Elf Cow Warrior?

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.

**Mothsniper**

Kanluwen wrote:
You still haven't actually 'proven' anything. You've just drawn squiggly lines and spouted off your opinion.

Phil Kelly, the guy who helped write the fricking lore for the army, says these things are constructs. Phil Kelly says that the design is based off a Ymetrican Longhorn buffalo, a mountain dwelling creature of Hysh(that's the Realm of Light, aka where the Lumineth Realmlords are from).
The 'mountain' on their backs? It's a literal representation of the Alarith('mountain') rune and mountains.

Nobody has 'made up' anything beyond you here. You've chosen not to understand why these things look the way they do. That's cool. But stop pretending that it doesn't make sense.

"But stop pretending that it doesn't make sense"
Crushing position that I never took
It makes sense, my position is that it is poorly executed.
Good design is self evident
Keep digging my digga!

You still haven't proven me wrong on the design.
As one Great man once said -
"This does come off more as a whine/troll thread. You haven't posted anything worth discussing as of yet. "

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ingtaer wrote:
Mothsniper wrote:

"No no, it's much too late to claim ignorance now. If you didn't know you're coming across as an , and you didn't want to come across as an , you would have changed your approach after it was pointed out to you way back on page one, and many times since. "
Lolz, what are those ? Come on say it. What are you calling me? Can't just type it out? pathetic.
I see nothing wrong with my approach, and will not change it because I am good with it.

No, you have absolutely come across as rude, condescending and demeaning in many of your posts and you really need to change that. Read back through what you have written and see how you come across to other people who read it and think how you can change the words you use to no longer do so. You may not have an issue with it but the primary rule of this site is "Be polite" and you need to to start obeying it. That goes for everyone else in this thread as well.

Demeaning?
A bit
Condescending?
Not intentionally
Abrasive on purpose to specific comments
Yes
But I am still good with it.

Fair enough!
My bad dudes! (not sarcastically)

**Tiberius501**

This has become a bit of a pointless argument and seems to be going around in circles and becoming a little too personal. We can all agree to disagree and move on, I’m sure. The initial post wasn’t about anything other than a guy not liking a design, we all put different opinions up, got a bit heated.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what any of us think to any of us, other than to ourselves, trying to convince anyone of a viewpoint that they don’t see is futile (myself included). So let’s just let Mothsniper, and the others who agree, see it as a poor design, and peeps like me and the others posting (a little too) passionately, who enjoy the design, like it and move on.

**ccs**

Mothsniper wrote:
Wasteland wrote:
Mothsniper wrote:

"Cmon mate, this is DakkaDakka. We all know smartass insulting comments when we see them. Don't play dumb"
Like condescendingly telling some one to stop playing dumb?
We all know indeed, perhaps not in your case if you can't tell the difference between an insulting and calling someone out for going off topic.

No no, it's much too late to claim ignorance now. If you didn't know you're coming across as an , and you didn't want to come across as an , you would have changed your approach after it was pointed out to you way back on page one, and many times since.

Mothsniper wrote:

I did answer your question
"For same exact reason I drew lines jagged on the sorceress as well."
Why can't you answer mine?
"Why do you think I drew jagged lines on both Spirit and Sorceress? "

Because they both have some jagged parts? Those aren't the parts I'm talking about. Go back and look at the images I posted. On the sorceress, you followed the curve of her robe with a nice, gentle line of your own. On similarly curved lines on the spirit, you've followed the outline with rough, straight lines like a bad vector image. Why are the curved lines on one treated differently that the curved lines on the other?

Mothsniper wrote:

Convincing anyone of anything is not my goal at all! I already said that earlier. did you miss it?

So why are you still talking? Leave us in our happy ignorance, then.

Mothsniper wrote:

- I already said it.. will just be copy and pasting then if you are too triggered to read (because that creates interest and attracts the eye and keep eye engaged longer.) (Impact and Payoff)
"Impact" (impact is a term referring to the strong composition design, color, and tone that immediately catches the eye)
"Payoff" (Payoff is a term referring to the richness of information and details present when the image is examined closer)
So Impact is what catches the eye and payoff is what keeps the eye. Does that make senes?

Yes, but you've failed to explain how something has good impact vs bad impact, good payoff vs bad payoff. You've defined the terms, but haven't explained how they apply or lead you to your conclusions. When I look closely at the spirit, I see the details of the little tassels, the elements that appear to be moving with the wind, all the little lines in the armor that I don't see at first glance. Are these not examples of payoff? Why not?

Mothsniper wrote:

"I'll ask you for an example you've cited more directly: "
"Is this a silhouette of a good guy or a bad guy? How can you tell? "
"To me, these legs/torso/head boxes look more like the ones you drew on our Elf Cow Man here, than on the other (WoW?) character. What should I take away from that? Does this mean that this is bad design? It occurs to me that these seem like pretty human proportions - like, a person's torso is about twice the height of their head, and their legs twice as long as their torso? Why is it bad for a humanoid character to have body dimensions similar to that of a real person? "
EXACTLY! human proportions, those are exactly normal human proportions. And there is nothing wrong with normal human proportions.
Your Tauren image has those normal, standard ,default, human proportions skewed into tiny legs, huge torso, and offset small head.
The BAD part comes in if your Tauren character had normal, standard ,default, human proportions. It would of been a boring Fantasy character with normal, standard ,default, proportions.

And there is nothing wrong with normal human proportions.
The BAD part comes in if your Tauren character had normal, standard ,default, human proportions

Honestly not sure what to make of that.

Rather than just saying that the humanlike proportions are bad, don't you think it could be communicating other things? Like, couldn't the familiar proportions make the character more familiar or relatable to us despite being a giant mountain-backed cow man?

That's not to say that the WoW Tauren is bad, but it seems to be following different rules to create a specific style. The things you're saying don't seem to be wrong per se, but you're treating them like ironclad, inviolate rules when they don't apply equally to everything.

Like, the concepts of "stretch and squish" are important concepts and vital parts of traditional western-style animation, and can be used to communicate movement very effectively. But the fact that something like Ghost in the Shell doesn't use them does not make Ghost in the Shell poorly animated.

Mothsniper wrote:

I was saying that silhouette plays into the characterization of the character. And having an obvious "evil spiky" silhouette for a good character is not a good design.

The storm trooper is a default human silhouette, and that silhouette perfectly characterize the character! Because the character is a default normal duplication, insignificant and numerous. and the design and color and silhouette underlines that characteristic. If would be bad design if storm trooper silhouette was opposite of the "normal" look

I hope this makes sense.

Yes, that does make sense. Is it fair to say then that a well-designed bad guy character may have a smooth, innocuous silhouette? Like, that particular part of their design communicates something other than "good/evil"? Couldn't you have, say, a good character or design with big spiky dragon wings? Or a unique, one-of-a-kind good guy character with a bulky, smooth silhouette like the stormtrooper, showing how he's set apart from normal humanity (for example Robocop?)

"No no, it's much too late to claim ignorance now. If you didn't know you're coming across as an , and you didn't want to come across as an , you would have changed your approach after it was pointed out to you way back on page one, and many times since. "
Lolz, what are those ? Come on say it. What are you calling me? Can't just type it out? pathetic.
I see nothing wrong with my approach, and will not change it because I am good with it.

"Because they both have some jagged parts? Those aren't the parts I'm talking about. Go back and look at the images I posted. On the sorceress, you followed the curve of her robe with a nice, gentle line of your own. On similarly curved lines on the spirit, you've followed the outline with rough, straight lines like a bad vector image. Why are the curved lines on one treated differently that the curved lines on the other? "
Yes because they both do have jagged lines! so I am not favoring one design over the other just to make a point. I put jaded lines to indicate areas that are busy, because it is an illustration of a BUSY vs CALM concept. The Jagged lines I A REPRESENTATION OF AN AREA THAT IS BUSY, JAGGED LINE IS NOT AN ACTUAL LINE THAT OUTLINES A SHAPE OF THE DESIGN, IT IS A REPRESENTATION OF AN AREA THAT IS BUSY TO ILLUSTRATE THE CONCEPT OF BUSY vs CALM.
Sorry for camps, I am not yelling, just trying to be as clear as my person will allow.
Curved lines are traded differently because jagged lines are representing an area that is BUSY with details, not actually outlining the shape...
You know what, my bad, I though that was self explanatory, if we I talk about busy vs calm and put an example image of busy vs calm, it never even crossed my mind that someone will ignore the actual busy vs calm concept that we are talking about and starts picking at the way I drew the busy example line. My communication skills are seriously lacking, no surprise though, because what do you expect from a total am I right

"So why are you still talking? Leave us in our happy ignorance, then."
Is that why you jumped in, to shut up this !
Why am I here, Because I already said why I am still here, lolz right after I talked about not trying to convince anyone, guess you missed that too.

"Yes, but you've failed to explain how something has good impact vs bad impact, good payoff vs bad payoff. You've defined the terms, but haven't explained how they apply or lead you to your conclusions. When I look closely at the spirit, I see the details of the little tassels, the elements that appear to be moving with the wind, all the little lines in the armor that I don't see at first glance. Are these not examples of payoff? Why not? "
This should be self evident, but if it is not then away we go:
Good Impact grabs the attention, Bad impact doesn't grab jack. Good Payoff keeps attention, bad payoff doesn't keep jack.
Example: If you are fillping through google images of Elfs and scrolling through them quickly and Boom! one catches you eye, and you stop, go back, and open it so you get a closer look at it. But when you open it you realize that the image is more of a sketch and there is not much else to look at. ( That would be strong impact and weak payoff)
Example: You are still scrolling through google images of Elfs, and you scroll pass one of the images that is actually a well crafted and detailed battle scene with alots of details and characters and epic story ets. (That is an example of weak Impact but strong payoff)
Concepts of Impact and Payoff are terms coined by Craig Nelson, amazing illustrator (One of the guys who painted those photo real old school movie posters) and amazing Fine artist who's class I had an honor of attneding.
Yes, you are right that is a perfect example of payoff. And that is why the design is not strong. Because good design, in advertisement adds, needs strong Impact alone to grab attention quickly, In art you need both in equal measure to not only grab attention, but keep the attention on you piece of art long enough for the audience to get the story or a point that the artist was trying to communicate. In a sculpture you need both as well, in 3D model you need both, in a moving picture you need both, in a computer game you need both, otherwise you will lose the attention of the audience! But in all of those mediums, Impact is always more important than payoff.
That is another way Spirit is bad in design and could of been designed, posed, in a much much stronger way!
I hope this makes sense.

"Rather than just saying that the humanlike proportions are bad, don't you think it could be communicating other things? Like, couldn't the familiar proportions make the character more familiar or relatable to us despite being a giant mountain-backed cow man? "
Human proportions are bad for a fantasy creature because it renders creature "boring", imagine orks elfs goblins ets all being of same proportion despite difference in height and scale, that would be weird.
Yes, If I wanted audience to relate to the fantasy creature more I would most defiantly stick to "human" proportions more!

"That's not to say that the WoW Tauren is bad, but it seems to be following different rules to create a specific style. The things you're saying don't seem to be wrong per se, but you're treating them like ironclad, inviolate rules when they don't apply equally to everything."
Well, there are rules, and they are not iron clad but they are in a way. Same for music, some rules you can break but some rules will just break the tune. There are rules that can be bent or bypassed sure, but there are also defiantly ironclad rules in creating impactful image.
For example: To paint a miniature that will read well and look cool you could use contrast (ie opposte) colors, yes it is a rule, because contrast colors just automatically work very well in anything. But that rule can be broken by painting miniatures with Analogous colors, or limited palette, or black and white, or monochrome, or solid flat, rainbow, or all colors together, ets. So by breaking color rule you can still end up with a cool mini that reads well!
But if you break tonal rule (Tone - a range from dark to light) or value rule (Value - also, range from light to dark) then you will lose the contrast and miniature will not read. And stronger the tone - then higher the contrast and better mini will read, weaker the tone - less contrast - mini will read less.
And Silhouette is one of those rules in a design that is hard to dismiss because it is the rudimentary shape that sets the direction for rest of the model down to the finest detail. Rhythm of busy vs calm however can be avoided, it will not make or break the design.
I hope this makes sense.

"Like, the concepts of "stretch and squish" are important concepts and vital parts of traditional western-style animation, and can be used to communicate movement very effectively. But the fact that something like Ghost in the Shell doesn't use them does not make Ghost in the Shell poorly animated."
Yep I agree, that is why Spirited Away is better ! ----------runs for cover - Oh boy If I though I was getting some heat before, I will get it now.

"Yes, that does make sense. Is it fair to say then that a well-designed bad guy character may have a smooth, innocuous silhouette? Like, that particular part of their design communicates something other than "good/evil"? Couldn't you have, say, a good character or design with big spiky dragon wings? Or a unique, one-of-a-kind good guy character with a bulky, smooth silhouette like the stormtrooper, showing how he's set apart from normal humanity (for example Robocop?)"
You could have good character or design with big spiky dragon wings yes, if it is done right.
Yes you could, that is not the rule, however let me attempt to explain the concept!
The whole point is this:
Think of a nike LOGO
1-The Most optimally minimum amount of design without any unnecessary details or information
2-That Maximally communicates the entire mission statement and direction and about-ness of a company

Silhouette is that.
Example: If you took a marker and scribbled scribbles on a page and showed it you your friend, and you friend said "Oh cool evil wizard"
That is a strong design! With most minimal amount of information you where able to communicate exactly what you wanted and it read clearly enough for the audience to ID it at a quick glance!

Audience did not have to make up excuses or dig deep to explain the design!
Pulling obsquer mythos to explain the connection of a cow and a mountain, dig deep into the lore or history to explain why they holding hammers ets, why there are mountains of shoulders, why there are horned and hoofed creature in an elf army, ets.
The deeper you have to dig to explain things in the design the weaker the design is. Folk here do not get that digging deeper into the lore and cultures, The VISUAL design should be self evident if it is not, it is not strong design.

Now do you think that a design with big spiky dragon wings will read at a quick glance as a "good" character?
I say yes, but only if it is done correctly.

Sorry dudes, Spirit is a bad character design, both in theme and execution.

Speaking of bad execution....
Do you think you could learn to use the quote button like the rest of us? Or say, just put two ** before each of your replies? Because it's really hard to decipher your crap from others the way your doing it. All I see is a giant wall of text with bits & pieces I think I've read before. So whatever point you're trying to make is getting lost.

**Overread**

Mothsniper wrote:

Silhouette is that.
Example: If you took a marker and scribbled scribbles on a page and showed it you your friend, and you friend said "Oh cool evil wizard"
That is a strong design! With most minimal amount of information you where able to communicate exactly what you wanted and it read clearly enough for the audience to ID it at a quick glance!

Audience did not have to make up excuses or dig deep to explain the design!
Pulling obsquer mythos to explain the connection of a cow and a mountain, dig deep into the lore or history to explain why they holding hammers ets, why there are mountains of shoulders, why there are horned and hoofed creature in an elf army, ets.
The deeper you have to dig to explain things in the design the weaker the design is. Folk here do not get that digging deeper into the lore and cultures, The VISUAL design should be self evident if it is not, it is not strong design.

Now do you think that a design with big spiky dragon wings will read at a quick glance as a "good" character?
I say yes, but only if it is done correctly.

Sorry dudes, Spirit is a bad character design, both in theme and execution.

I think you're confusing the concept of "strong character design" with "familiar design"

Familiar is what you are getting at. An "evil wizard that looks like an evil wizard" is based upon designs that came before and have established tropes and themes. There's nothing bad in that, but at the same time it doesn't make it the only way to design a bad wizard. Indeed what you're angling for is a curtailing of creative options. GW is far more interested in cool stuff and that means both following familiar established designs (a good number of which they actually established/helped establish in the market); and also being bold in taking new approaches. In pushing things and trying something different as well.

Asides look at this thread; the cow design hasn't just caught your attention, its also had a long lasting impression. I'd say its done both catching your eye and maintaining your eye. Sure you might not like it, but its still had those two influences on you directly. Meanwhile there are others who like the design and those who are likely in the camp of "Well its not my favourite, but I'm going to play that army anyway and I will use one - maybe I'll convert it a bit." And heck I've often noticed that a persons impression of a model changes from seeing it in photos to seeing it in reality. Both in terms of "I didn't like it till I saw it" and "I used to like it but now I hate it" *

*this one often comes with models that are difficult to assemble/tricky to paint. It might also include models where the advertised model had extensive detail painted onto it whereas the original model has a more bland design. Or it can come when they've assembled their 10000th clan rat and they just want to be done with clan rats for a bit

**Karol**

But isn't this a bit of a problem, for people that waited for their not evil elfs a long time. Now they are suddenly given cow elfs in their armies. And knowing GW to have a working army one or two are probably going to be required to play it.

Cows are just not cool. There is a ton of other animals GW could have picked which could have been cool.

Maybe the whole cow thing wouldn't have been as much impactful, if the army had more non character non cow units.

**Overread**

Karol wrote:
But isn't this a bit of a problem, for people that waited for their not evil elfs a long time. Now they are suddenly given cow elfs in their armies. And knowing GW to have a working army one or two are probably going to be required to play it.

Cows are just not cool. There is a ton of other animals GW could have picked which could have been cool.

Maybe the whole cow thing wouldn't have been as much impactful, if the army had more non character non cow units.

There's only 3 Alarith models. The titan, a mage and the hammer warriors. Of the latter two the only thing people hate are the horns on the helms, which can be modified. Sure that's a lot of the army now, but we know there's another 3 temples so that's potentially another 9 models for 9 niches that are yet to be added and that's before considering non-temple units being added to the army.

**Charistoph**

Karol wrote:
Cows are just not cool. There is a ton of other animals GW could have picked which could have been cool.

Maybe the whole cow thing wouldn't have been as much impactful, if the army had more non character non cow units.

*Looks at the Wildfire Taurus, minotaurs, Cygor, and Ghorgon.*

Sure, you keep thinking that. (Admittedly, the last Bullgor sculpts could have been sculpted a little better, but the idea still holds.)

Is this just about GOOD cows and not BAD cows or all cows all together? Right now, that's just coming across as a bunch of bull.

**Saturmorn Carvilli**

Karol wrote:
But isn't this a bit of a problem, for people that waited for their not evil elfs a long time. Now they are suddenly given cow elfs in their armies. And knowing GW to have a working army one or two are probably going to be required to play it.

Cows are just not cool. There is a ton of other animals GW could have picked which could have been cool.

Maybe the whole cow thing wouldn't have been as much impactful, if the army had more non character non cow units.

The thing is I appreciate the fact that the concept artists for the Lumineth didn't pick a predatory animal as the totem for the Mountain aspect. I think going with the choice they did has hint at a reluctance for war. Or at very least, a far less aggressive undertaking way of war than going with any mountainous predator totem could indicate. It might be a tough sell for 21st western (or mostly western) culture to go that direction as Karol you are correct that the domesticated cow has no respect. Which I think is largely what most of the push back is about combined with the usually AoS isn't WHFB even in terms aesthetics. Time and differing experiences sometimes can change that. I mean before really playing D&D, elves were little people living in the North Pole making presents for Santa Claus to me. After several decades of games and movies I doubt that is the image that comes to mind anywhere close the same percent of people now. Santa's little helpers isn't what comes to my mind anymore that's for sure.

As Overread already mentioned, The Mountain Aspect a.k.a. Alarith are but one a few aspects. Even with such a small roster of warscrolls, they are hardly necessarily for a Lumineth army. In a lot of ways, the spearmen (Wardens) do the same job as the hammer aelves (Stone Guard). I personally think that Behemoths are that critical in AoS, and specifically for Lumineth tough to field if you also plan to be Teclis. I would suggest to anyone that like the Vanari's more traditional models just go with them and maybe wait until one of the other Temples or Tyrion's great nations come around. Which admittedly could be awhile. Could always wait completely on starting Lumineth until something in the faction does strike their fancy.

The spoiler below are my battle cattle more at an angle that one is likely to see them at. Again, on purely design criteria, I don't see any faux-pas. Taste will always largely be a matter of personal preference. I know I am bias though as I really like the models, and how I interpret them in the context of the setting.

Spoiler:

**Kanluwen**

Sidenote:

There's been some mumbling that Tyrion's return might be tied to dragons making an appearance for the Lumineth. We'll have to wait and see--but I really hope so.

**ccs**

Karol wrote:
But isn't this a bit of a problem, for people that waited for their not evil elfs a long time. Now they are suddenly given cow elfs in their armies. And knowing GW to have a working army one or two are probably going to be required to play it.

Nope. Fully playable without a single cow themed unit.

**tneva82**

Karol wrote:
But isn't this a bit of a problem, for people that waited for their not evil elfs a long time. Now they are suddenly given cow elfs in their armies. And knowing GW to have a working army one or two are probably going to be required to play it.

Cow's aren't needed.

Teclis isn't needed.

Most of tournament wins with lumineth so far have been with neither...You want to see what IS in competive lists? Calthallar(veiled wizard), wardens(the pike) and sentinels(archers). Maybe endless spells.

**Kanluwen**

Cathallar, Wardens, Sentinels just so happens to be one of the best/most easily accessible(in terms of models) Warscroll Battalions in the book...

Auralan Legion: 1 Cathallar, 2-4 Sentinels and an equal number of Wardens. Nets you reroll save rolls of 1 while within 3" of any other friendly units from the same Battalion.

**Thadin**

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
The spoiler below are my battle cattle more at an angle that one is likely to see them at. Again, on purely design criteria, I don't see any faux-pas. Taste will always largely be a matter of personal preference. I know I am bias though as I really like the models, and how I interpret them in the context of the setting.

Spoiler:

Yep, once I got them and the Stoneguard in hand, I took a look at them from all around, with a down-wards diagonal angle, and found myself feeling pretty alright with them. I still much, much prefer the Spirits and the Vanari over the Stoneguard, but I atleast don't hate them anymore. The armor, the poses and capes are fantastic, I'd love it more if the helmets were better.

**BertBert**

They are just hideous. It's sad to see what Fantasy has become.

**Saturmorn Carvilli**

Thadin wrote:
Yep, once I got them and the Stoneguard in hand, I took a look at them from all around, with a down-wards diagonal angle, and found myself feeling pretty alright with them. I still much, much prefer the Spirits and the Vanari over the Stoneguard, but I atleast don't hate them anymore. The armor, the poses and capes are fantastic, I'd love it more if the helmets were better.

I never really had an issue with the Stone Guard's appearace. To be certain, yes; the helmets are too tall and the horns a little silly. Games Workshop elves, aelves and eldar usually have tall helmets. It just what they like to wear into combat. That is what I expect from GW every now and again. Every now and again they do something to remind everyone their setting are always grim and dark with everyone having brooding cowls and 5 o'clock shadows including the women and children. I doubt they do it on purpose, it's just something in company's DNA that creates these "happy little accidents."

You're right about the rest of the model being really good as well as the tallness of the helmets not being as much of an issue when looked at a foreshortened angle typical of how they'd look on a table. I too love the flow of the robes along with cape. Even if I didn't like the helmets, I could easily look past them based on the lore of the Alarith alone. I totally get why others would have issues with them though.

**Fifty**

It is such a shame, because I think there was a really interesting discussion to be had about the Lumineth design here.

I feel like the Lumineth design is simply one that will take time to become accustomed to. There are elements I would convert if I bought some of the models, and elements I would keep. My main point would be to say that it is better for a quarter the people to really like it and three-quarters to really dislike it than for everyone to say "They're okay, I guess." I'd say that, at least, is a win for GW. You get sales of things people really like, not things people think are okay.

Mothsniper, I'd like to ask you to do several things. Firstly, and most importantly, the wall of text approach, gainsaying every point, over and over again, actually undermines your points, not strengthens them. It is the way I used to argue online fifteen to twenty years ago, and comes across like someone in real-life talking over people instead of listening to them, which is not even good argument, let alone conversation. Winning an argument means convincing someone your points are correct, not just wearing them down to the point they can't be bothered to keep talking to you. Conversation means listening, considering and responding, not automatically trying to counter what they have said. Secondly, you do have a condescending manner, and if people's attempts to point that out to you seem condescending too, then that is on you. Please accept this. Finally, use of terms such as Lolz seem out of place when asking for a discussion as opposed to "banter". I'm sure your points would feel more constructive without them.

**Karol**

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

The thing is I appreciate the fact that the concept artists for the Lumineth didn't pick a predatory animal as the totem for the Mountain aspect. I think going with the choice they did has hint at a reluctance for war. Or at very least, a far less aggressive undertaking way of war than going with any mountainous predator totem could indicate. It might be a tough sell for 21st western (or mostly western) culture to go that direction as Karol you are correct that the domesticated cow has no respect. Which I think is largely what most of the push back is about combined with the usually AoS isn't WHFB even in terms aesthetics. Time and differing experiences sometimes can change that. I mean before really playing D&D, elves were little people living in the North Pole making presents for Santa Claus to me. After several decades of games and movies I doubt that is the image that comes to mind anywhere close the same percent of people now. Santa's little helpers isn't what comes to my mind anymore that's for sure.

I like the cavalery, spear and bowmen models a lot. As well as the ghost light dude. Cows aren't very mountain either. I understand that goats are already taken, but why not make them eagles or hawks. Even wood bison would be better, or hill boars or bears. those are mountain linked and no one thinks those are weak animals. I just don't understand the line of thought that made the designers pick cows. Its like having a biker gang and deciding to have a mormot as the gang animal.

Ah and to me elfs are things that replace children of good people of those of their own, and that is how you get bad, sick or miss behaving children. At least that is what I thought about them, before reading LoTR.

Cow's aren't needed.

Teclis isn't needed.

that is nice to hear. I don't have enough points to play AoS games, but the armies I see local all include at least a faction building and some big thing like nagash, bloodthirsters, undead dragons, keepers of seeker. And in general I think that aside for nagash and arkhan, I always see 2 of them.
Ah tzeench armies run two of their big demons too, at least localy.

**Kanluwen**

How many times do people have to inform you lot that they're buffalo not cows?

**Saturmorn Carvilli**

Karol wrote:
Cows aren't very mountain either. I understand that goats are already taken, but why not make them eagles or hawks. Even wood bison would be better, or hill boars or bears. those are mountain linked and no one thinks those are weak animals. I just don't understand the line of thought that made the designers pick cows. Its like having a biker gang and deciding to have a mormot as the gang animal.

Avalenor and the Spirit of the Mountain aren't cows are even based on cows (well maybe the Texas Longhorn but I have my doubts). At least not the domesticated ones you are thinking they are. To my mind they are far more based on Asian water buffalo, or better yet, the wild yak. And only inspired by and not a direct copy of any known animal fro Earth. In the setting the golem that is the Spirit of the Mountain is based on a creature called the Ymetrican Longhorn. Which is AoS is a rugged beast thought be immortal found in the mountains of the Great Nation of Ymetica which also happens to be the nation with some most impressive mountain ranges in all of Hysh. The cow thing is usually used as a thinly veiled insult that GW is so clueless as to pick domesticated cattle as a champion of battle for a faction.

I think what the creator(s) trying to suggest picking such an animal totem is mountainous monastic orders of the Himalayas. At the same time, I think AoS is trying to be a little (or lot) less _______ earth culture but in out setting that was largely what Warhammer Fantasy was. The Greek and Tibetan/Hindi/Nepalese influences are there, but not so much as to clash against each other or even really define the culture of the Lumineth as a composite of those cultures to any great degree.

Eagles and Hawks don't really work since they fly. The wind is a one of the other important elements of the Lumineth. Neither really embody enduring rugged fortitude of mountains either. Boars don't generally strike me as a beast that would be native to the elevations that a yak would typically thought to be more of a forest dwellers (though I am sure breeds or boars find themselves high up in mountain ranges. Additionally, while boars are known to be tenacious, it is an aggressive tenacity constantly charging which also fits less with a contemplative mountain hermit/monk the Alarith are attempting to sell visually. Bears are also known to be very dangerous when provoked and probably still a bit aggressive for what the creators were going for as known for for their strength compared to their constitution. Nor are bears as obviously connected to tall mountains as yak are. Although, I will admit it took me some thought as to why bears weren't a good fit.

As I mentioned, I think going with a beast close to a yak reveals the Alarith temple as one not devoted to war. Rather forced to it instead. Age of Sigmar is not 40k. In the time of Myth there was a whole lot more than war. I think going with an animal totem that is not something associated with war or furiosity helps remind the audience that the Mortal Realms weren't always a few steps from hell.

I think just for that using yaks as the animal totem was pretty clever or daring at the very least. Which I think should be celebrated for making the attempt. There isn't that much of a shortage of classic fantasy tropes even in miniatures form these days. And a lot of them look pretty good too. I don't want GW to play it safe less we get re-hashes of the same-old, same-old until Stormcast Eternals are spammed ad nauseam with slightly different weapons and Bonereaper players are complaining they haven't go a new model since 2019 and the internet is full of what about ~~xenos~~ Grand Alliance Death memes.

**Vaktathi**

Haven't looked at anything AoS related in a while, saw this thread and ogled the mini in question for giggles.

So, thoughts. As a miniature, it's extremely impressive as a display piece in terms of composition, complexity, textures, size, etc.

However, my biggest issue with it is that, as painted and photographed on GW's website, it basically looks like a World of Warcraft raid boss or a very skinny Tauren player character in a fancy set of raid armor, not a typical Warhammer monster. I also think the hammers are dumb looking as designed, both on the Stoneguard an the monster guys, they just look too much like cartoon Bugs Bunny hammers, and are just really awful combat weapons to boot. If your plan is to go drive giant fence-posts into the ground, the hammers those elves and monsters are carrying will be great, but if they're gonna try fighting stuff, especially if it's got armor, you probably want your hammer to look more something like this.

**ccs**

Karol wrote:

I like the cavalery, spear and bowmen models a lot. As well as the ghost light dude. Cows aren't very mountain either. I understand that goats are already taken, but why not make them eagles or hawks. Even wood bison would be better, or hill boars or bears. those are mountain linked and no one thinks those are weak animals. I just don't understand the line of thought that made the designers pick cows. Its like having a biker gang and deciding to have a mormot as the gang animal.

At a glance? It's a very real world Minoan/Greek art motif going on. Think of the art on Greek urns & such.
Also a touch of India & thereabouts tossed in there (you see a lot of bulls/winged bulls depicted in ancient Sumarian etc art).
In a nutshell, the ancients were not depicting bulls because they're apex predators, but rather because they ARE strong creatures & were important to their daily lives.
And so it is with our new fantasy elves.

**Cronch**

That and uh...Aurochs. You know, the last megafauna in Europe.

**Overread**

A few fun facts

1) Most predator hunts fail. A predator might have to make many hunts to get one single meal. As a result even if they are the apex predator of an ecosystem, it doesn't mean that they are a winner in every fight.
In fact most are quite cowardly and will target weak/sick/young/old/isolated prey.

2) The only predator species that is known for targeting healthy, fit and often best of the herd/prey is humans. Most of that is because we use ranged weapons and traps which allow ourselves to be removed from the dangerzone and thus allows us to select the best of a group instead of the weaker elements.

3) In a natural system most prey controls predator populations more than predators control prey populations.
Predators will have an influence and can affect grazing times; resting times and breeding rates and such; but overall because they select the weaker elements and often rely on abundance of prey to survive; they are far more reliant on prey numbers.

4) Many prey species are not in any way weak. They might not eat meat, but they have formidable defences to avoid getting eaten. A bull (even domestic) is a powerhouse of muscle, thick hide and brawn. They are more than capable of fighting off predators; of using their horns as weapons, kicking and lashing out with hooves.
By no means are they weak, lesser or otherwise not capable of combat.

5) A lot of prey species will have a flight instinct rather than a fight instinct. This is just good survival, its far better to avoid combat than engage.

Indeed prey and predators alike who compete with their own kind for resources (territory; mates; food etc..) will often have far more posturing than fighting. Fights and conflicts are to be avoided as even if you are stronger you don't want to be hurt - there's no A&E to patch you up.

**Crispy78**

Vaktathi wrote:
I also think the hammers are dumb looking as designed, both on the Stoneguard an the monster guys, they just look too much like cartoon Bugs Bunny hammers, and are just really awful combat weapons to boot.

I think the invading army just interrupted the Stoneguard's game of croquet...

**ccs**

Crispy78 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
I also think the hammers are dumb looking as designed, both on the Stoneguard an the monster guys, they just look too much like cartoon Bugs Bunny hammers, and are just really awful combat weapons to boot.

I think the invading army just interrupted the Stoneguard's game of croquet...

Someone should model that.

**Inquisitor Gideon**

Vaktathi wrote:
Haven't looked at anything AoS related in a while, saw this thread and ogled the mini in question for giggles.

So, thoughts. As a miniature, it's extremely impressive as a display piece in terms of composition, complexity, textures, size, etc.

However, my biggest issue with it is that, as painted and photographed on GW's website, it basically looks like a World of Warcraft raid boss or a very skinny Tauren player character in a fancy set of raid armor, not a typical Warhammer monster. I also think the hammers are dumb looking as designed, both on the Stoneguard an the monster guys, they just look too much like cartoon Bugs Bunny hammers, and are just really awful combat weapons to boot. If your plan is to go drive giant fence-posts into the ground, the hammers those elves and monsters are carrying will be great, but if they're gonna try fighting stuff, especially if it's got armor, you probably want your hammer to look more something like this.

My issue with this is what do you define as a typical warhammer monster? Because when i consider the question, the only thing that really comes to mind are the greater deamons. Which i think could be definied as warhammer, but none of the other monsters really strike me as having a "warhammer" look.

**Vaktathi**

That's one of those "intangibles", hard to define, but you know it when you see it. There's a lot of stuff that, when you see it, immediately and without any labels or iconography, you know where it's from even if you've never seen it before, but you can't necessarily define why. With this particular thing, if I just saw an image of it outside a GW-related board, Age of Sigmar probably wouldn't be the first IP I thought of, honestly I'd probably ask what WoW raid boss someone 3D printed

Granted, there's a degree of subjectivity there and there's always overlap with fantasy stuff, and part of it may just be the paintjob, but that's how it feels to me.

**AnomanderRake**

Vaktathi wrote:
That's one of those "intangibles", hard to define, but you know it when you see it. There's a lot of stuff that, when you see it, immediately and without any labels or iconography, you know where it's from even if you've never seen it before, but you can't necessarily define why. With this particular thing, if I just saw an image of it outside a GW-related board, Age of Sigmar probably wouldn't be the first IP I thought of, honestly I'd probably ask what WoW raid boss someone 3D printed

Granted, there's a degree of subjectivity there and there's always overlap with fantasy stuff, and part of it may just be the paintjob, but that's how it feels to me.

I don't know that it is an "I know it when I see it" here; I'm going to go out on a limb and say that things get accused of being "WoW monsters" because they're large, overdesigned, and contextless. Nothing about the model means anything other than "hey, this looks cool", no thought was put into what setting it fits into or how it fits into the setting. It's the product of people saying "It's magic, move on". Why do the elves have cow monsters? Because magic. Why are the horns that wide? Because it looks cool. What are the mountains on its shoulders for? Nothing, they just looked cool. Not even a tiny fraction of anything on the design is in any way grounded or rational.

I'm not seeking to be perjorative here; there are plenty of people who enjoy the flights-of-fancy no-connection-to-reality aesthetic that makes people accuse something of being a "WoW monster". It produces fanciful and striking things. But some people, myself included, finds it tortures our suspension of disbelief a bit.

**Cronch**

But..that's any monster...without context a dragon is just a fat lizard with wings, patently absurd because no hexapod vertebrates exist in reality.
A tzeench greater demon is again, a flamingo with arms that put on a bathrobe, what kind of stupid design is that?!
Without the context of the in-game lore, they all are just dumb toys.

**AnomanderRake**

Cronch wrote:
But..that's any monster...without context a dragon is just a fat lizard with wings, patently absurd because no hexapod vertebrates exist in reality.
A tzeench greater demon is again, a flamingo with arms that put on a bathrobe, what kind of stupid design is that?!
Without the context of the in-game lore, they all are just dumb toys.

The difference between a "WoW-monster" and something that makes a lick of sense is that within the context of the game lore it's still just a dumb toy.