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.

 AduroT wrote:
The bandanas don’t look too bad, but that giant feather just looks like a chef’s hat.

Yes, that and the flat-topped angular helms are out of place with the no-straight-lines-anywhere armour.

I think a barbute style helmet would work better than the 13th century great helms.

I got carried away with the head swaps.



Theres plenty of easy simple conversions and head swaps online which do show how versatile these kits actually are.

With the dragons added I think we are going to see some really cool paint jobs and conversions.

It’s weird to see actually correctly sized skulls on them. Makes their heads appear small.

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
I guess I’m alone in really liking the Stormcast helmets.

I like them

I liked them for the Liberators and Judicators.

The biggest squandered opportunity for the Stormcast was establishing that same kind of 'visual dynamic' that Space Marines used to have before we started seeing crap like the Vanguard/Sternguard Veterans and have had brought back with Primaris.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I liked them for the Liberators and Judicators.

The biggest squandered opportunity for the Stormcast was establishing that same kind of 'visual dynamic' that Space Marines used to have before we started seeing crap like the Vanguard/Sternguard Veterans and have had brought back with Primaris.

...as opposed to "Big, lame, boring, basic dude in flat armour"? Because that's a good aesthetic?

Contrary to popular belief, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not good.

Sure, but also the 1st edition take on stormcast had wonky wide and stubby proportions, stiff poses and complete lack of details, with swathes of flat surfaces broken only with xboxhuge storm iconography. I'm sure some people liked it, but that doesn't make it good.

Honestly I think I do prefer the original wider Stormcast. I dunno. I prefer Primaris over First Born though.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not good.

The inverse is also true - just because someone likes something, doesn't make it good.

Examples include the Twilight series, the Fifty Shades series, and any EA Sports games that turned into thinly-disguised casinos...

Cronch wrote:
Sure, but also the 1st edition take on stormcast had wonky wide and stubby proportions, stiff poses and complete lack of details, with swathes of flat surfaces broken only with xboxhuge storm iconography. I'm sure some people liked it, but that doesn't make it good.

So because they didn't have an extra 500 unnecessary skulls and tassels on them they're bad? The flat surfaces made their armor seem more like armor than most of what GW comes out with and the storm iconography was really only big because they're a 40mm base model. We could also argue proportions all day, especially considering I am 100% sure that you're going off the subjective feel of how you think the proportions should be rather than anything meaningful like...yunno...math.

You have 0 objective measures of why they're bad and half of your criticisms are only criticisms at all from your point of view. Like every other internet critic, you've done no work, made no valid points, and accomplished nothing.

ERJAK wrote:

Cronch wrote:
Sure, but also the 1st edition take on stormcast had wonky wide and stubby proportions, stiff poses and complete lack of details, with swathes of flat surfaces broken only with xboxhuge storm iconography. I'm sure some people liked it, but that doesn't make it good.

We could also argue proportions all day, especially considering I am 100% sure that you're going off the subjective feel of how you think the proportions should be rather than anything meaningful like...yunno...math.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not good.

The inverse is also true - just because someone likes something, doesn't make it good.

Examples include the Twilight series, the Fifty Shades series, and any EA Sports games that turned into thinly-disguised casinos...

true but with aestetics you can't say something is objectively good or bad

If you for one minute think that a perfectly anatomical correct human body would look good on a 28 - 30 mm miniature then you probably going to be disappointed.
The anatomy needs to be distorted on these scale and has been for many reasons, some technical and others aesthetic.

 NAVARRO wrote:
If you for one minute think that a perfectly anatomical correct human body would look good on a 28 - 30 mm miniature then you probably going to be disappointed.
The anatomy needs to be distorted on these scale and has been for many reasons, some technical and others aesthetic.

This is so true, but I think you can do that well or do it badly. I think the proportions of the original Stormcast looked very bad. Liberators look okay from the front because of the way they’re posed, but from the back they look terrible. From that angle their proportions just look weird, with long legs, a short body and their butts sticking out at an odd angle.

(Before a certain … ahem … gentleman attacks me, this is my subjective opinion based on looking at the minis and deciding what I think of them. No actual maths were involved).

ERJAK wrote:

You have 0 objective measures of why they're bad and half of your criticisms are only criticisms at all from your point of view. Like every other internet critic, you've done no work, made no valid points, and accomplished nothing.

We all die alone and mac and cheese is awful.

Cronch wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

You have 0 objective measures of why they're bad and half of your criticisms are only criticisms at all from your point of view. Like every other internet critic, you've done no work, made no valid points, and accomplished nothing.

We all die alone and mac and cheese is awful.

Ok now this is where I draw the line! Macaroni Cheese is awesome!

Cool Dragon models, the stormcast riders on the smaller ones look out of place.

Probably way too expensive for me to consider.

I like the rearing pose on the big ones though, that's great design and makes them look really fearsome and intimidating. I have a "gargantuan" sized D&D blue dragon that's crouched on 4 legs and it doesn't look very good compared to these.

I still like the serpentine Warhammer dragons, though I'll admit they are a bit ugly in their own way. But they were pretty unique, whereas these are fairly generic. Funny, because people often claim the Old World was "generic fantasy", but elements of AoS are much more generic than the Old World. I'd argue that by having the 30 Years War as it's historical inspiration rather than a generic high middle ages it's already not that generic.

Cronch wrote:

We all die alone and mac and cheese is awful.

You take that back right now! The world would turn to darkness without mac'n'cheese!

 Da Boss wrote:
Cool Dragon models, the stormcast riders on the smaller ones look out of place.

Probably way too expensive for me to consider.

I like the rearing pose on the big ones though, that's great design and makes them look really fearsome and intimidating. I have a "gargantuan" sized D&D blue dragon that's crouched on 4 legs and it doesn't look very good compared to these.

I still like the serpentine Warhammer dragons, though I'll admit they are a bit ugly in their own way. But they were pretty unique, whereas these are fairly generic. Funny, because people often claim the Old World was "generic fantasy", but elements of AoS are much more generic than the Old World. I'd argue that by having the 30 Years War as it's historical inspiration rather than a generic high middle ages it's already not that generic.

Yeah those of us old enough to remember mainstream fantasy before the popularity of Warhammer, remember how different Warhammer was because of its more renaissance setting. It kind of feels generic now because its popularity has influenced fantasy enormously. That more renaissance feel is everywhere now and the more early medieval style fantasy is branded ‘old school’.’

Cronch wrote:
Sure, but also the 1st edition take on stormcast had wonky wide and stubby proportions, stiff poses and complete lack of details, with swathes of flat surfaces broken only with xboxhuge storm iconography

This is supposed to be 'complete lack of details' and 'swathes of flat surfaces' now?

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:
[cut]

Except if you actually scale both to be the same height, instead of making proportions pic taller than SC helmet spike, you will see proportions are actually exactly what they are supposed to be:



Yeah, Stormcast is thicker but really, he should be, padding and armour of realistic thickness takes space. IMO much better look than anorexic, '15 year old who had last meal 2 weeks ago' thinness most female (and some male) models in 40K sport once you try to imagine them out of power armour...

Off topic, but the stormcast look so much nicer with white sashes, than having that weird sigmarite text carved into all their scrolls

I like the old blocky stormcast as golems or something. I don't think they work that well outside of that interpretation. The new ones work better, but I'm happy with the small set I have and have no inclination to get the new ones. I'm not a huge fan of the way they just replicate Space Marines but in Fantasy. It was always a huge bonus to me that Fantasy didn't have a flagship faction, made the game more interesting and diverse. Stormcast narratively fill the same roles as Space Marines and even in a pretty similar way, share design cues with them and bloat out the release schedule like them. So overall a negative for the game I feel.

 Da Boss wrote:
I like the old blocky stormcast as golems or something. I don't think they work that well outside of that interpretation. The new ones work better, but I'm happy with the small set I have and have no inclination to get the new ones. I'm not a huge fan of the way they just replicate Space Marines but in Fantasy. It was always a huge bonus to me that Fantasy didn't have a flagship faction, made the game more interesting and diverse. Stormcast narratively fill the same roles as Space Marines and even in a pretty similar way, share design cues with them and bloat out the release schedule like them. So overall a negative for the game I feel.

There was a really nice plog in M&P which had them modelled/painted as damaged animated statues - looked really good.

In the new Gotrek books there's one stormcast in Gitslayer who is depicted as almost being like a golem. Or perhaps a lightning elemental clad in armour.

Yeah, 4e D&D changed Archons from being a kind of good celestial into elementals forced into armour to serve as soldiers in a cosmic war, and I'm planning to paint up my Stormcast to that theme - stone, ice, fire and lightning for the elements.

I think that's cooler than super buff heroes in armour, but no shade on people who like super buff heroes in armour.

Well battletomes comes preorder 28.8 and in stores 4.9. Darn

Didn't they promise release in August? But yeah, the 2 week Kill Team pre order seems to put paid to that.

They said preorder in august(alas specifically preorder). Alas nothing broken as long as preoider on last saturday.