Bugbears!

[barbaric splendor]

I'll continue to post, didn't mean to sound so dramatic  

To add a little to the discussion, my embracing of the tropes of heroic/barbarian fantasy is rooted in escapism. And, as someone who has always been bigger and stronger than the average person, I want to see characters above and beyond that, exceeding what might be possible for me rather than someone just like me. Good points are made here about modern bodybuilders and their look but at least some of my miniatures will be based on them.

As this thread shows, lots of different tastes and opinions.

[beefcake]

Some of my favourite minis are my copplestone barbarians, that may be due to nostalgia though.

[jthomlin]

Great thread, I've been thinking more about why these things bug me and thought an expanded explanation was in order.

Fantasy by definition is 'not reality', or 'anything goes'. However when we are talking about a fantasy world or universe, unless it is defined otherwise, the default is necessarily reality as it's simply impractical to do it any other way. So up is still up and down is still down, if an object is dropped it falls, wearing stilettos in hand to hand combat is 'less than optimal', unless of course we invoke the 'fantasy' clause and then it isn't. Now with the written word or cinema there is usually an explanation to go along with that invocation: 'Gravity doesn't work here ...', 'with her magic pumps making her so light on her feet Mary easily dodged the attack ...' etc, and that's fine, I have no issues with that. It's where you don't get that explanation, typically With miniatures or illustrations the problem lies. Any element that doesn't comport to reality or reason is open to interpretation as either 'fantasy' or 'absurdity', the choice of which is left to the sensibilities of the viewer. In broard terms, those of us with a predisposition to detail tend to think 'absurd', those with a more laissez-faire bent 'fantasy'.

Now this really shouldn't be an issue if there was a wide spectrum available to suit all tastes, but things are skewed to extremes in places that in reality the fantasy genre is anything but 'anything goes', hence we grumpy ones. In this case it's not that oversized weapons in a fantasy context are wrong per se, or steroidal fighters and orcs or skimpy female costumes*, etc ... it's just that there seems a preponderance of those tropes and those only.

As an example which also ties in with the nostalgia sentiment in the thread:

 Once upon a time back in the early 80's, when chaos was actually chaotic. Every miniature was different, all the beastmen were created using human and animal decks of those 'head, torso, legs' card games and chaos warriors were fat, skinny, tall, short and every in-between adorned with every conceivable design of armour and weaponry. Now? Generic goatmen, pin-headed gym junkies wearing matching 'spiky' designer armour with fur accessories, and the same compacted cranial types in just fur Scot-straps because, you know, it's all cold and snowy where they come from. Even most of the demons are so regular they have never even heard of fibre supplements. And even then, there would be nothing wrong with this, if it didn't seem that every other chaos warrior was just the bloody same ... 

Cheers!
Joe Thomlinson

* There is an argument here, but another time ...

[Pictors Studio]

So  I guess you guys don't like the Perry Korean Heavy Cavalry dual-wielding swords.



Or the infantry doing the same thing:

[jthomlin]

So  I guess you guys don't like the Perry Korean Heavy Cavalry dual-wielding swords.
<pic removed>
Or the infantry doing the same thing:
<pic removed>

To expand on my previous admittedly rather glib two liner ...

It's not a question of not liking the Koreans or the Rapier and Dagger set, or any other fighting practice using two weapons, it's just that they are by far and away in the minority. If they were in any way superior you would expect them to be more prevelent, so a reasonable conclusion would be that were not. Yes in some circumstances they may have been more effective, like sword and dagger v sword alone. However add a shield into the mix and history suggests the balance shifts, even more if you were likely to be shot at. The main point is that of the myriad 'up close and personal' ways mankind has devised to harm to it's own, dual wielding doesn't stand out at all.

So why the gripe? Because the above is clearly not what most folks think ...

Movies infer that using two weapons is more 'bad-ass', fighting like a 'whirling dervish' means you look good and cut down more 'I'm standing here just waiting my turn to have my head cut off' flunkies per minute, making you even more bad-ass! The latest Beowulf episode has a woman take down 5 warriors with a rake* and then 'upgrade' to two of her victims swords to take on a half dozen spearmen. If she wasn't before, the way she twirled those two swords surely confirmed she was 'bad-ass'.

Games rules tend follow that lead and make troops with two weapons 'bad-ass'. In Warhammer for example, two weapons are better than one, twice as many attacks in fact! If that ain't 'bad-ass' I don't know what is.

It seems that every second figure that comes out for a skirmish game or RPG these days is dual wielding, sometimes with quite odd pairings, sword and bow anyone? Regardless, having everything to hand surely makes them more (all together now ...) BAD-ASS!

That's just far too much 'bad-ass' for this li'l black duck ...

Cheers!
Joe Thomlinson

* 10% of their 'army' - get a budget BBC ...

[Hobgoblin]

In this case it's not that oversized weapons in a fantasy context are wrong per se, or steroidal fighters and orcs or skimpy female costumes*, etc ... it's just that there seems a preponderance of those tropes and those only.

Exactly.

As an example which also ties in with the nostalgia sentiment in the thread:

 Once upon a time back in the early 80's, when chaos was actually chaotic. Every miniature was different, all the beastmen were created using human and animal decks of those 'head, torso, legs' card games and chaos warriors were fat, skinny, tall, short and every in-between adorned with every conceivable design of armour and weaponry. Now? Generic goatmen, pin-headed gym junkies wearing matching 'spiky' designer armour with fur accessories, and the same compacted cranial types in just fur Scot-straps because, you know, it's all cold and snowy where they come from. Even most of the demons are so regular they have never even heard of fibre supplements. And even then, there would be nothing wrong with this, if it didn't seem that every other chaos warrior was just the bloody same ... 

Yes! The Trish Morrison beastmen are superb (as were the Perry broo). And it's not just nostalgia that makes them genuinely better than their contemporary equivalents. I don't really mind the GW ungors, but they're so painfully bland compared with the bizarre and contorted wretches of the early 80s.

There's a great blog here which showcases just how good these miniatures are.

On the Korean cavalry: I gather there's a bit of doubt as to whether Korean horsemen did regularly fight with two swords at once. It's listed as a hard-to-attain skill in a famous military manual, but combat manuals have a habit of adding improbable feats. It's easy to see why a cavalryman might carry a spare sabre. But I wonder how often the two sabres were actually used together in battle.

[Pictors Studio]

But there was a reason why the Koreans used two weapons. I can see how it might have been very effective, especially if you can do it on horseback. 

In warhammer there aren't a ton of troops that can use two weapons.  Witch elves, Beastmen and Chaos Warriors are the few that come to mind, along with various monsters like Minotaurs and Ogres. 

In the first case you can imagine that the skill and agility of the Witch Elves would allow them to do the sort of flipping around and movements that would make this type of two weapons skill possible.  The Chaos warriors might have the same ability or, and this is true of the beast men too, posses the strength and savagery to just swing two weapons with enough force to cause damage to two different opponents at once or make the enemies shield irrelevant.

Minotaurs and ogres are strong enough to sweep opponents out of the way with whatever weapon they are using so why not double up.

However add a shield into the mix and history suggests the balance shifts, even more if you were likely to be shot at.

Yes, but we aren't talking about history, we are talking about fantasy.  Even if you want a realistic fantasy in a lot of cases you have to put aside the human reality of it to move along with the suspension of disbelief. 

So in the case of humans with two weapons, these would probably be rare exceptions, but they did happen in history so it is possible for humans.

If it is possible and in some way advantageous for some humans to dual wield weapons then a creature like an elf, which may not only have more chance of being ambidextrous but also has a higher sense level than a human, might much more easily be able to effectively use two weapons at the same time.

Similarly an orc, depending on how your world uses orcs, may have more of its brain devoted to combat than a human in the way that a dog has more of its brain devoted to detecting and remembering scents than a human. 

If that is the case then even though the orc has a smaller or similar sized brain to a human it uses it in different ways. 

I'm not saying that you shouldn't like what you don't like but if humans have done something it is not unreasonable that some fantasy race might do it better. 

[Gabbi]

Once upon a time back in the early 80's, when chaos was actually chaotic. Every miniature was different, all the beastmen were created using human and animal decks of those 'head, torso, legs' card games and chaos warriors were fat, skinny, tall, short and every in-between adorned with every conceivable design of armour and weaponry. Now? Generic goatmen, pin-headed gym junkies wearing matching 'spiky' designer armour with fur accessories, and the same compacted cranial types in just fur Scot-straps because, you know, it's all cold and snowy where they come from. Even most of the demons are so regular they have never even heard of fibre supplements. And even then, there would be nothing wrong with this, if it didn't seem that every other chaos warrior was just the bloody same ... 

I totally agree with this.

[Vermis]

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.

Blimey! That makes two of us! Against... every other miniature gamer, ever.

Although as said before, I can still understand Hobgoblin's stance. To add a bit more, I think it's a little like the difference between competent life studies (like, Raphael's fighting men and Leonardo's two soldiers, for instance. I'm reasonably sure those two were halfway competent. ) and that certain kind of hyper-detailed pencil portrait, painstakingly copied from a photograph. The latter technically amazing, every little detail in it's place, but kinda lifeless. Transmitting too little of the artist or of the subject, if you want to get pretentious. Praiseworthy in that the artist can mimic a photocopier pretty well.

Plastic orcs can't even claim that. As Hob says, they can only claim cleaner sculpting and casting. Though on the flipside, Raphael and Leonardo didn't stop at rough sketches! I think it's a little disappointing that we can't get refinement and 'life' together, more often. At least in certain niches.

(Although I don't mean to imply it's as easy as snapping your fingers. Sometimes I wonder just how easy it is, and after following an animation blog, I wonder if just a wee bit of exaggeration of character and pose - even 'squash 'n' stretch' - is necessary. But anyway.)

[Hobgoblin]

Blimey! That makes two of us! Against... every other miniature gamer, ever.

Although as said before, I can still understand Hobgoblin's stance. To add a bit more, I think it's a little like the difference between competent life studies (like, Raphael's fighting men and Leonardo's two soldiers, for instance. I'm reasonably sure those two were halfway competent. ) and that certain kind of hyper-detailed pencil portrait, painstakingly copied from a photograph. The latter technically amazing, every little detail in it's place, but kinda lifeless. Transmitting too little of the artist or of the subject, if you want to get pretentious. Praiseworthy in that the artist can mimic a photocopier pretty well.

Plastic orcs can't even claim that. As Hob says, they can only claim cleaner sculpting and casting. Though on the flipside, Raphael and Leonardo didn't stop at rough sketches! I think it's a little disappointing that we can't get refinement and 'life' together, more often. At least in certain niches.

Good points! On nostalgia, though, take a look at this: a line-up of Citadel orcs from the early 80s to the present. Where do you (any of you!) think the best sculpts lie? For me, it's definitely the second and third from the left. The worst - by far - is clearly the Heroquest one with the flail, but the next worst is probably the most recent, on the far right. And the trend towards cartooniness and camp is pretty clear. There's certainly a cartoony aspect to the Kev Adams one with the mail hood and the flail, but the scrawny, wiry frame avoids the He-Man and Skeletor excesses of the later ones. It's worth noting, too, that these are all rank-and-file models: just look at the awful bombast that creeps into the orcish ranks!

And on refinement: my terrible second photo probably doesn't show it well, but the "finish"on the 80s orc is actually far superior to the blocky, cartoony edges of the modern one. The Perry orc's ears, for example, are simply much better sculpted and more naturally rendered. Ditto for the posture: only one of these figures could be mistaken for Donald Duck. Finally, the details on the old model outstrip the new one by leagues: the rope holding on the armour, the buckles, the armour itself, the beard, the helmet and the facial expression. Can anyone seriously think the contemporary one is a better sculpture? Again, these are rank-and-file unit fillers of their respective eras. I just don't see that you need nostalgic goggles to appreciate the superiority of the old one.

[Elbows]

I fully understand the nostalgia thing.

I do appreciate many old figures, love the character of some of them.  But I do find it odd (on the Oldhammer Facebook page) and occasionally here when I see boasts of "great sculpt!" or "no one sculpts this good anymore!" etc. for what are some shallow detailed blobs.  It happens often.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I fully understand the nostalgia thing.

My point here, though, is that it's not just nostalgia - or even nostalgia at all.I'm pretty confident that if you asked  - for example - a decent sample of non-gaming art students which of those two orcs they preferred, they'd overwhelmingly opt for the Perry one. Or an entirely random panel of a decent size - so long as they were adults! Kids, I think, might prefer the recent one because it looks like an action figure.

I do appreciate many old figures, love the character of some of them.  But I do find it odd (on the Oldhammer Facebook page) and occasionally here when I see boasts of "great sculpt!" or "no one sculpts this good anymore!" etc. for what are some shallow detailed blobs.  It happens often.

Any particular ranges that you've seen this happen with? I think the old range that I've seen praised the most is the Armoured Orcs line. I think many here would agree that age hasn't withered them. Indeed, that range was widely considered better than many of their successors during the 80s.

[jthomlin]

But there was a reason why the Koreans used two weapons. I can see how it might have been very effective, especially if you can do it on horseback.  

In warhammer there aren't a ton of troops that can use two weapons.  Witch elves, Beastmen and Chaos Warriors are the few that come to mind, along with various monsters like Minotaurs and Ogres.  

In the first case you can imagine that the skill and agility of the Witch Elves would allow them to do the sort of flipping around and movements that would make this type of two weapons skill possible.  The Chaos warriors might have the same ability or, and this is true of the beast men too, posses the strength and savagery to just swing two weapons with enough force to cause damage to two different opponents at once or make the enemies shield irrelevant.

Minotaurs and ogres are strong enough to sweep opponents out of the way with whatever weapon they are using so why not double up.

Yes, but we aren't talking about history, we are talking about fantasy.  Even if you want a realistic fantasy in a lot of cases you have to put aside the human reality of it to move along with the suspension of disbelief.  

So in the case of humans with two weapons, these would probably be rare exceptions, but they did happen in history so it is possible for humans.

If it is possible and in some way advantageous for some humans to dual wield weapons then a creature like an elf, which may not only have more chance of being ambidextrous but also has a higher sense level than a human, might much more easily be able to effectively use two weapons at the same time.

Similarly an orc, depending on how your world uses orcs, may have more of its brain devoted to combat than a human in the way that a dog has more of its brain devoted to detecting and remembering scents than a human.  

If that is the case then even though the orc has a smaller or similar sized brain to a human it uses it in different ways.  

I'm not saying that you shouldn't like what you don't like but if humans have done something it is not unreasonable that some fantasy race might do it better.  

I don't disagree, I'm not the arbiter of anyone's 'fantasy' except my own, but neither is anyone else except their own. Perhaps the following analogy will clarify my position:

• If you have a character in a novel or movie with two heads, I'm cool with that.
• If you have a planet of two headed beings, not a problem.
• If you have series of books set in a universe full of two headed beings, not my cup of tea but if others like it why not?
• You could even have a complete genre of two-headedness, TV, games, miniatures, the whole lot and even if I hated them with a passion, it wouldn't worry me because there are plenty of other mono-cranial genres for me to enjoy.

But if got so prevalent that it seemed like every second character or miniature had two heads and I saw no reason for it other than people thought it was cool? Bottle that frustration and label it dual-wielding ...

Cheers!
Joe Thomlinson

[Erebus Studios]

I fully agree with the OP, I personally would also like to add that proper body proportions are highly important in my view, sure some monsters you can get away with a bit but too much and everything becomes just cartoony and silly ( unless that is the type of fantasy your going for).

We are going to release an update on our new range here soon but I will at least use the artwork as an example:

( sadly due to needing photobucket to be able to get the few image links useable on the sight here is a link instead:
http://edwarddelandreart.deviantart.com/art/Gnoll-Kyimtaro-552678315

I find keeping artwork and miniatures to this style is a must if you intend to do a more serious and/or darker setting.


 

[Vermis]

Hobgoblin, you might've missed on what I was saying. The only pro in favour of the plastic orcs, in my view, is that there are fewer 'wibbles' in their sculpting. But by that token, while I agree the earlier orcs in that lineup look better (how do I say it without putting noses out of joint) they might still be tightened up a little. I could go into detail, but they are just little details, and I'd end up looking petty. Well, pettier than I already look.