Wizkids "Nolzur's" Miniatures - Bones alternative - any thoughts?

[Hobgoblin]

I enjoyed that rant, Spooktalker!

Completely aside from the above, these designs don't do much for me. I don't like the style and don't think all the busy crap in the clothing is suited to miniatures very well. They are what they are, slapdash 3D figures designed scale-independent and not designed for the size object they will become. And devoid of artistic flair.

I agree entirely with this. And that "size object"/"scale independence" point is very important. It explains why a Minifigs or Nick Lund or Grenadier miniature from the 70s or 80s often looks much better on the table than a more technically sophisticated contemporary miniature. As an example, there are a load of fairly crude Nick Lund Chronicle miniatures that look far superior on the tabletop to (say) the Descent adventurers. And it's why the Perry twins' "heroic scale" from the 80s works so well.

Since my D&D collection is 25mm, I am mostly interested in the larger monsters, where the product management failings are least felt. I might get the troll to convert into a stone giant. But the large monsters on the whole are very bad. It's odd, the larger the figure, the more overmuscled they are. The overmuscled look is really distasteful to me, and I think is dated even now. They are not going to age well. Look at a tiger. You don't see corded muscles like that. "It's fantasy" so fine, you like corded muscles you get them. But know people like me see your miniatures and don't think the muscles make the figures look "cool" or intimidating, they make them look like greased up muscle pageant show stooges.

Exactly. I don't really know what lies behind the current trend for every miniature - from a goblin to a giant - being bizarrely over muscled and 'cut'. What's wrong with pot-bellied, gangling, wiry-limbed orcs (e.g the C15 range), for example?

As a student who wants to play SoBaH and doesn't wanna risk chipping my home set of champions of chaos, These are great because i can actually afford to engage in my hobby and better yet, Get others involved.

With staff discount these cost me £2. That means my hobby budget stretches even further and instead of one GW blister and a drink i can afford 1 gw blister and a selection of monsters and heroes from the D&D line. One mini becomes 5 and I can get my course mates to play games with me without worrying about someone in the sudio knocking the table over and sending my armies into a foundry.

At the same time, I agree with this. On the rare occasions I go to a gaming shop, I almost always find it a disappointing experience when compared towiththe haunts of my misspent youth. And the main reason for this is that it's hard to do what I would do as a kid: buy a few odd miniatures to assemble a modest warband. My very first miniature purchase (when I was at primary school) consisted of an orc, a night goblin and a fighter, at about 40p each. I bought them for less than the price of a single Star Wars figure, for which I had originally gone to the shop.

It's very hard for kids to do that now. There are no pocket-money purchases to be had at a GW store (unless you're a sailor-suited Viz character), and independent stores are similarly light on individual miniatures. But the Reaper Bones and Wizkids stuff does lean in the right direction.

One trick that I think Reaper and Wizkids are missing is the "endless variants" model that Citadel employed with their Fantasy Tribes stuff. If you look at the old Citadel orcs, for example, a huge amount of variety was achieved with head and weapon swaps. Given that a lot of Bones miniatures are already assembled from several parts, a similar approach could work really well - perhaps good, old-fashioned random-variant packs.

[Redmao]

I like them.
Maybe it's the nostalgia speaking, but they take me back to the days of the Ral Partha AD&D 2e dark blue blisters which contained a male and a female incarnation of a character.

[Elbows]

I read Spook's rant...and all I could think was:

"Or they could do less effort and make the same money".

[Duncan McDane]

Given that a lot of Bones miniatures are already assembled from several parts, a similar approach could work really well - perhaps good, old-fashioned random-variant packs.

That would be quite interesting. Also, the 2 pounds a model grab-bag idea, shouldn't take display space, only an old-fashioned 20kgs laundry-powder cardbox bin next to the counter and grab 'em  .
I'll check these Wizkid thingies out when they hit the shelves, but probably will only buy a few larger monsters, as the Bones etc. material don't translate too well in 28/32mm mansized models.

[Braxandur]

I enjoyed that rant, Spooktalker!

I enjoyed it less, because it read like a rant

Still, Spooktalker, you bring up interesting points about which route of selling miniatures is interesting for gamers; Its pretty clear companies do not think along the same lines. i would really be nice to learn how they come up with the way they release the miniatures and why. Not that GW is doing better... first hyping a game, then staing one day before the pre-order that it is a limited release and then selling out in no time...  talk about misjudging the market (or strange marketing ploys...)

I agree entirely with this. And that "size object"/"scale independence" point is very important. It explains why a Minifigs or Nick Lund or Grenadier miniature from the 70s or 80s often looks much better on the table than a more technically sophisticated contemporary miniature. As an example, there are a load of fairly crude Nick Lund Chronicle miniatures that look far superior on the tabletop to (say) the Descent adventurers. And it's why the Perry twins' "heroic scale" from the 80s works so well.

I disagree entirly. I know that that is your opinion and that you like to mention it as often as possible, but it is just an opinion, not a fact. I think the term we used for someting like that was Grnognardism  , though I think it is probably just nostaglia. There is something to be said for all different types of sculpting, from clean masterpieces to cartoonisque lumps of metal. I really love both types, but what I think looks best, mainly depends on the setting that I am playing.

Exactly. I don't really know what lies behind the current trend for every miniature - from a goblin to a giant - being bizarrely over muscled and 'cut'. What's wrong with pot-bellied, gangling, wiry-limbed orcs (e.g the C15 range), for example?

Agree!

At the same time, I agree with this. On the rare occasions I go to a gaming shop, I almost always find it a disappointing experience when compared towiththe haunts of my misspent youth. And the main reason for this is that it's hard to do what I would do as a kid: buy a few odd miniatures to assemble a modest warband. My very first miniature purchase (when I was at primary school) consisted of an orc, a night goblin and a fighter, at about 40p each. I bought them for less than the price of a single Star Wars figure, for which I had originally gone to the shop.

It's very hard for kids to do that now. There are no pocket-money purchases to be had at a GW store (unless you're a sailor-suited Viz character), and independent stores are similarly light on individual miniatures. But the Reaper Bones and Wizkids stuff does lean in the right direction.

One trick that I think Reaper and Wizkids are missing is the "endless variants" model that Citadel employed with their Fantasy Tribes stuff. If you look at the old Citadel orcs, for example, a huge amount of variety was achieved with head and weapon swaps. Given that a lot of Bones miniatures are already assembled from several parts, a similar approach could work really well - perhaps good, old-fashioned random-variant packs.

Sadly agree


Hmm..  seems like I'm ranting as well

[Hobgoblin]

I disagree entirly. I know that that is your opinion and that you like to mention it as often as possible, but it is just an opinion, not a fact. I think the term we used for someting like that was Grnognardism   , though I think it is probably just nostaglia.

I think there are a few strands to untangle here - and I suspect our opinions aren't as far apart as all that.

Spooktalker's point about "size objects" (if I understand it correctly - and my point if I don't) isn't about nostalgia at all - it's about how miniatures occupy space. The rise of the internet and miniature photography often tends to obscure the fact that these things are generally little more than an inch high. We all acknowledge this when we paint miniatures - as we exaggerate through highlighting and shading - but I think miniature producers sometimes forget it when they design things on computer in a scale-agnostic way. Not always, of course, but often enough. But someone like Nick Lund, who wasn't by any means the best miniature designer in the 1980s from a technical point of view, was adept at creating figures that read really well on the tabletop. Take the Eeza Ugezod's Mothercrushers Regiment of Renown: the officer and champion figures looked great on tabletops in the 1980s and they look great now - but both would be quite a challenge to get to look anywhere nearly as good as modern miniatures in a close-up photograph. But the point is that this isn't about nostalgia: there are plenty of contemporary miniatures that exploit their inch-high stature to the full too. The Descent adventurers that I mentioned really don't: they're nice in the pre-production images, but have nowhere near the clout of a good Lund or Morrison on the table.

The second point, though, is that the "Whig view of miniature history" - that miniatures have got better and better over the decades - doesn't really hold up. If you just take GW/Citadel, it's hard to argue that (for example) their orcs and goblins have improved from the Perry highpoint of the mid-80s. You could see an improvement in the Perrys' work from the early "red orcs" through the Fantasy Tribe stuff to the C15 and C13 ranges that bridged the introduction of slottabases. But it's hard to argue that there's been a steady progression since then. As I type, I've got a mix of night goblins on my desk: some are the one-piece Skull Pass plastics (which I quite like) and some are solid-based metal C13 Perry ones. The latter are incomparably better than the former (even though I like those): they're more individual, more visually interesting, less cartoony and simply better sculpted. The weapons of the C13 goblins are realistically sized whereas the Skull Pass goblins have huge swords and ludicrously thick spear shafts.

But compare either of those with the current range of GW night goblins, and both look far superior. There's no nostalgia in this view: I came across the current and Skull Pass ranges at the same time. I'd be surprised if many people think that the large-headed current range are better than the Skull Pass era (although I must admit that DeafNala has done brilliant things with the big-heads ...), and I'd be amazed if anyone could convincingly argue that the Skull Pass chaps are better than the last of the C13 range. Really, I think, it's about the skills of the sculptors. The Perrys are up there with the very best, and by the mid-80s they had mastered their craft.

And to underscore that point, much as I like (nay love) the quirky C19 Trish Morrison lizardmen, the current GW ones are better sculpted, better imagined and have as much or more tabletop clout. They are much less fun to paint, though ...

I think it's also clear that some designers have got better with age (Tom Meier's Ral Partha stuff was amazing in the 1970s and 80s - but his Thunder Mountain stuff is even better now), whereas others haven't improved or have even regressed (or perhaps just prefer doing cartoonier stuff).

The third strand (with which you agree, I think, given your comments on pot-bellied gangly orcs) is the modern trend towards "super-heroism" in miniatures of all sorts. Muscles upon muscles, outsized and bizarrely elaborate weapons, American-football armour: all that stuff, with no sense that creatures in an imaginary medieval or ancient world might be poor, hungry, ill-equipped or downright wretched. That's what really leaves me scratching my head with a lot of recent stuff: where do these orcs go to the gym, where do they buy their steroids and where do they buy all that expensive-looking gear?

[emosbur]

I bought several for my daughter. Still in their blisters, but they look good.

[emosbur]

I hope this one is clearer:

[Duncan McDane]

As I expected, the Eagle Gryphon is a must have. The 28-32 mm figs, I have to see them in the flesh first. Thanks for putting those pics up!  

[nic-e]

I hope this one is clearer:

like i said, The gryphon and other large creatures seem great for the price.
That gryphon is big enough to be used as a mount.

[Braxandur]

I think there are a few strands to untangle here - and I suspect our opinions aren't as far apart as all that.

Spooktalker's point about "size objects" (if I understand it correctly - and my point if I don't) isn't about nostalgia at all - it's about how miniatures occupy space. The rise of the internet and miniature photography often tends to obscure the fact that these things are generally little more than an inch high. We all acknowledge this when we paint miniatures - as we exaggerate through highlighting and shading - but I think miniature producers sometimes forget it when they design things on computer in a scale-agnostic way. Not always, of course, but often enough. But someone like Nick Lund, who wasn't by any means the best miniature designer in the 1980s from a technical point of view, was adept at creating figures that read really well on the tabletop. Take the Eeza Ugezod's Mothercrushers Regiment of Renown: the officer and champion figures looked great on tabletops in the 1980s and they look great now - but both would be quite a challenge to get to look anywhere nearly as good as modern miniatures in a close-up photograph. But the point is that this isn't about nostalgia: there are plenty of contemporary miniatures that exploit their inch-high stature to the full too. The Descent adventurers that I mentioned really don't: they're nice in the pre-production images, but have nowhere near the cloud of a good Lund or Morrison on the table.

This is an opinion on which we won't agree, and don't need to be convinced of your opinion either. I disliked the Lund models back then and dislike them now

The second point, though, is that the "Whig view of miniature history" - that miniatures have got better and better over the decades - doesn't really hold up. If you just take GW/Citadel, it's hard to argue that (for example) their orcs and goblins have improved from the Perry highpoint of the mid-80s. You could see an improvement in the Perrys' work from the early "red orcs" through the Fantasy Tribe stuff to the C15 and C13 ranges that bridged the introduction of slottabases. But it's hard to argue that there's been a steady progression since then. As I type, I've got a mix of night goblins on my desk: some are the one-piece Skull Pass plastics (which I quite like) and some are solid-based metal C13 Perry ones. The latter are incomparably better than the former (even though I like those): they're more individual, more visually interesting, less cartoony and simply better sculpted. The weapons of the C13 goblins are realistically sized whereas the Skull Pass goblins have huge swords and ludicrously thick spear shafts.

But compare either of those with the current range of GW night goblins, and both look far superior. There's no nostalgia in this view: I came across the current and Skull Pass ranges at the same time. I'd be surprised if many people think that the large-headed current range are better than the Skull Pass era (although I must admit that DeafNala has done brilliant things with the big-heads ...), and I'd be amazed if anyone could convincingly argue that the Skull Pass chaps are better than the last of the C13 range. Really, I think, it's about the skills of the sculptors. The Perrys are up there with the very best, and by the mid-80s they had mastered their craft.

And to underscore that point, much as I like (nay love) the quirky C19 Trish Morrison lizardmen, the current GW ones are better sculpted, better imagined and have as much or more tabletop clout. They are much less fun to paint, though ...

I think it's also clear that some designers have got better with age (Tom Meier's Ral Partha stuff was amazing in the 1970s and 80s - but his Thunder Mountain stuff is even better now), whereas others haven't improved or have even regressed (or perhaps just prefer doing cartoonier stuff).

Again, disagree. Your examples which seem te be written to convince me. do not convince me as there is so much more to choose from than only what you mention. Seem to me more a case of you disliking some syles. With regard to the big head goblins, they acctualy stem from before the skull pass era. Skull pass was a step back into the direction of more "normal" sizes heads. Still it's fantasty and one can choose what one likes...  

The third strand (with which you agree, I think, given your comments on pot-bellied gangly orcs) is the modern trend towards "super-heroism" in miniatures of all sorts. Muscles upon muscles, outsized and bizarrely elaborate weapons, American-football armour: all that stuff, with no sense that creatures in an imaginary medieval or ancient world might be poor, hungry, ill-equipped or downright wretched. That's what really leaves me scratching my head with a lot of recent stuff: where do these orcs go to the gym, where do they buy their steroids and where do they buy all that expensive-looking gear?

Again, disagree, I like both. I'm also have been a big fan of Boris an Frazetta (and anyhting else pictured on the cover of Heav Metal Magazine) artwork since the '80 and don't mind the body builder look. I like both normal and duper heroism syles, depending on what I'm using them for and am not trying to explain why it is nonsen for minitaures to look in a specific way. If I like them , I buy them, if I don't like them, I don't buy them, but I feel no need to convince others to share my taste or to convince them that my taste is the way it should be. Afterall, everyone has his/her own preference, which is the only thing that counts.

Anyhow, we are going off topic. Let's try to keep a discussion about (personal) taste put of this topic and focus on the models.

I need to see these model firsthand as the reviews that I have seen were very positive with regard to the mould lines, but I saw some pretty nasty ones that would need removal on all the pictures. maybe that the material is easy to work with , but I can't say that without having tested it. Bones for instance is  annoying when removing mould lines, especially on warm days. Keeping them in the fridge or better even freezer for a while before working on them hardens te material and makes it much easier to handle.

[Grimmnar]

Can't find the video but Dr Faust did a look at a few of them.

The 2 packs aren't the same person, but different sculpts that fit the same character class with different archetypes. The female Paladin had one sword & board and one with what looks like a great sword...

Here is Dr. Faust's link.
Also the 2 packs are of the same character as stated by WizKids. It is to show two levels of gear.

Grimm

[Elbows]

You guys are killin' me...the Dr. Faust video is the one in the original post and people keep mentioning it! 

[Black Burt]

Just bought two packs from Clifton Games, one with two gargoyles and one with 3 spiders, they look very good to me and price is very reasonable.

[ced1106]

A game master doesn't need 2 or 3 orcs. Having 2 or 3 orc miniatures is literally less useful than having zero orc miniatures. If you are a product manager with half a brain you sell a party of orcs, at least 8.

Gonna disagree with you here. If a gamemaster is going to buy eight miniatures, they're going to buy eight miniatures of different types before they're going to buy ten of one. Unlike, say, a wargame, you don't have two races fighting each other. You have a party fighting a variety of baddies of all shapes and sizes, and no manufacturer knows what bad guys a particular RPG group will be playing against. Furthermore, unlike wargaming and boardgames, RPG'ers are used to using dice, tokens, etc. alongside miniatures, just as much as they'll have a dry-erase map alongside 3D and 2D tiles. They're not going to have another encounter with ten orcs. They're going to have an encounter with two orcs and three dice proxying as orcs, then some bugbears and more dice, then some goblins and other dice, all on a beige 1" x 1" map with some out-of-print WotC dungeon tiles. Although Reaper shows off its painted figures, they know that many of their customers play with figures unpainted, right out of the blister, which is why many of their figures are pre-assembled. Unpainted, the detail of the figures work well enough. The current blister model satisfied the player, who has a wide assortment of models to choose for his character. I believe Reaper said the best results from Bones was selling large figures that would not sell in metal form (eg. a Hill Giant for $10 in Bones vs. $30 in metal).

I think GW, and now CMON, though have shown you can sell miniatures better than Reaper has. I do find it interesting that roleplaying game miniatures are sold primarily either as unpainted blisters or prepainted sets (Pathfinder) or random boosters (Pathfinder and WizKids D&D). AFAIK, It's not until you get to skirmish miniature games that you get to boxed sets (eg. Frostgrave's boxed sets).

That being said, if you look at their KS projects, Reaper is certainly selling the miniatures in sets, and, in retail, some monsters (eg. skeletons) are sold with more than one miniature to a pack. The Bones III Mythos (and Graveyard) set came in a box, and this set is certainly focused enough that it could be sold retail in a box, and Reaper could compare its boxed set sales vs. individual blister packs.