Gnolls

[Hupp n at em]

Looks like an interesting kit.  As a non-D&D-er, Gnolls are a complete flatline for me, no prior experience with them nor any excitement for them.  But if it looks like a good kit, I'll still pick some up, as I can kitbash them with GW Beastmen and Skaven to make my own breeding pits beasties.    I find the kneejerk reaction to any non-positive feedback a bit disconcerting... I think any criticism (in this thread at least) has been expressed constructively and politely.  And regardless, there are many, many more positive responses than negative, so I don't see those suddenly causing someone who likes what they see not to buy. After all, I tend to think most people here are adults and not high schoolers who are so easily swayed by another's opinion. 

[Captain Blood]

I wonder if the LAF is a little too used used to 'that's great' and 'very nice' responses, so that 'I don't like it' comes as a bit of a shock. Again, not advocating a moanfest, not like TMP or the other place (I think the LAF is too personal and well-moderated for that anyway) but there has to be a little polite wiggle room to say what doesn't quite impress you, and why.

Constructive criticism is a good thing in my book. Comments of the 'those suck' variety are not a good thing. I don't personally think a pack attack of criticism founded on the slenderest of evidence is a good thing either. The first thread on this topic, which got locked, was precisely the kind of moanfest we all profess to hate. I don't think too many of our members would be glad to see LAF going down that road.

I do also find the degree of vitriol with which fantasy gamers in particular seem to attack new products they don't like, most perplexing. If someone launches a new product based on how they see a particular fantasy creature, how can that possibly be 'wrong'? It's not real. There is no 'truth' - it's fantasy for heavens sake. I saw someone the other day criticising a model of an armoured bear because it wasnt clear from the model how it's hat could possibly stay on! Is it really worth that angst and bad feeling that often follows such 'criticisms' of completely imaginary creations?

The moderators here tend to call a halt to things likely to cause grief. Not because constructive criticism is not allowed. But because all too often these things descend into moanfests and web rage, which is at odds with the constructive, courteous, peaceable spirit which most LAFers say is the thing they appreciate about this forum, and which differentiates LAF from some other internet destinations.

And now, back to the gnolls 

[throwsFireball]

I do also find the degree of vitriol with which fantasy gamers in particular seem to attack new products they don't like, most perplexing. If someone launches a new product based on how they see a particular fantasy creature, how can that possibly be 'wrong'? It's not real. There is no 'truth' - it's fantasy for heavens sake. I saw someone the other day criticising a model of an armoured bear because it wasnt clear from the model how it's hat could possibly stay on! Is it really worth that angst and bad feeling that often follows such 'criticisms' of completely imaginary creations?

I think in this particular case it's a comparison to the box art that's already been put out:

[Nord]

Yeah, I think the comment I made in the previous thread was that the artwork and the first preview of the sculpt were very different. Maybe not surprising as the doggy thing was holding a bow. The artwork shows  hunched but dynamic figures with hyena like faces - the sculpts shown so far don't really relate to this artwork. Maybe it is the way it's been posed, but it has a very rigid look to it.

It's true that fantasy players (I count myself as one) are far more critical of stuff. We complain about sculpts, rules, prices, etc. I don't know if that makes us more moany, or more discerning? There is some real dross put out by historical manufacturers, which the punters seem to lap up. Horses for courses and vive la difference I say.

I find the clampdown on critical voices to be quite heavy handed to be honest. A forum is a place for discussion is it not? A discussion is a range of views and voices, not a fan club. While some find it unpleasant to see some (fairly tepid) remarks on what they don't like, it beats the (fairly vapid) stream of "lovely" and "great" that reads like the pages of a teenage fan mag. Worst of all is the "like it or shut up" mind gestapo attitude.

[Darkson71]

Could I ask that if you want a discussion on the merits of criticism (critical or not) on a miniatures forum that you start a new thread specifically on that subject? I'd rather like this thread to be about the upcoming plastic gnolls, and not at risk of being locked like the other one (notice how the pic I shared here was posted on FB but not here).

[Paboook]

I would like to make few points about gnolls based on my experience with the previous Frostgrave plastic sets.

I really like the soldiers kit. Lots of options, huge number of weapons and pieces of equipment, excellent for kit-bashing. The cultists were even better because of this: 1) dynamic poses (there is only 1 body in movement in soldiers set, the ratio is opposite with the cultists), 2) sharper detail.

The cultists were absolute blast for me and I can compare my excitement from this set only with my first plastic set ever which I bought probably 15 years ago! The only con of cultists set is limited number of weapons, which isn't big issue as both sets go together very well. I would like to note that both sets are very true to the artwork by Dmitry Burmak.

With such experience I would expect this: 1) gnolls will be technically at least as good as the cultists (detail and mould sharpness), 2) they will look like the gnolls from the illustration. Nobody can say much about the first point in this stage, so let's just compare the prototypes with the artwork. First, Dmitry Burmak did excellent job as his gnolls look very dynamic and ferocious. They are obviously animal breeds and look very nasty. On the other hand, both sculpts we have seen are very static, which goes very deeply against the beastly nature of gnolls. The anatomy seems to me somewhere in the middle between the artwork and normal human. The position of head on the body, the crouch, the hands - everything looks less beastly than Dmitry's vision. Dmitry's gnolls have various trinkets, bones, pieces of chainmail etc. Both WIP sculpts lack anything like that and wear a simple leather armor.

To make things short, when compared with the artwork, the WIP gnolls are:
1) very static (one standing gnoll would be enough)
2) too much human-like
3) wearing simple and not very interesting clothes

I believe that North Star sculptors have VERY difficult job with this set, and I would be actually surprised if they could precisely capture the wild and ferocious look of Dmitry's gnolls. What I am hoping for is some changes to get at least closer to that.

[area23]

It's probably a choice to have them in normal poses. An 'old-school' approach perhaps. Personally I'm not fond at all of overly dynamic poses and prefer figures that would rank up.

I absolutely will have to make a trio of murderous brigands.

[Timbor]

I seem to remember a healthy amount of skepticism about the Frostgrave plastic soldiers set when all we had to see were the 3-ups.  Those were largely silenced once the sprue pics were made available, and then once the box was actually released.  I doubt it will be much different here.

[Elbows]

None of the pictures posted have made my jaw-drop yet.  I'm excited at the idea of a Gnoll plastic kit, but I'll be waiting for proper sprue pics before making a decision.  Do I like the posted samples so far?  Not particularly.

More plastics are always a good thing though.  If the heads are modular we can expect a heap of kit-bashing options etc.

[mweaver]

I kinda like 'em, and to me the "too-human" thing is a plus in that they can mix and match with human plastic kits all the better.  I have no problem with the man part being more dominant in this particular set of beastmen.

[Dr. The Viking]

It seems Frostgrave is getting the Games Workshop treatment with people being so vociferous even about the stuff they don't like.  

I personally think this is a very interesting release. Very non standard in a way. Gnolls and Kobolds are staple D&D yet not over represented.

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

Gnolls.  Bright teeth, sharp claws, leather armour.
This one seems to tick all the boxes.



Beyonce Gnolls.

[3 fingers]

 

[Ray Earle]

She looks nothing like the box art. 

[Grimmnar]

Constructive criticism is a good thing in my book. Comments of the 'those suck' variety are not a good thing. I don't personally think a pack attack of criticism founded on the slenderest of evidence is a good thing either. The first thread on this topic, which got locked, was precisely the kind of moanfest we all profess to hate. I don't think too many of our members would be glad to see LAF going down that road.

The moderators here tend to call a halt to things likely to cause grief. Not because constructive criticism is not allowed. But because all too often these things descend into moanfests and web rage, which is at odds with the constructive, courteous, peaceable spirit which most LAFers say is the thing they appreciate about this forum, and which differentiates LAF from some other internet destinations.

I agree with the above and glad that the MOD's step in from time to time. Too much flame over on TMP and the inconsistent nature of modding there is a pain in the ass. I just read and go about my way.

I do also find the degree of vitriol with which fantasy gamers in particular seem to attack new products they don't like, most perplexing. If someone launches a new product based on how they see a particular fantasy creature, how can that possibly be 'wrong'? It's not real. There is no 'truth' - it's fantasy for heavens sake. I saw someone the other day criticizing a model of an armoured bear because it wasn't clear from the model how it's hat could possibly stay on! Is it really worth that angst and bad feeling that often follows such 'criticisms' of completely imaginary creations?

Well since that was me let me say i dont think i was criticizing i was genuinely asking the question because i was curious. To me there was no angst or bad feeling. Since there were straps sculpted for the neck and body armor/saddle was the head piece attached the neck? I was expecting the response to be that such a strap would have been such a small detail to worry about sculpting on the bear or under the fur. Shieldwolf though explained the thought process for the decision and laid it out just fine for me and sounds great.

And now, back to the gnolls 

Agreed. I am loving the ideas of the Gnolls personally. Been loving the announcement from the box art when the info was released. I agree that they are a staple of fantasy and i even thinking these boxed set has scifi implications. I see Arks as well when i think of Gnolls. I for one cant wait for the release.

Grimm