow out of the thread by and large so I don't become "that guy" here to those who are happy with the models as shown - but I do have a couple of (final?) questions:
Do you think the people who are happy with the models as shown would have been at least just as happy if the models were a close match to the box art that we have been shown? - and would you have been at least just as happy?
One more question - I was thinking about what kinds of box set Northstar could follow these up with, and thought of kobolds. Now I'm not especially familiar with D&D, but I've noticed that "kobolds" seem to come in two distinct forms - reptilian ones and mammalian ones with "dog snouts". What's up with that?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 21:58:12
Man, I loved those early 2nd Ed AD&D kobolds (second from the left). I have a mess of the Ral Partha sculpts based on that, and they are still one of my favorite little swarmy things. The later versions look good, but almost too cute and charming. I dunno, I think I just imprinted on that one particular type of kobold and can't get used to the others I think I still have the 3 ring binder Monster Manual around here somewhere, I ought to make some copies and let my daughter color in some monsters.
So are they all officially retconned into draconic now, or are there two (related? unrelated?) "races" of kobolds?
My D&D Boardgame ones are clearly the ones from the far right, but my Bones ones are.. I dunno. 1 and 3 from that same picture? Also 2 looks like a Moria Goblin.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I think before the D&D 1st illustration gygax and co had described them as like smaller, weedier goblins so they even had yet another look,
I don't think there has ever been an explanation why they changed or any acknowledgement that they've been deliberately changed
So they're Klingons then.
LOL, Theo your mind is an amazing place, never change.-camkierhi 9/19/13
I cant believe theo is right.. damn. -comradepanda 9/26/13
None of the strange ideas we had about you involved your sexual orientation..........-Monkeytroll 12/10/13
I'd put you on ignore for that comment, if I could...Alpharius 2/11/14
Various Series' of Star Trek did try to explain/retcon that. I've forgotten exactly what it was, but I think that Worf, etc are the "natural" state of Klingon-ness, while a virus changed their foreheads during the TOS-era.
There was a DS9 episode where they went back in time and when asked about Klingon appearance Worf says that they don't like to talk about it with outsiders. I think they should have left it there, honestly.
Then there was a thing in Enterprise where it turns out it was due to a virus created in an attempt to make Khan-esque super soldiers.
Yanno.. this gnoll discussion started off with "Gnolls awesome" then a couple of very vocal people decided none of us were allowed to be excited about this anymore and it's kinda gone to crap since that point.
As to what fantasy kits to see from them next? Does it matter? We'll be told that whatever it is, it's rubbish so even if we like it we shouldn't buy it because it's not a really good Tre Manor sculpt. *sigh*
Multipart Kobolds might be a bit on the tedious side. I'd personally just stick with the Bones Kobolds and hope Northstar does D&Dish Lizardmen or Sahuagin types.
plastictrees wrote: So...people had differing opinions in a News and Rumours thread?
No one's telling anyone what to do, don't be such a drama queen.
No but the conversation switched from commenting on the models to commenting on other people's opinions on the models. If I like them, I'd like to be able to say so without 3 people telling me how my opinion is wrong.
I was quite excited about the Gnoll announcement, but those models... eh. I'll buy them, becasue OF COURSE I WILL BUY PLASTIC GNOLLS DUH, but I am disappointed at the missed opportunity. Still, we will see what the final models look like.
Some gamers and shop owners alike regard a few oldschool sculptors as the be-all end-all of mini sculpting, no questions asked. Best I can think is that they're competent, and have extensive back-catalogues, and that's about it. I agree that the first couple of Frostgrave kits are pretty nice, but I've thought Bob wasn't averse to a bit of phoning-in since the first 6mm releases for Dark Realm Miniatures.
I think I still have the 3 ring binder Monster Manual around here somewhere, I ought to make some copies and let my daughter color in some monsters.
