Bugbears!

[Prof Steelblade]

Speaking of female armour:


 

[Vermis]

Two examples from popular fantasy fiction: in A Game of Thrones, Robert Baratheon's warhammer is described as "huge" and "almost too heavy" for Ned Stark to lift (I paraphrase).

Makes you wonder that if Ned can hardly lift it, how awkward is it for Robert?
Agreed with the knife.

You're probably right on the male minis: many of mine probably looked that way because they were stripped of paint in my youth - with a Stanley knife.

Yow.

Yes! And of course it wasn't once.

Point! But libraries were.

As I said in another thread, I was looking through a nostalgically purchased Warhammer 3rd edition, and I was struck by the fact that none of the wolves are painted anything like a real wolf. It's almost as if the painters were going on second-hand descriptions of wolves ("grey" or "brown").

I think this is a good point about reference and observation, and a lesson that pops up in any good 'learn how draw' book: people go with what they 'know', rather than check. Everyone 'knows' wolves are grey or brown - just paint 'em grey or brown. Maybe it's seen as fine for what might've been considered 'just kids' toys', but it might've been nice to show what a little research could do for your painting.

It reminds me of boars. The warhammer boar eventually flanderised into this plastic type; a real mutated lookin' thing with stumpy legs, swayback, head almost as big as it's body, tail like a party blower stuck between it's cheeks. As far as I could see it even influenced how other sculptors or producers made their boars. Then Seb Perbett turned up and you should've seen the cries that these looked nothing like boars, because everyone 'knew' what boars looked like. They do look like boars, they're just caricaturised in a different, dare I say more informed and better, way.

Lots to digest here. I think there are lots of points to be made about technical ability/facility versus style. I mean, the old Nick Lund Chronicle hobgoblin shaman (masked, pointing, leaning on staff) strikes me as a much better miniature than almost any subsequent Citadel orc or goblin shaman - even though those are far better sculpted. The Chronicle model is just far more powerful and dramatic; it's a cruder sculpture, but it's a more effective one.

At the risk of contradicting myself: I'd say what Nick lacked in the technical execution of that sculpt, he made up for in design and characterisation. (Not as in 'sticking to one kind of style for decades', but as in 'creating a believable, informative pose'!) I think that can make up for some slight wobbles in the putty.
I mentioned the old C11 halflings: the sculpting can be a little rough in those, the heads are almost the third of their height etc., and later citadel halflings - like the imperial halflings and Lumpin Croop's lot - are much cleaner and consistent in execution. But the C11s are each a little character with their own mood and even story. They're cartoony, but like the boars, in a deliberate way. In later halflings it look like they have just two things: being butterballs on legs feet, and maybe having an angry face. With the added twist of making them regimented, it doesn't seem to be enough. They're still cartoony, but don't seem to capitalise on that...

Nic immediately came back with ... "but it's fantasy" ... to which I replied with "urrrruuggghhh" and wept a little inside.

I just went "urrrruuggghhh" myself.

This one must only eat very tall grass and require a substantial body of water just to take a drink ...

Lol! Yes! Agreed with you on the costumes, but especially the horns. This is 'sticking random horns on it', and 'because it's fantasy'. What you say about that big deer/moose/thing, I've thought about the GW thundertusk.

Makes me think of a couple of other anatomy bugbears:

- horns, hooves, plates - any keratin or chitin has to be riddled with huge, weathered grooves and cracks.

- cloven hooves are a regular horse hoof (or just a cylindrical block) with a big crack down the middle. Separate, individual digits? That's cray-cray!

- shoulders on animals are short, round things, just like human deltoids. Make 'em especially round and bulgy so that people can see how powerful they are.

I've complained about this with the Mantic werewolves, but it annoys me when it's applied to non-humanoid creatures. I can see a bit of it in that lizard creature, although that's not the worst example I've seen. I have seen short, bulgy deltoids like pumpkins, looking like they were all but glued on to the flat sides of dragons and other things. What it says to me is that the sculptor (or artist) doesn't know how deltoids attach or work on the human body, let alone anything else.

Rackham was one of the main offender in this, but PP and Wyrd (and sometimes even GW: Jain Zar, I'm looking at you) have lots of bad designs in this aspect.

Man, tiny fiddly parts on Wyrd metals were a pig to put together. What I've seen of their plastics doesn't indicate much difference.

[jthomlin]

Lol! Yes! Agreed with you on the costumes, but especially the horns. This is 'sticking random horns on it', and 'because it's fantasy'. What you say about that big deer/moose/thing, I've thought about the GW thundertusk.

Yup same issues, but wtf is that 'chin horn'? Not sure why it even bothers to have a mouth, wouldn't like to try and drive it over a ditch or rampart either. 'Unintelligent Design' at it's finest! 

Cheers!
Joe Thomlinson

[Michi]

I love it like it is. Conan was a revelation to me. Everything else came with it later...
The entire genre is explained in that movie by the way:

[Whitwort Stormbringer]

I suppose I'd judge them all on a case-by-case basis.  I don't think any of your bugbears are necessarily dealbreakers for me, right out the gates, but I generally agree with most of them.

I give Warhammer models of the 5th-6th ed. era a free pass on a lot of them, primarily for vermis's #7 pet peeve - nostalgia.  Not a huge fan of much of what GW's put out since then, but that was when I got into wargaming, and those old metal dwarfs in particular are some of my favorites (yes, even the dual-ax-wielding slayers and cinderblock-headed warhammers).

1.   Oversized weapons
Yeah, generally speaking really not my thing, in fantasy miniatures or otherwise.  I don't necessarily care if they're a just tad oversized, but the absurd proportions of a lot of fantasy minis are too much for my tastes.  Every now and then, though, oversized weapons on intentionally comical or cartoony models work, for me.  Some fantasy worlds seek that caricatured aesthetic, and do it well.  That's really just a matter of taste, I suppose.

2.   “Dual wielding”
This one really doesn't bother me, depending on the weapon.  Two swords, two clubs, two axes, whatever - I'm OK with that.  But in combination with the above, though, it tends to look pretty bad.  I agree that it looks best when it's a main weapon and secondary dagger-type weapon.

3.   Steroidal fighters
Hmm, I guess it seems to me that I don't see this outside of Conan the Barbarian type models too much anyways, and to me it fits there, so it doesn't bug me too much.

4.   Underclad barbarians
Pretty much the same as above.  May seem a bit silly, but I'm just not that worried about it.

5.   Attractive women only
I think for me it's much less to do with the attractiveness of women in miniature, and much more to do with their attire and, as vermis points out, posing.  The arched backs, cocked hips, shoulders-back/chest-forward, and so on and so forth is just absurd.

I really couldn't care less that there are "pin-up" models, but the fact that such a disproportionately large number of miniatures of women fall into this category, at least to some degree, is distressing.  This is an issue that I think is probably generally getting better, thanks to the likes of Bad Squiddo, Red Box, etc.

6. Anatomy
I'm bothered especially unrealistic anatomy, of which we've seen some excellent examples in this thread already, but not too nit-picky in this regard.  I would consider myself an adherent to the "rule of cool," per se, but am OK with sacrificing some anatomical plausibility if it makes the model look better.  I think I'm with vermis in that a lot of the worst offenders, though, are just the result of a lack of understanding or interest in correct anatomy.

7. Nostalgia
Well, as mentioned, I have my own blind spots in this regard, but I agree that there is a lot of pretty rough old lead out there that people praise, and I don't quite get it myself.  I suspect it has more to do with rejecting contemporary stylistic choices in sculpting than in embracing past skill in sculpting, but then there are plenty of very nicely sculpted modern miniatures that evoke older aesthetics, so I'd pick those any day of the week.

[LeadAsbestos]

I'm working on my old school Citadel Norse army, a nostalgic take on steroidal underclad barbarians with over sized weapons and questionable anatomy, and I'm loving every minute of it! 

My own peeve is nostalgia for crappy minis, but it makes perfect sense. No helping what you are drawn to.

[Pictors Studio]

Re: Whip swords and razor hula hoops.

The Sikhs had whip swords in reality, the Urumi:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urumi

And if not hula hoops at least razor edged frisbees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakram

[Brandubh]

I am a huge proponent for realistic weapons and realistic body types, even in my "fantasy".
That said I would like to discuss your #2: Dual Wielding

I'd like to offer an opposite opinion on this one.

Case, (also sometimes called Florentine) is an actual fighting style that was used in history.  
Historically, a case of rapiers would be two rapiers where the grips and guards would be specially built so they’d fit comfortably in a single sheath.

I am in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) and have been for years. I fight both Heavy and Rapier and I actually prefer to fight in Rapier using a rapier and dagger as my main style. Mind you, this in a 'recreational' combat... where most tournament fights last less than 20 seconds of real fighting and, while recreational, is actually pretty realistic.

The weapon weights are extremely close to those of real historic weapons.

In Heavy, I have recently started fighting Florentine under the tutelage of a 3-time Viscount who regularly wins tournaments with this style.... I know of people who do fight Florentine with axes and warhammers. They train hard and they are effective, at least for those who have spent the time to specialize in them.

Patrick
aka
Ld Brandubh De Santini

For those interested, a montage. Dual Wielding is used a lot (and case is used at about 2:02 of the video)

[sleep when Im lead]

Barbarian figures for me are usually the worst in any range. Designers seem to want to push the envelope for them every few years. I have ended up with the odd one over the years as part of a job lot. I think the problem is that people are a bit fuzzy about the differences between barbarians and berserkers. If I need a barbarian character I use Viking Berserker mini. This is tainted by Erik The Viking. This is not helped (tainted still further) by the fact than Conan (at least as manifested by Schwarzenegger) is an iconic character. But I guess this is what people must want or they wouldn't make them. I admit to owning a Boris the Barbarian figure (or two) (or three) from Heresy Miniatures but this was an attempt to annoy someone more than anything else.

Bikini armour is a bit of a trope but there are so many tropes in gaming it is a bit difficult to know where to draw the line. Banning pointy hats for wizards? Maybe at the more pneumatic end of female mini design should be considered more carefully.

I think we all get it wrong when it comes to figures. Even down to the colours. I know people that will discuss (fortunately not at too much length) the colours that were available and how we use far to vibrant colours. At the end of the day, you pick what you want and make it work the way you want.

Oversized weapons can be trimmed. Again I think a lot of this is media inspired. I also have problems with overely ornate weapons too. This is what tiny saws, piano wire and spare parts are for.

[barbaric splendor]

Interesting discussion - I find myself on the opposite side of the original post completely   It is interesting hearing the varying opinions here though. And it shows me this will not be the place to show any more of the sculpts I am having done for my own barbarian line, as they will probably just wind up being "poster children" for these bugbears

Not really sure I have any personal pet peeves along these lines, except maybe mixing guns or more advanced technology with more primitive themes.

[eMills]

And it shows me this will not be the place to show any more of the sculpts I am having done for my own barbarian line, as they will probably just wind up being "poster children" for these bugbears

Please don't deprive the board of pictures because of one post. Your figures are mostly well sculpted and designed (super big guy has some issues in my opinion, but I'm waiting to see the finished sculpt).

I personally disagree with most of the things in the original post, and I'm willing to bet that you and I aren't the only ones that do.

No, not the giant hairy goblins we all know and love, but “causes of obsessive, fear, anxiety, or irritation”!

Here are some of the things I really dislike in fantasy miniatures. I wonder how many others share my peeves – or take an entirely opposing view!

1.   Oversized weapons
I have very limited tolerance for this. Not only does it hinder the pleasing intermingling of fantasy and historical miniatures, but it also tends to imbalance miniatures that are otherwise nicely sculpted. Ironically, the move to plastic should have made this better; early-80s sculptors were often constrained, to some extent by the need to avoid making figures too fragile. I also find that oversized armament renders miniatures unnecessarily comic: one can’t escape the lurking suspicion that their weapons are supposed to be made of foam. I was basing up some old Citadel gnolls the other day and was struck by how pleasingly proportioned their axes and swords are – despite the limitations of lead.
A special place in Hell is reserved for oversized warhammers. I reckon all miniature designers should keep the Uccello image below in constant sight: this is what a warhammer looks like.

I'm of two minds on this one. On one hand weapons that are too oversized annoy me, and on the other I don't mind them oversized to a degree. Where that line is seems to come on a case by case basis, but I tend towards wanting a more realistic size.

2.   “Dual wielding”
Oh how I loathe this! I have nothing against a figure with a sword and a main gauche dagger or even some other convincing “off-hand” weapon, so long as the stance is appropriate. But the “both weapons overhead at once” approach is an abomination.
A special place in Hell is reserved for dual wielders of axes, which always looks unconvincing to me (as indeed do warhammers: it’s something to do with the accuracy needed to guide the head). And, for some reason, dual-axe-wielding dwarves most of all.

There are many, many actual fighting styles that used two weapons. Also, considering that we are talking about fantasy figures here, I'm not sure why you brought this up at all.

3.   Steroidal fighters
I find overmuscled fantasy figures immensely tedious. Think of how strong a chimpanzee is. Then take a look at one. They’re immensely brawny, sure, but they don’t look like simian bodybuilders. And nor should orcs. But human figures are perhaps worst of all in this respect.
A special place in Hell goes to overdeveloped pectorals. The bench press didn’t really take off as an exercise until the second half of the twentieth century (compare and contrast the physiques of modern bodybuilders with early-twentieth-century strongmen like Arthur Saxon), so it seems odd that models from fantasy versions of the Dark Ages have been spending quite so much time on it.

Big people happen. Always have, always will. Bodybuilder physique is a modern phenomenon, true, but there is no reason to poo poo it's inclusion in fantasy because of that.

As to chimpanzees, they are actually relatively muscular. They also do have some fatty areas, and generally loose skin. Their strength, however, is thought to be a product of their muscle fibers rather than muscle size. I'd also argue that we should be talking more about gorillas than chimpanzees, especially in relation to orcs. Gorillas are much more muscular than chimpanzees.

Lastly, these figures are mostly tied to a power fantasy. Modern physique can be argued to convey that better, especially at the size of figures we are talking about.

4.   Underclad barbarians
Sure, there’s a time and a place for screaming not-Celts in nothing but a layer of woad. But the default loin-cloth-only barbarian is just boring. There’s so much rich inspiration for fantasy barbarians, from the boar-crested hemets of Beowulf to the bound skulls of the Huns.
A special place in Hell is reserved for underclad barbarians from very cold places.

While I agree that more cultural references could be incorporated, I disagree that barbarians with little clothing are an issue. I also find it amusing you specifically made an exception for an historical example. I'm noticing a trend...

As to underclad barbarism cold climes, well, I agree to an extent. However, people are different with respect to their tolerances for heat, cold, pain, etc., so I'm inclined to be less bothered by it than you.

5.   Attractive women only
This just gets boring. Why shouldn’t female fighters and adventurers have their fair share of facial scars and broken noses? And why should they all be good-looking to begin with? Early Citadel adventurers were actually very good in this regard. They had some hefty and doughty-looking female clerics and fighters who didn’t look like they’d wandered in from the catwalk or the Sultan’s harem. There’s a great, battle-scarred female dwarf with an eyepatch from that era. And the Amazons were pretty good (rather than pretty). In this regard, I think the Dice Bag Lady’s shieldmaidens and she-orcs are excellent.
A special place in Hell is reserved for universally attractive underclad female barbarians. From the North. With steroidal physiques. Who are dual-wielding oversized weapons.

I'd agree with Vermis that the body language and tendency to have display armor are more issues than how well the sculptor does faces. Which leads me to my next point that your examples of very good early Citadel miniatures were less than attractive because the sculpting was less proficient.

A lot of your points seem to boil down to "fantasy in the industry is not historical enough". I disagree, personally. However, I do think there is room for more historically influenced, or perhaps more "realistic" fantasy. Hope that makes sense.

My personal bugbears are:

1. Sculptors who can't be bothered to figure out how actual humans move.  Seriously, the posing on the majority of the figures in this industry is dreadful.  And I find it frustrating in the extreme that we as consumers hand wave it away as "dynamic".

2. "Realism" in fantasy. And what I mean by that are things like the weapons being way oversized as Hobgoblin mentioned, but for me its more a problem with armor. A great deal of the armor clad figures in this industry would barely be able to move, let alone fight. It would be nice for sculptors, artists, and dare I ask for it, art directors to do just a little bit of research as to how these things worked. It's like several of my art teachers used to tell me about anatomy: "Once you know how it really works, you can exaggerate all you want." 

3. Nostalgia. I understand that you grew up with those figures and loved them. I did too. But seriously, they are usually terribly sculpted and don't stand up to the more proficient sculpts of modern times at all. It's annoying as all hell when people try to pretend that they do. Also "character" seems to universally be code for "poorly sculpted but I like it anyway". Which is fine. You like what you like and I don't want to tell you otherwise. But when it's poorly sculpted I'm gonna say so.

4. Related to point 3, I find it frustrating that so many companies want to drag the industry back to the 80's, visually speaking. I understand that there is a market for it, but I feel like it holds the industry as a whole back. Also, I think that more people would buy well sculpted, modern styled figures than would buy just for the older nostalgia inspired sculpts. In other words, they are leaving more money on the table than they are taking away.

I think that's enough ranting for this morning. Hobgoblin, I sincerely hope you don't take any of the above as an attack on you because none of it was meant that way.

Interesting discussion though.

~Eric

[Hobgoblin]

I am a huge proponent for realistic weapons and realistic body types, even in my "fantasy".
That said I would like to discuss your #2: Dual Wielding

I'd like to offer an opposite opinion on this one.

Case, (also sometimes called Florentine) is an actual fighting style that was used in history.  
Historically, a case of rapiers would be two rapiers where the grips and guards would be specially built so they’d fit comfortably in a single sheath.

Isn't it true, though, that this sort of style (with two matching swords) was confined to duels or even "display" combats? That is, it wasn't widely practised, and when it was, it was practised in highly specific situations. It wasn't, as far as I know, ever a battlefield technique.

As I said in the first post, though, I have no beef with figures that look as if they are going to use their weapons in an authentic fashion. Sword and dagger seem a good combination for, e.g., an adventurer who can't carry a shield. It's the massed ranks of battlefield "dual wielders" that really get me, though - and, perhaps more than anything else, their frequency.

I am in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) and have been for years. I fight both Heavy and Rapier and I actually prefer to fight in Rapier using a rapier and dagger as my main style. Mind you, this in a 'recreational' combat... where most tournament fights last less than 20 seconds of real fighting and, while recreational, is actually pretty realistic.

The weapon weights are extremely close to those of real historic weapons.

In Heavy, I have recently started fighting Florentine under the tutelage of a 3-time Viscount who regularly wins tournaments with this style.... I know of people who do fight Florentine with axes and warhammers. They train hard and they are effective, at least for those who have spent the time to specialize in them.

Interesting stuff. Isn't one big thing about SCA fighting, though, that grappling isn't allowed? I do think that's very significant, because grappling is a huge part of man-to-man combat (as so many historical combat treatises attest). And an "offhand" weapon becomes a disadvantage in many situations because you can't grab with that hand. I used to a lot of fencing; having a done a lot of judo too, I was always conscious of the fact that the obvious way out of the "clinch" that sabreurs get into was to grab your opponent's sword arm and throw him. Alas, the officials would have frowned on that ...

On warhammers and axes specifically: I suspect that the efficacy of using paired weapons of this type is difficult to simulate - particularly with regard to punching through armour with the "beak", which is where questions of control arise with the offhand weapon. The same goes for the edge of the axe.

[Hobgoblin]

Please don't deprive the board of pictures because of one post. Your figures are mostly well sculpted and designed (super big guy has some issues in my opinion, but I'm waiting to see the finished sculpt).

I personally disagree with most of the things in the original post, and I'm willing to bet that you and I aren't the only ones that do.

I second all of that! The last thing I'd want is for people not to post stuff because of anything I've written. Those figures are very good in that Frazetta vein, which isn't to everyone's taste but clearly to the taste of lots of others.

There are many, many actual fighting styles that used two weapons. Also, considering that we are talking about fantasy figures here, I'm not sure why you brought this up at all.

There are; but few are battlefield styles; i have a particular beef with "units" of dual-wielding orcs or whatever. And most developed for highly specialised contexts: duelling or displays of swordsmanship, for example.

Big people happen. Always have, always will. Bodybuilder physique is a modern phenomenon, true, but there is no reason to poo poo it's inclusion in fantasy because of that.

Yes, but most big people don't look like bodybuilders. Indeed, most big and athletic people don't look like bodybuilders.

As to chimpanzees, they are actually relatively muscular. They also do have some fatty areas, and generally loose skin. Their strength, however, is thought to be a product of their muscle fibers rather than muscle size. I'd also argue that we should be talking more about gorillas than chimpanzees, especially in relation to orcs. Gorillas are much more muscular than chimpanzees.

Yes, chimps are very muscular compared with humans - but again, they don't look like bodybuilders; as you say, they have fat and loose skin. And they have massive pulling muscles rather than pushing ones - huge lats rather than huge pecs. They're surely a more appropriate stand-in for orcs than gorillas, though:

 "...Grishnákh, a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground."

Lastly, these figures are mostly tied to a power fantasy. Modern physique can be argued to convey that better, especially at the size of figures we are talking about.

I don't really follow you there. I think the "bodybuilder" figures tend to look camp and unconvincing. I mean, most big, strong athletic people don't look like bodybuilders, so I've never understood why a fantasy "barbarian" should.

While I agree that more cultural references could be incorporated, I disagree that barbarians with little clothing are an issue. I also find it amusing you specifically made an exception for an historical example. I'm noticing a trend...

I suppose my point is that while there's a place for the Celtic-style naked warrior, there's so much more that could be done. I find the "Schwarzenegger as Conan" trope terribly tired. Real-world barbarians (from the Roman perspective, say) provide so much potential. I think the LotR Rohirrim, with their Visigothic/Anglo-Saxon echoes, show how this can be done well. But that's just one possibility out of myriad

As to underclad barbarism cold climes, well, I agree to an extent. However, people are different with respect to their tolerances for heat, cold, pain, etc., so I'm inclined to be less bothered by it than you.
I'd agree with Vermis that the body language and tendency to have display armor are more issues than how well the sculptor does faces. Which leads me to my next point that your examples of very good early Citadel miniatures were less than attractive because the sculpting was less proficient.

Ah, no: the ones I'm thinking of here are the C01 "warrior maidens". Some embodied the tropes I dislike, but they were very varied and there were a good few that were deliberately sculpted as stocky, hefty, formidable-looking women.

A lot of your points seem to boil down to "fantasy in the industry is not historical enough". I disagree, personally. However, I do think there is room for more historically influenced, or perhaps more "realistic" fantasy. Hope that makes sense.

I prefer miniatures to be convincing. Oversized weapons, unsuitable clothing and steroidal physiques take away from that. But in that regard, yes, I think a greater historical influence is probably no bad thing.

My personal bugbears are:

1. Sculptors who can't be bothered to figure out how actual humans move.  Seriously, the posing on the majority of the figures in this industry is dreadful.  And I find it frustrating in the extreme that we as consumers hand wave it away as "dynamic".

2. "Realism" in fantasy. And what I mean by that are things like the weapons being way oversized as Hobgoblin mentioned, but for me its more a problem with armor. A great deal of the armor clad figures in this industry would barely be able to move, let alone fight. It would be nice for sculptors, artists, and dare I ask for it, art directors to do just a little bit of research as to how these things worked. It's like several of my art teachers used to tell me about anatomy: "Once you know how it really works, you can exaggerate all you want." 

I agree with all of that.

3. Nostalgia. I understand that you grew up with those figures and loved them. I did too. But seriously, they are usually terribly sculpted and don't stand up to the more proficient sculpts of modern times at all. It's annoying as all hell when people try to pretend that they do. Also "character" seems to universally be code for "poorly sculpted but I like it anyway". Which is fine. You like what you like and I don't want to tell you otherwise. But when it's poorly sculpted I'm gonna say so.

I'm not sure I agree here. Take the two sets of images below: two modern GW orcs and two sets of early-80s ones. While the finishing - clarity of casting, 'clean" surfaces, etc. - is much better in the modern plastics, I think the older ones are better in almost every respect (I'm less keen on the later, slottabased chap leaning on his polearm, so let's exclude him). Considered as statues, they're aesthetically far superior: more naturally posed, more understated, and just less vulgar and cartoonish. Sure, there are impossible teeth on both sides, but look at the stance of the guy with the yellow cloak, horned helmet and axe: it's streets ahead of the "unfortunate accident" posture of the recent plastics.

To me, there's no element of nostalgia here. The more recent GW orcs strike me as ugly, not in subject (of course they should be ugly!), but in execution - unnatural stances (even for goblins), oversized weapons, essentially garish. The old C15 orcs, in contrast, are just better executed in pretty much every way barring the "finish". And the finish doesn't really matter once they're painted. I'd expect kids to prefer the new ones, but I suspect that most adults would prefer the metal ones.

4. Related to point 3, I find it frustrating that so many companies want to drag the industry back to the 80's, visually speaking. I understand that there is a market for it, but I feel like it holds the industry as a whole back. Also, I think that more people would buy well sculpted, modern styled figures than would buy just for the older nostalgia inspired sculpts. In other words, they are leaving more money on the table than they are taking away.

Which companies do you have in mind here?

I think that's enough ranting for this morning. Hobgoblin, I sincerely hope you don't take any of the above as an attack on you because none of it was meant that way.

Of course not! It's hard to get a good discussion going without disagreement!

[Philhelm]

Bugbear:  Ridiculously long fingers.

I've noticed plenty of models in which a hand holding say, a spear, has fingers that are way, way too long.  We're talking fingers that would be a foot long as they wrap around the entire thickness of the (overly thick) spear shaft.

[Zoggin-eck]

For me, toy soldiers (both fantasy and sci-fi)... anything goes!

Weirdly, the "dual wield" style models are often my favourite. I actually nodded along reading the first mention of it, then realised how many GW witch elves, Dark Elf Corsairs and orc/goblin character models I have armed like this.

Make models with realistic weapons, crazy weapons, lazily add guns to a historical model, too many limbs etc. and I'll probably still buy them One moment I'll prefer an 80's Ral Partha model for having fairly realistic sized weapons, the next I'll paint a Confrontation model with axe heads the size of a man. Overly sexual models just because the miniature is a woman is one of the only things that really put me off a range. In context it's cool, just like half-naked steroid abusers.

If I had to choose one bugbear:

FOOT ON ROCK!

And they have massive pulling muscles rather than pushing ones - huge lats rather than huge pecs. They're surely a more appropriate stand-in for orcs than gorillas, though:

A pretty GW-centric example, but I remember when they introduced their Kroot aliens for 40k with a similar explanation in their background. Strong attack but not tough defense. Fairly "skinny" models compared to their usual stuff, people cried they didn't look strong!