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.

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm curious about the Dracoth - I like the beasts themselves as some sort of dragonspawn, but I don't like the armour and riders. I suppose they'll be stupid expensive so it doesn't matter, but do you guys think the armour can be removed? Also, they're pretty yooge, right? What size base are they on?

About the armors, they're not removable parts. So, unless you remove it all with a modelism knife and resculpt all the scales by hand, it's dead.

For the base, it's the same than the one of Lord Celestant on Dracoth in the Starter Box for AoS. It can easily cover an old rectangular base 50mmx100mm with the tail unfurled.

Yes, they're quite big. A bit more than usual Monstruous Cavalry (not talking about actual Monsters).

A good thing to see GW is more clever with the price of those. Two miniatures for 65$/55€. They didn't make the same mistake for Chaos Vanguard, when you "have to" take three character-size monstruous cavalry for a quite dissuasive price.

Thus you can better rationalize the purchase. Not saying it's cheap, far from it. Also, prices for books definitely changed, and that's good as well. Thus if you want to read more background, have some nice pictures inside and also a few rules to play, you can take that more easily instead of printing everything from the web (since it's not free as well, for a quality that may vary greatly).

About the Star Drake, well we'll see if the wings can be repositioned or not. I was looking for a giant lizard anyway - and I feel like that if you just remove the wings, it can be better looking.

After all, in a Fantasy World, you don't need to have wings to fly. Just use magic, magic solves everything.

Gotta say, credit where credit is due, these models are indeed awesome. The Draco-Guards are pretty awesome, although it looks like they're only 2 to a pack (and an expensive pack to boot) but I am tempted. The Mega-draco is just awesome. I get the feeling these are suppose to be the Stormcast equivallent of Archaeon and his Varanguards.

Hopefully the dragon has more than one build options. The wings are weird looking in these pics but maybe in person it will be better, or maybe two wing options...but doubtful

The almighty 360 should certainly help waylay worries about how the thing looks from all angles.

I wouldn't say no to an alternate build though.

The Dracoth are growing on me now that I've had a chance to check out all their angles. For some reason I'm digging the crossbow builds the best.

I may end up grabbing some spare Lord Celestants from the starter box to see how easy they'd be to convert- at least in regards to weapons.

 Barzam wrote:
No winged animal carries its wings like that when it's on the ground.

Carnikang wrote:
That and it's legs looks ugly.

Well, they look like they're based on real reptiles, if that's what you mean.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Take away the wings, switch the heads, and yeah, you would have a tomb kings model. The design, the pose, look very similar. Same sculptor?

Almost certainly Seb Perbett. The wibble in the lips is giving me pause, but I'm reasonably confident.

On that note, I'm mildly surprised that after 20+ years of the same old flappy-footed, gravel-crusted, rubber-skinned, fish-gape dragon with a couple of different poses and degrees of stretching, this one is getting short shrift. (I mean, 'hippo-mouthed'...!) Or maybe that's the reason...
I agree that the armour's not great and the pose looks a bit awkward, but let's hold back complete condemnation until we get a less awkward camera angle?

You mean the same camera angle giving people reason to gush over it? Seems strange it's ok to think somethings great over a shot but not terrible.

 Vermis wrote:

On that note, I'm mildly surprised that after 20+ years of the same old flappy-footed, gravel-crusted, rubber-skinned, fish-gape dragon with a couple of different poses and degrees of stretching, this one is getting short shrift

Different =\= better?

Joyboozer wrote:You mean the same camera angle giving people reason to gush over it? Seems strange it's ok to think somethings great over a shot but not terrible.

You must've missed this bit:

Vermis wrote:
I agree that... the pose looks a bit awkward, but let's hold back complete condemnation until we get a less awkward camera angle?

If a better look at the thing reveals that it is duff, then it's duff. But I'm reasonably sure it's not. A halfway closer look at the forelegs suggests to me that the shape and position of the leg armour (especially the weird roundy bits over the wrists) are throwing off my initial perception of the awkward pose. If you look at the position of the wrists and shoulders under the armour, it looks like a pretty standard, straight-legged, A-shaped, braced pose. I wish there was a bit more impression of weight on the forefeet and the bits of ruins, but eh.
The scale texture on the legs and underbelly is ridiculously fine and - stop me if you've heard it before - realistic for a warhammer dragon. Compared to the old-style scales that the dracoths still have, where the edges of huge, irregular scales just sorta... fade into the skin.
Stumpy legs, I don't even... Compared to what? They seem to be raising it's belly almost a stormcast's height off the ground. That's not peanuts. Is it that they're thick? Heaven forfend that a huge elephant+ sized creature could seem to support it's own weight.

The more I look at the pose the more I'm getting a big, blue, reptilian Battlecat vibe off it. That's alright by me.

Downward pointing wings = unnatural is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. (You can dislike the wings for pointing down, but arguing they're unnatural...)
One, people argue that wings pointing down is unnatural, them in the next breath cite knuckle-walking bats and other dragons with... downward-pointing wings. (You lot forgot pterosaurs, too) Two, see my last post. Three, other, non-displaying birds hold the 'forearm' of their wings at a pretty definite downward slope, at times. Especially noticable when folding or unfolding their wings. See the first twenty seconds here, or here, or here. Pointing down in the middle in a half-folded, opening/closing motion. Where have we seen that recently?

Anything else?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Different =\= better?

After twenty years of that, it does.

I have to say, with each new Stormcast release I'm more and more glad I didn't start an army of these guys.

Overall, I kinda liked the Stormcast figures in the starter box, but each new release since then has been a disappointment. Not to take anything from those of you who like it, but they are just not doing anything for me. For now, I'll stick with my beloved Lizardm... I mean Seraphon at least until I see a new AOS faction that really grabs me.

Vermis, I'm not saying it's good or bad, and I wasn't necessarily aiming my post at you, I just don't get why ever AoS release is excused by bad photography.
I can just imagine the response if someone who loved the mini was told, just wait for the 360 to see how bad it really is.
Me, I don't care for any of the Stormcast, i find them incredibly boring and a barrier to enjoying AoS.
Major releases for other races please GW.

More winged animals on the ground.

 mdauben wrote:

Overall, I kinda liked the Stormcast figures in the starter box, but each new release since then has been a disappointment.

The majority of Stormcast releases have been variations of the starter box. The ones that haven't been (Lord Castellent, Lord Celestant, Knight-Venator, Heralder) have mostly been individual figures that have been pretty cool. I think Judicators are the only new style of unit. The Celestant Prime disappoints a bit (not a fan of the swirly bits, though I like the figure itself) and the Stardrake, I'm not feeling, but really, if you liked the starter box guys, I really don't see how you could be disappointed with much in the Stormcast releases...

 Vermis wrote:

Carnikang wrote:
That and it's legs looks ugly.

Well, they look like they're based on real reptiles, if that's what you mean.

Doesn't mean it's not ugly when put into model form.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 mdauben wrote:

Overall, I kinda liked the Stormcast figures in the starter box, but each new release since then has been a disappointment.

The majority of Stormcast releases have been variations of the starter box.The ones that haven't been (Lord Castellent, Lord Celestant, Knight-Venator, Heralder) have mostly been individual figures that have been pretty cool. I think Judicators are the only new style of unit. The Celestant Prime disappoints a bit (not a fan of the swirly bits, though I like the figure itself) and the Stardrake, I'm not feeling, but really, if you liked the starter box guys, I really don't see how you could be disappointed with much in the Stormcast releases...

I think that this might actually be the cause of the disapointment.

As for the drake, I'd expect him to have at least an alternative build. ANd I wouldn't be surprised if it involves reversing the wings. GW has been pretty clever when it comes to dual kits in the last few years.

I really want to turn that dragon into a Daemon Engine.

Lance845 wrote:
More winged animals on the ground.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

... there is this guy too:

My main issue with the wings is how small they seem to be compared to a model that looks very big. I guess we'll see how it turns out with the 360 view. We don't even know how the tail looks like for now haha.

 Haechi wrote:
My main issue with the wings is how small they seem to be compared to a model that looks very big.

they look ginormous even wrinkled down the way they are now oO

Bit blurry, but in the background of this picture, you can see the Star Drake's wings.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 mdauben wrote:

Overall, I kinda liked the Stormcast figures in the starter box, but each new release since then has been a disappointment.

if you liked the starter box guys, I really don't see how you could be disappointed with much in the Stormcast releases...

Its because they all look the same that I lost interest. Aside from these new mounted figures (which have their own issues) the rest of the army is distressingly repetitive and visually boring, IMO.

Lance845 wrote:
More winged animals on the ground.

This thing is, all those examples are quadruped animals. They use their wings as front legs, that's why they stick up the way they do. Look at Smaug, the dragon from The Hobbit, he's the same way. The Stormcast dragon is a hexaped however, he's got four actual legs to stand on, he doesn't need his wings to function as legs when he's on the ground. His wings should logically fold upward like a bird's do, when he's on the ground.

 mdauben wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 mdauben wrote:

Overall, I kinda liked the Stormcast figures in the starter box, but each new release since then has been a disappointment.

if you liked the starter box guys, I really don't see how you could be disappointed with much in the Stormcast releases...

Its because they all look the same that I lost interest. Aside from these new mounted figures (which have their own issues) the rest of the army is distressingly repetitive and visually boring, IMO.

Model them differently then? No one says you have to have them as an army of clones. Use some different heads. Add your own bits to them.

Yay for having to fix something to make it acceptable and not monotonous!

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Model them differently then? No one says you have to have them as an army of clones. Use some different heads. Add your own bits to them.

Bare heads might help a little, but they are still all big guys in gold armor with X weapon. Their are already different details on different Stormcast troops, so bits are not going to be enough to change their basic appearance. There's no way to change that short of resculpting the figures from scratch, a task beyond both my talents and my desire.

To be honest, I have much the same issue with 40K space marines, although at least they have scouts to break up the monotony a little.

 mdauben wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 mdauben wrote:

Overall, I kinda liked the Stormcast figures in the starter box, but each new release since then has been a disappointment.

if you liked the starter box guys, I really don't see how you could be disappointed with much in the Stormcast releases...

Its because they all look the same that I lost interest. Aside from these new mounted figures (which have their own issues) the rest of the army is distressingly repetitive and visually boring, IMO.

Lance845 wrote:
More winged animals on the ground.

This thing is, all those examples are quadruped animals. They use their wings as front legs, that's why they stick up the way they do. Look at Smaug, the dragon from The Hobbit, he's the same way. The Stormcast dragon is a hexaped however, he's got four actual legs to stand on, he doesn't need his wings to function as legs when he's on the ground. His wings should logically fold upward like a bird's do, when he's on the ground.

This image says a lot I think?

The wings are like those of the Smaug model


I cannot say I like the Stardrake though.

Stormcast are all similar, to the same extent spaces marine are.

Theres nothing wrong with the wings. Imagine a lion rearing his head to roar, or a wolf to howl.

It never ceases to amaze me the lenghts hater will go to hate on sigmar.

Oh, and "childsh"? People, were talking about toy soldiers...

sadysaneto wrote:
toy soldiers...

Toy soldiers or Man Dollies?

sadysaneto wrote:
Stormcast are all similar, to the same extent spaces marine are.

Theres nothing wrong with the wings. Imagine a lion rearing his head to roar, or a wolf to howl.

It never ceases to amaze me the lenghts hater will go to hate on sigmar.

Oh, and "childsh"? People, were talking about toy soldiers...

Ugh.

People are allowed opinions different to yours. They are entitled to express them. You are entitled to disagree.

This is best done substantiated with reason, logic or intelligently expressed thoughts as appropriate. Telling them they're wrong, that "nothing is wrong" with the things they've expressed reservations about or calling them haters does not fall into any of those categories.

Exactly what lengths have these people gone to in order to express their 'hate?' Typing a few words on a keyboard? The humanity!

Welcome to Dakka.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
This image says a lot I think?

It just says that the artist had the same lack of anatomical knowledge as the sculptor of the Stormcast dragon. Obviously, both chose to pose the dragon that way because they thought it looked good, but from the feedback here it seems that is far from a universal opinion.

Ugh. It's a mythical creature. There are no 6 limbed reptiles on this planet. We have no anatomical examples to draw from. So no one here has any idea what a dragon would be like. Only our imaginations.
Anyways... let's get back on topic shall we? N&R thread after all.