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.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
Was there ever a mini made of Warlord Grizgutz?

No, they used metal, resin or plastic.

I see what you did there Hahaha!!

 thegreatchimp wrote:
What, in your opinions, are the most horrible miniatures in the current wargame ranges? Whether it's the concept, the sculpting, the pose, or better still all three, please share! Please include pictures for our collective amusement. Models must still be in production, not Oldhammer or Middlehammer - we've all seen Clown Nagash and Sister Dialogous. (which I'll admit I still google from time to time when I need a laugh!)

Am I allowed to nominate limited edition/con-exclusive models? Because I think the Microbrew Marauder qualifies on a conceptual level.



It's a cheesecake model, which I generally don't mind (I've dabbled in Infinity, and that games female models were almost universally cheesecake at one point), but this one manages to fall square in the Uncanny Valley, looking like someone tried to make a sexy version of a Strogg or Servitor.

It certainly leads one to ask uncomfortable questions.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It certainly leads one to ask uncomfortable questions.

uncomfortable for who?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
But they're also like 5 or 6 years old so not really recent.

You're missing a digit. They came out in 2003.

Well I'm no fancy math wizard but my gut tells me 2003 was 5 years ago tops.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It certainly leads one to ask uncomfortable questions.

uncomfortable for who?

Apparently all the people who found the mini creepy or disturbing. Check out the thread.

As gw becomes less stylized and more generic scifi there are many new releases that I dislike, with every new one seeming worse than the last.

It's funny - this has come up in a few threads recently. People keep using that term - "generic Scifi" - I do not think it means what they think it means ...



It's also interesting because there are a lot of very well done models mentioned in this thread where people simply dislike the look/style and simply label the model as "bad". There's a pretty big gulf between a truly terrible model (Starship Troopers Brain Bug complete with .5lb of extra metal flashing), and a model that is well done but that you dislike the style of. Always bums me out when I see it. "I don't like it so it must suck" is no way to live your life.

I'd like to nominate the "Battlefield Evolution" pre-paints from Mongoose. If anyone remembers originals ... man .....

I got a ton of the Battlefield Evolution figures for £1 per box on clearance. They're ok, really. Apart from the googly thousand-yard stare everyone had, and the way that "consistent scale" meant "must fit in this box", and yeah, the paintjobs.

They certainly weren't worth the asking price (not with better-painted diecast models available cheaper), and 1:64 (with 1:72 tanks) was an odd scale, but I still play games like Spectre Ops with them.

In many ways, it was a sad story. Corgi had a range of Iraq War diecasts at the time, but didn't want to get into wargaming when Mongoose approached them. The Chinese factory definitely got one over Mongoose. And Mongoose were moving ahead with sone nice-looking Starship Trooper prepaints when the licence got yanked.

Tycho wrote:
It's also interesting because there are a lot of very well done models mentioned in this thread where people simply dislike the look/style and simply label the model as "bad".

Well, the OP did specify:

 thegreatchimp wrote:
What, in your opinions, are the most horrible miniatures in the current wargame ranges? Whether it's the concept, the sculpting, the pose, or better still all three, please share!

So calling out models because you find the look/style/idea of the model to be poorly thought out or executed should be fair game.

Tycho wrote:
It's also interesting because there are a lot of very well done models mentioned in this thread where people simply dislike the look/style and simply label the model as "bad". There's a pretty big gulf between a truly terrible model (Starship Troopers Brain Bug complete with .5lb of extra metal flashing), and a model that is well done but that you dislike the style of. Always bums me out when I see it. "I don't like it so it must suck" is no way to live your life.

I get what you're saying, but why let it bother you? Technically we should prefix every criticism of a model (on the whole site) with "in my opinion," but it's a given -art appreciation is about as arbitrary as it gets...

So calling out models because you find the look/style/idea of the model to be poorly thought out or executed should be fair game.

I don't think you get what I'm saying.

I get what you're saying, but why let it bother you? Technically we should prefix every criticism of a model (on the whole site) with "in my opinion," but it's a given -art appreciation is about as arbitrary as it gets...

It doesn't necessarily bother me, it's just (for some reason) a surprise everytime I come across someone who can't separate "That's well done but I personally dislike the aesthetic" from "that's terrible because I don't like it", (which is a pretty poor and limiting way to look at things).

Personally, I think the conversation is a lot better when there are actual reasoned debates. So for example, to say you don't personally like a style or a look is always interesting because it illustrates different likes/tastes/dislikes etc and can help you see something in a new way. So if someone likes something I dislike or vice-versa, there's a base for conversation now. There are some truly, objectively bad models, but in this day and age they are not as plentiful as they used to be. Take the Mechanicus horses for example - from a design standpoint they are actually very well thought out, they are well sculpted, and they have a very unique aesthetic that harkens back to old school calvary models. If you don't like that, it's cool, but they aren't "the worst models in recent history" because of someone's personal distaste of the art style.

On the other hand, there are truly BAD miniatures. Poorly made, poorly sculpted, just plain bad. I just wish people could learn more to seperate the two things. Something can be very well done but still not appeal to you. That doesn't mean "it sucks" lol

I got a ton of the Battlefield Evolution figures for £1 per box on clearance. They're ok, really. Apart from the googly thousand-yard stare everyone had, and the way that "consistent scale" meant "must fit in this box", and yeah, the paintjobs.

The few sets I saw in person (of the infantry) were just so weirdly tall and thin. The base sculpts were not as good as some of the "little green army men" I've seen over the years. Of course MGP's build up of how great they were going to be probably didn't help either ...

Tycho wrote:

As gw becomes less stylized and more generic scifi there are many new releases that I dislike, with every new one seeming worse than the last.

It's funny - this has come up in a few threads recently. People keep using that term - "generic Scifi" - I do not think it means what they think it means ...



It's also interesting because there are a lot of very well done models mentioned in this thread where people simply dislike the look/style and simply label the model as "bad". There's a pretty big gulf between a truly terrible model (Starship Troopers Brain Bug complete with .5lb of extra metal flashing), and a model that is well done but that you dislike the style of. Always bums me out when I see it. "I don't like it so it must suck" is no way to live your life.

I'd like to nominate the "Battlefield Evolution" pre-paints from Mongoose. If anyone remembers originals ... man .....

That's fair I think you're right, I'll try to be more specific. The style is changing from the blanche/miller/smith grim dark that defined the game and becoming sleeker and imo silly. The modern military look is particularly out of place. It also doesn't help that the studio produces some genuinely ugly models like the battle sister apes.

That's fair I think you're right, I'll try to be more specific. The style is changing from the blanche/miller/smith grim dark that defined the game and becoming sleeker and imo silly. The modern military look is particularly out of place. It also doesn't help that the studio produces some genuinely ugly models like the battle sister apes.

I would argue that things like the horses still fit the Blanchistu style (but are, admittedly, an evolution of it), and the tech priests still look like they walked right of a Blanche painting. On the other hand, much as I love the Archeopter, I can see where your point is coming from. I WANT to like it. I really really do, but I can't quite get there. There's a design exercise where you deliberately try to push a design one step too far. You just keep going until you hit that point, and then you go back one step and that's supposed to be the "cutting edge" version of the design. With the Archeopter it's kind of like they went that "one step too far" and then didn't reel it back in. I can agree it has a more silly, almost optimistic feel to its design that the older more grimdark stuff does not agree with!


Far as the modern military stuff - I go back and forth. A lot of folks don't realize that much of the 40k universe has always been based on real world tech. Like the Land Raider being based on early ww1 tanks for example. So that aspect is not uncommon, and it generally works because the references the models were based on were slightly more obscure. It can definitely be a little weird to see a new Space Marine tank come out that looks like the put the turret of a Cheiftan tank on top of a shipping container and called it a day, so if THAT'S where you're coming from, I can see your point.

Yeah, the new Marine tanks are clunky and ugly designs, that miss the character of the older tanks in favour of just taking boxes and gluing as many guns as will fit on there.

It's weird that they nailed the Primaris aesthetic so well (mostly) with the Marines, but missed the boat so badly with the vehicles.

The new admech stuff, though - I love all of it, and find it a bit weird that people think cyborgs on robot horses isn't grimdark enough.

This showed up on my social media feed the other day...

 insaniak wrote:
Yeah, the new Marine tanks are clunky and ugly designs, that miss the character of the older tanks in favour of just taking boxes and gluing as many guns as will fit on there.

It's weird that they nailed the Primaris aesthetic so well (mostly) with the Marines, but missed the boat so badly with the vehicles.

The new admech stuff, though - I love all of it, and find it a bit weird that people think cyborgs on robot horses isn't grimdark enough.

I specifically like the 'clunky' feel of the primaris vehicles, to me it fits with the idea that Cawl is throwing these designs together as a secret project without the ability to do proper field testing or peer review. They lack that 'tried and true' feel vanilla marine vehicles have where they are variant builds off a few core templates.

Random sidenote, why do people complain that primaris vehicles defy the technological regression theme when they are floating around on a crappier version of pre-existing land speeder tech?

I would suspect that most critics of the vehicles won't have read the fluff for them. Going by the aesthetic, though, an anti grav tank is clearly more advanced tech than a tracked tank.

 Cannibal wrote:
This showed up on my social media feed the other day...

Ohhh nice.

Tycho, that's a lot of filibustering.

Here's fewer words.

If it looks like something sucky and quacks like something sucky, it sucks.

 Mangod wrote:
but this one manages to fall square in the Uncanny Valley, looking like someone tried to make a sexy version of a Strogg or Servitor.

'Uncanny valley' refers to something that looks like a duck a human and perhaps moves like a human, but it's just off enough to creep the viewer out. So the mini looks like someone's weird clanky-cyborg fetish; but not part of the uncanny valley.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
I would suspect that most critics of the vehicles won't have read the fluff for them.

Is that kinda like modern art where you have to read some attached essay on the offchance it'll stop you thinking 'urgh'?

 Vermis wrote:

 Mangod wrote:
but this one manages to fall square in the Uncanny Valley, looking like someone tried to make a sexy version of a Strogg or Servitor.

'Uncanny valley' refers to something that looks like a duck a human and perhaps moves like a human, but it's just off enough to creep the viewer out. So the mini looks like someone's weird clanky-cyborg fetish; but not part of the uncanny valley.

Maybe the wrong words, let me try to explain my thoughts...

The problem for me is that their attempt at "cyborg-fetish" just leaves me thinking the "Show me"-scene from the Robocop remake is about to start playing. Maybe if the arms or legs were bulkier, or something to make it look more like she's stripped down her armor and less like all her limbs (and possibly part of the torso) have been surgically replaced.

Yeah, the new Marine tanks are clunky and ugly designs, that miss the character of the older tanks in favour of just taking boxes and gluing as many guns as will fit on there.

To be fair, "clunky and ugly" fits the old stuff too. It was just a "different" clunky and ugly. Things were better back then. Get off my lawn!

Tycho, that's a lot of filibustering.

Here's fewer words.

If it looks like something sucky and quacks like something sucky, it sucks.

Genius. Excellent contribution. Do you have a newsletter?

Just for anyone unfamiliar with them, these boys deserve a pic: The sculpting is pretty good in all fairness, (though the boots could have been more subtle) but that's about all that stands to them.

I could sort of buy the idea of Inceptors flying around, raining death with their bullet hoses, even if they're a bit too Command and Conquer for my tastes. But a long-barrelled autocannon being fired while hopping around like an oversized rabbit? "What?" and "How?" were my initial reactions, then just "Why?" I think the concept could have been genuinely great for Orks (because they're wacky enough to make it work) or Tau (because Mech-sized units firing automatic weapons while on the hop is more feasible) But Astartes? Nah.

I don't know. I love the Judiciar, helm and all. I shelled
out 70USD for the space marines in the indomitus
box just because of him.

 malfred wrote:
I don't know. I love the Judiciar, helm and all. I shelled
out 70USD for the space marines in the indomitus
box just because of him.

It's all subjective and you can love whatever you dang well want

There's just an amazing amount of hate and head
swapping around around that model

 thegreatchimp wrote:
Just for anyone unfamiliar with them, these boys deserve a pic: The sculpting is pretty good in all fairness, (though the boots could have been more subtle) but that's about all that stands to them.

I could sort of buy the idea of Inceptors flying around, raining death with their bullet hoses, even if they're a bit too Command and Conquer for my tastes. But a long-barrelled autocannon being fired while hopping around like an oversized rabbit? "What?" and "How?" were my initial reactions, then just "Why?" I think the concept could have been genuinely great for Orks (because they're wacky enough to make it work) or Tau (because Mech-sized units firing automatic weapons while on the hop is more feasible) But Astartes? Nah.

Yep - you see those and you imagine them corkscrewing wildly through the air as they fire (which as you say would have worked fine for Orks)

 thegreatchimp wrote:
Just for anyone unfamiliar with them, these boys deserve a pic: The sculpting is pretty good in all fairness, (though the boots could have been more subtle) but that's about all that stands to them.

I could sort of buy the idea of Inceptors flying around, raining death with their bullet hoses, even if they're a bit too Command and Conquer for my tastes. But a long-barrelled autocannon being fired while hopping around like an oversized rabbit? "What?" and "How?" were my initial reactions, then just "Why?" I think the concept could have been genuinely great for Orks (because they're wacky enough to make it work) or Tau (because Mech-sized units firing automatic weapons while on the hop is more feasible) But Astartes? Nah.

Yeah, I see what you (and Pacific) mean. I can understand the concept of these being highly mobile heavy support, y'know: bracing, firing, then jumping to a new position, bracing, firing, repeat. But the fact that they look like they're firing whilst in the air, brings to mind images of Dick Dastardly or particularly bad FPS PVP matches.

 Mangod wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:
Just for anyone unfamiliar with them, these boys deserve a pic: The sculpting is pretty good in all fairness, (though the boots could have been more subtle) but that's about all that stands to them.

I could sort of buy the idea of Inceptors flying around, raining death with their bullet hoses, even if they're a bit too Command and Conquer for my tastes. But a long-barrelled autocannon being fired while hopping around like an oversized rabbit? "What?" and "How?" were my initial reactions, then just "Why?" I think the concept could have been genuinely great for Orks (because they're wacky enough to make it work) or Tau (because Mech-sized units firing automatic weapons while on the hop is more feasible) But Astartes? Nah.

Yeah, I see what you (and Pacific) mean. I can understand the concept of these being highly mobile heavy support, y'know: bracing, firing, then jumping to a new position, bracing, firing, repeat. But the fact that they look like they're firing whilst in the air, brings to mind images of Dick Dastardly or particularly bad FPS PVP matches.

Just goes to show GW's insidious plan...Hey Ork players, you want fun minis doing wildly improbable things, why not start a Primaris force and paint them green.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mangod wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:
What, in your opinions, are the most horrible miniatures in the current wargame ranges? Whether it's the concept, the sculpting, the pose, or better still all three, please share! Please include pictures for our collective amusement. Models must still be in production, not Oldhammer or Middlehammer - we've all seen Clown Nagash and Sister Dialogous. (which I'll admit I still google from time to time when I need a laugh!)

Am I allowed to nominate limited edition/con-exclusive models? Because I think the Microbrew Marauder qualifies on a conceptual level.



It's a cheesecake model, which I generally don't mind (I've dabbled in Infinity, and that games female models were almost universally cheesecake at one point), but this one manages to fall square in the Uncanny Valley, looking like someone tried to make a sexy version of a Strogg or Servitor.

There are no redeeming features for this mini. Terrible posing and by the looks of it some proportions. The best that could be said is that the render view could be better but.....

Here's one from Steamforged's dead GuildBall. This is Minerva of the Falconer's guild. You might look at her and think there's nothing wrong with her. Good pose, nice enough detail considering the cheap plastic material. The sculpt is OK. Except when they cast her they forgot to put her face in the machine. Every detail on that face was drawn by the artist. They released a model with no face and thought nobody would notice. Idiots.

Wow. That's just.