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.

Just means he fethed it up twice to me.

Nagash and Morley. The version of the story I knew was that the schedule was too tight and Morley asked for a bit more time to get round to a (from his POV) satisfying head. When he was denied, he rushed the goofy head sculpt we all know and love, expecting that it would be rejected, so that he would have the extra time he wanted. To his surprise, it wasn't rejected.

All in all I see GW model range from the 90s and it looks as much as a mixed bag as their 2010s range: a few excellent sculpts, a bunch of decent/okay-ish ones and then another bunch of pretty poor models. In any case 95% of them look incredibly amateurish if compared to what Rackham started releasing in the early 00s. Then again, Confrontation stuff from the early and mid 00s still craps over most of the stuff being currently released today.

Maybe, but he probably didn't lie about it.

On subject though, Games Workshop not crediting their creatives is a bad thing, but not a new thing, in the old catalogs if you was not working for GW the models were sculpted by "the citadel design team" I am guessing it limits knowledge for the company and who does what so people leaving them does not have much impact, once Jervis and Jes leave or retire there will be no familiar names to know they left and the fans will not wonder who of the old guard is left to man the fort.

I must point out its the contrary of what the boardgames world do and they started from obscurity to giving more credit to their creatives.

I also have to point out GW could equally use the names, for example they got the bloodball designer from mantic (hewit?) and he designed the last two boardgames, they could have used his fame to bolster sales, likewise they could ahve done it when they acquired sculptors from the dead R.

 notprop wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
the constant, endless and utterly banal dredging up of the Nagash figure to beat poor Gary Morley (one of the nicest human beings you could meet) about the head with

About this, the story I heard was that the old Nagash was not Gary's fault per se. He'd sculpted Nagash initially wearing a cowl, the mini got returned to him as sales wanted something visibly skeletal. As a contrast, Gary deliberately designed a ridiculous giant skeleton head thinking that when comparing the two they would release the sculpt as he had originally intended. Turns out he was wrong about that...

Regards to the OP I think it's pretty sad if they can't label sculptors, artists, rules writers. It's always been a small and personable industry with many of the creative types hopping between companies, and I think the vast majority are respectful and just want to genuinely follow someone's work (as you would with anyone that is good at something). This once again is creating a wall between the customer, the creative process and the more human elements of that business, I'm not in favour of it.

Of course blaming the bean counters also make s a damn good excuse too (poor old bean counters, when will they get a break!).

I've always been a big undead fan but couldn't ever bring myself to by this back in the day either, just too dammed ugly and had an off-puttingly big price tag too.

Over at BOLS...

notprop wrote:Just means he fethed it up twice to me.

Aye... the change of face doesn't really change anything else about it.

Pacific wrote:I'm sure most artistic types develop a thick skin if they've been anywhere near the internet.

A necessity, even if they haven't been near it. While not all criticism is constructive or worthwhile, you still need to be able to kill your darlings.

@vermis we all have our motives and reasons for why we enjoy the hobby. Nostalgia is as good a reason as any. Your comment sounds a little supercilious, remember the hobby is bigger than just your expectations of it.

"What I have been able to glean from Twitter is that Darren Latham did the Genestealer cultists"

If so, I'd buy him a beer. Damn good work!

Okay, so the Sixth Sense joke fell flat. Right then.

I know something about what other gamers expect, James. I know lots love new games and new minis - a glance at the news board here's enough to tell that. I know some gamers also get stuck on ropey old sculpting styles and game rules 'cos that's what they grew up on, and get prickly when new things and new critics turn up. FWIW I don't include your memories of old Nagash in that, but don't think I haven't seen examples where 'nostalgia' arguably keeps bits of this hobby stuck within old, unnecessary limitations. I could give you a laundry list, if you want, but I doubt it'd make any of us much happier.

 Vermis wrote:
Okay, so the Sixth Sense joke fell flat. Right then.

It's 17yrs old in fairness, I don't feel undermined for missing it

No, a laundry list of your gripes wouldn't be interesting to read thanks, as I'm sure you wouldn't be interested in mine. I have an unapologetic love of models that remind me of a time before half my family died (not in one big incident, just life). Doesn't mean I want those sculpts or rules now, I've still got them. There are a dozen things that limit the progress and development of the hobby. Nostalgia, if it's a problem, is a very minor one.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 notprop wrote:

Of course blaming the bean counters also make s a damn good excuse too (poor old bean counters, when will they get a break!).

I've always been a big undead fan but couldn't ever bring myself to by this back in the day either, just too dammed ugly and had an off-puttingly big price tag too.

Agreed, but, given said head exists



His story has some credibility.

It's not just the head, the proportions of the whole thing are dreadful with its arms sticking out haphazardly rather than any flow or pose in the figure. It's an ugly model whatever head you put on it.

I would like to know which sculptor or artist is responsible for the utterly terrible "skull acne" on AOS models!

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Spoiler:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 notprop wrote:

Of course blaming the bean counters also make s a damn good excuse too (poor old bean counters, when will they get a break!).

I've always been a big undead fan but couldn't ever bring myself to by this back in the day either, just too dammed ugly and had an off-puttingly big price tag too.

Agreed, but, given said head exists



His story has some credibility.

It's not just the head, the proportions of the whole thing are dreadful with its arms sticking out haphazardly rather than any flow or pose in the figure. It's an ugly model whatever head you put on it.

Exactly, and from this angle it looks like he has boob armor.

 Kirasu wrote:
I would like to know which sculptor or artist is responsible for the utterly terrible "skull acne" on AOS models!

Computer assisted sculpting - which allows the sculptor to Copy and Paste the skulls....

There are companies that do very good work using 3d modeling software - sometimes GW is even one of them.

The skulls-a-poppin... is not some of that very good work.

The Auld Grump - and they don't make a cream for that....

They probably stopped after certain writers started getting death threats due to their complete incompetence at both fluff and rules writing.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


There are companies that do very good work using 3d modeling software - sometimes GW is even one of them.

Isn't most of Forgeworld also CAD work these days? The problem seems to be whatever the needs of a box/sprue are in the context of a AoS or 40k unit. There is only so much they can put in a box and they want a certain amount of miniatures and additional bits which in turn combined with the amount of sprues in a specific box forces certain tradeoffs. Some elements just can't be made up of three or four overlapping bits and have to be one flowing/blobby bit so they have enough space for the bits where the details matter.

Forgeworld doesn't have this problem (but they have others) as their moulds can have undercuts and other features so their can get certain details in one chunk which would be a compound of five or six bits in plastic.

Mario wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


There are companies that do very good work using 3d modeling software - sometimes GW is even one of them.

Isn't most of Forgeworld also CAD work these days? The problem seems to be whatever the needs of a box/sprue are in the context of a AoS or 40k unit. There is only so much they can put in a box and they want a certain amount of miniatures and additional bits which in turn combined with the amount of sprues in a specific box forces certain tradeoffs. Some elements just can't be made up of three or four overlapping bits and have to be one flowing/blobby bit so they have enough space for the bits where the details matter.

Forgeworld doesn't have this problem (but they have others) as their moulds can have undercuts and other features so their can get certain details in one chunk which would be a compound of five or six bits in plastic.

But the problem can be palliated to a degree by proper alignment of the object - using Island of Blood as an example - the elves were very crisp, with very few examples of 'flowing/blobby bits', while the Skaven suffer from an overdose of the problem.

The 3d sculptor for the elves took the time to minimize the blobby, while the one handling the Skaven... didn't bother.

I was actually annoyed with how good the elves were....

*EDIT* So, the short answer is 'sometimes the sculptor is lazy.

The Auld Grump

From our armchairs outside the ivory towers, though, it's quite difficult to say which design shortcuts are the result of laziness, which are the result of time constraints, and which are the result of being forced to work as closely as possible to a specific concept design while being constrained by part count and assembly requirements.


It's not just down to the sculptor, particularly in a company the size of GW.

 Azreal13 wrote:
All that'll do is slow down their initial growth though, surely?

I mean, if John Smith opens his own studio tomorrow, I may have no clue who he is, because GW have anonymised all his work, but as soon as I hear "Hi, I'm John Smith, you may have heard of me from GW sculpts such as X,Y or Z" then that little road bump is passed, and if I was a fan of that work I'd likely start taking an interest.

It's like the whole Aelf, Oruk and Astra Militarum thing, it may solve some issues, but it doesn't seem to be particularly effective at solving the issue it seems to be aimed at. Unless there's some legally enforceable method of gagging an artist from discussing previous works they've made?

Shieldwolf's Shieldmaiden sculptors used to work for GW and were behind some of their unnamed plastic kits *cough*look at the size comparison silhouette*cough*. I suggested that Angelos name them and their previous work, and he said that he'd ask them and then perhaps do so. It then never happened and they weren't identified beyond having done work for the "largest fantasy miniatures gaming company", so I assume that GW have some sort of sculptor anonymiser going. Interestingly, this is another one of GW's foibles that Forge World do not follow.

insaniak wrote:From our armchairs outside the ivory towers, though, it's quite difficult to say which design shortcuts are the result of laziness, which are the result of time constraints, and which are the result of being forced to work as closely as possible to a specific concept design while being constrained by part count and assembly requirements.


It's not just down to the sculptor, particularly in a company the size of GW.

Definitely this. GW sculptors often work days off, bank holidays etc to meet deadlines. They are a hard working team.

Azazelx wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
All that'll do is slow down their initial growth though, surely?

I mean, if John Smith opens his own studio tomorrow, I may have no clue who he is, because GW have anonymised all his work, but as soon as I hear "Hi, I'm John Smith, you may have heard of me from GW sculpts such as X,Y or Z" then that little road bump is passed, and if I was a fan of that work I'd likely start taking an interest.

It's like the whole Aelf, Oruk and Astra Militarum thing, it may solve some issues, but it doesn't seem to be particularly effective at solving the issue it seems to be aimed at. Unless there's some legally enforceable method of gagging an artist from discussing previous works they've made?

Shieldwolf's Shieldmaiden sculptors used to work for GW and were behind some of their unnamed plastic kits *cough*look at the size comparison silhouette*cough*. I suggested that Angelos name them and their previous work, and he said that he'd ask them and then perhaps do so. It then never happened and they weren't identified beyond having done work for the "largest fantasy miniatures gaming company", so I assume that GW have some sort of sculptor anonymiser going. Interestingly, this is another one of GW's foibles that Forge World do not follow.

A lot of them will want to leave on good terms, and keep things that way, so that the door will still be open if they want to go back. I can't blame them for still toeing the line.

 notprop wrote:

About this, the story I heard was that the old Nagash was not Gary's fault per se. He'd sculpted Nagash initially wearing a cowl, the mini got returned to him as sales wanted something visibly skeletal. As a contrast, Gary deliberately designed a ridiculous giant skeleton head thinking that when comparing the two they would release the sculpt as he had originally intended. Turns out he was wrong about that...

I wonder. In all seriousness. If Ronnie Renton was in charge of the studio or approving such sculpts at the time?

 insaniak wrote:
From our armchairs outside the ivory towers, though, it's quite difficult to say which design shortcuts are the result of laziness, which are the result of time constraints, and which are the result of being forced to work as closely as possible to a specific concept design while being constrained by part count and assembly requirements.


It's not just down to the sculptor, particularly in a company the size of GW.

However, also from our armchairs, we can go 'that figure looks like crap'.

The elves were well designed.

The skaven... were not.

And given that the sculptor that did most of the skaven takes similar terrible looking shortcuts on other models... I am going to stick with 'lazy'.

The Auld Grump, sometimes it does come down to the sculptor.

 JamesY wrote:
Yeah but don't forget that people develop attachments to individuals whose work they enjoy. The Perry's, Rick and Alessio are good examples of customers following names. Mike Mcvey going to PP probably helped establish war machine in the UK (I'd left the hobby at that point, so I'm only speculating on that).

I think the creatives should be fully acknowledged for the work they do, but I can understand the reasons why. They need to stop that financial slide after all.

You would think the best way to stop such "slide" would be to treat your employees well so they stay with you for a long time and you always have a fairly large pool of "names" that your customer base is familiar with, but I suppose that requires expending some effort and money to please all parties, while anonymising your whole output is less good for customers and gak for artists but costs you as a company nothing(in terms of effort and money, at least, and in the short-term, but it's been a long time since anyone at GWHQ acknowledged the value of intangible assets like "goodwill" or "customer loyalty" or "happy and productive workforce").

 Yodhrin wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
Yeah but don't forget that people develop attachments to individuals whose work they enjoy. The Perry's, Rick and Alessio are good examples of customers following names. Mike Mcvey going to PP probably helped establish war machine in the UK (I'd left the hobby at that point, so I'm only speculating on that).

I think the creatives should be fully acknowledged for the work they do, but I can understand the reasons why. They need to stop that financial slide after all.

You would think the best way to stop such "slide" would be to treat your employees well so they stay with you for a long time and you always have a fairly large pool of "names" that your customer base is familiar with, but I suppose that requires expending some effort and money to please all parties, while anonymising your whole output is less good for customers and gak for artists but costs you as a company nothing(in terms of effort and money, at least, and in the short-term, but it's been a long time since anyone at GWHQ acknowledged the value of intangible assets like "goodwill" or "customer loyalty" or "happy and productive workforce").

Well, those names DID stay with GW for a long, long time...far longer than can be expected these days. And creative people are particularly prone to moving around a lot.

GW has managed to hold onto Jes G., who is almost certainly the most indispensible creative in that organization.

 gorgon wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 JamesY wrote:
Yeah but don't forget that people develop attachments to individuals whose work they enjoy. The Perry's, Rick and Alessio are good examples of customers following names. Mike Mcvey going to PP probably helped establish war machine in the UK (I'd left the hobby at that point, so I'm only speculating on that).

I think the creatives should be fully acknowledged for the work they do, but I can understand the reasons why. They need to stop that financial slide after all.

You would think the best way to stop such "slide" would be to treat your employees well so they stay with you for a long time and you always have a fairly large pool of "names" that your customer base is familiar with, but I suppose that requires expending some effort and money to please all parties, while anonymising your whole output is less good for customers and gak for artists but costs you as a company nothing(in terms of effort and money, at least, and in the short-term, but it's been a long time since anyone at GWHQ acknowledged the value of intangible assets like "goodwill" or "customer loyalty" or "happy and productive workforce").

Well, those names DID stay with GW for a long, long time...far longer than can be expected these days. And creative people are particularly prone to moving around a lot.

GW has managed to hold onto Jes G., who is almost certainly the most indispensible creative in that organization.

Well yes, they did, which was rather my point. Creatives may be more prone to restlessness than your average middle-management type, but in a situation where they have a steady income coming in they either have to have been with you so long as to be colossally bored, be especially flighty even for creative sorts, or you have to treat them like gak to get them to give that up. Working freelance to indulge your creative freedom sounds great until you're on week 3 of eating beans on toast & bananas so you can afford to heat your flat in the depths of winter - most people, even most creative people, will sublimate most of their own desires for a job with the security to avoid that kind of scenario, just not all of them.

Jes G not only benefits from a compensation package that most creatives would murder their mothers to get and which isn't even available to newer employees no matter how long and hard they work at GW, he gets to indulge his creativity as part of his work on a continual basis, a freedom I doubt many of the now anonymous CAD sculptors have very much of. The Perrys stuck with GW a lot longer than they otherwise would have because the company allowed them the flexibility to work on their own projects as well. Rick Priestly, judging by the interviews he's given, only moved on from GW when their shifting priorities left him with nothing to really do that he found rewarding.

Anonymising your creatives so that when they do leave it doesn't impact your business as much is treating the symptom, not the disease. The cure is to value your staff, afford them the credit they deserve, and allow them enough input to feel they contributed to the final product beyond simply translating a strict brief into a plastic toy kit, or at least allow them to indulge and profit from their own creativity on their own time, then they rarely want to leave in the first place and you don't merely avoid negative effects you continue to experience positive ones.

My hope for Aos was, and still is actually, that it would be an opportunity for the likes of Jes, Brian and Alex to flex their creative muscles and come up with something new. If I was a Gw designer, it would be the opportunity to really put my mark on something (As Jes did back in the day) that would make me want to stay.

Edit text removed. Nevermind.