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.

That's a really nice model, good sign for the range.

 Shadow Walker wrote:
I like the model but I abhor that tactical rock.

Never understood that obsession with "tactical rocks". Miniatures are always sculpted in a very specific static pose. Once made, it won't change no matter what action it does on the battlefield nor what kind of environnment they're fighting in. No matter if it's a rock, a chair or just plain grass, your miniature will never be a video-game character that is able to move depending of the actions you want him to be.

Moaning about it is, frankly speaking, stupid. If it's about conversion, just build it without it. Will still be the same pose you decided to convert into.

Sarouan wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
I like the model but I abhor that tactical rock.

Never understood that obsession with "tactical rocks". Miniatures are always sculpted in a very specific static pose. Once made, it won't change no matter what action it does on the battlefield nor what kind of environnment they're fighting in. No matter if it's a rock, a chair or just plain grass, your miniature will never be a video-game character that is able to move depending of the actions you want him to be.

Moaning about it is, frankly speaking, stupid. If it's about conversion, just build it without it. Will still be the same pose you decided to convert into.

I said THAT tactical rock not any tactical rock.

Sarouan wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
I like the model but I abhor that tactical rock.

Never understood that obsession with "tactical rocks". Miniatures are always sculpted in a very specific static pose. Once made, it won't change no matter what action it does on the battlefield nor what kind of environnment they're fighting in. No matter if it's a rock, a chair or just plain grass, your miniature will never be a video-game character that is able to move depending of the actions you want him to be.

Moaning about it is, frankly speaking, stupid. If it's about conversion, just build it without it. Will still be the same pose you decided to convert into.

It's a meme that people on this forum are wedded to.

Isn’t the issue people like to make their models fit for whatever theme they want? For example, if I want my be Tyranid to be attacking a maiden world, I don’t want there to be huge chunks of what is clearly imperium gothic buildings on the base. Or I don’t want to be forced to have dead primaris dudes all over my chaos marine bases, especially if my army is set pre-guilliman returning.

Hell, look at how weird the new kill team box is. The models are on an oil rig in an ocean and every single scorpion is jumping off an Eldar ruin. Even if models are mono pose, it’s nice to be able to thematically base them hiw you want. The new canoness set is awesome but if you have more than one, they’re all going to be perched on a column. It’s a big focal point that makes some models look identical, even though you can change her torso, head, backpack, and weapons

Gonna laugh if Ushoran is Summerking as... summer is probaply the furthest thing from undead abomination!

Although it is really likely that madness spread by said progenitor is anything then just "normal" madness.

 GaroRobe wrote:
Isn’t the issue people like to make their models fit for whatever theme they want? For example, if I want my be Tyranid to be attacking a maiden world, I don’t want there to be huge chunks of what is clearly imperium gothic buildings on the base. Or I don’t want to be forced to have dead primaris dudes all over my chaos marine bases, especially if my army is set pre-guilliman returning.

Hell, look at how weird the new kill team box is. The models are on an oil rig in an ocean and every single scorpion is jumping off an Eldar ruin. Even if models are mono pose, it’s nice to be able to thematically base them hiw you want. The new canoness set is awesome but if you have more than one, they’re all going to be perched on a column. It’s a big focal point that makes some models look identical, even though you can change her torso, head, backpack, and weapons

This is certainly one of the main issues. Esp if you get some fancy decorative bases with a high level of detail on them and then the model is posed on something that just doesn't fit the theme at all.
I know I gave up with the idea of a fully themed printed set of bases for my Tyranids when I started realising how many I'd have to rebuild the base for to fit their connection point. Easier to just add some details and give a flavour for the base around the rock/ruins that they are standing on.

 Sotahullu wrote:
Gonna laugh if Ushoran is Summerking as... summer is probaply the furthest thing from undead abomination!

Although it is really likely that madness spread by said progenitor is anything then just "normal" madness.

Ushoran is the summerking. It was one of his epithets before he went mad/rogue.

I will definitely buy the summer king and put a lot of flowers on his base.

Yeah yeah, tactical rock...
Most tactical rocks are different pieces, so if you actually care about it you can do your own design with minimal effort.
This one looks like it will be.

And it is just SUCH a great pose!
I thought the Chaos Furies were a bit much but he is a character and MAN, this just oozes out style!

Sarouan wrote:

 Shadow Walker wrote:
I like the model but I abhor that tactical rock.

Never understood that obsession with "tactical rocks". Miniatures are always sculpted in a very specific static pose. Once made, it won't change no matter what action it does on the battlefield nor what kind of environnment they're fighting in. No matter if it's a rock, a chair or just plain grass, your miniature will never be a video-game character that is able to move depending of the actions you want him to be.

Moaning about it is, frankly speaking, stupid. If it's about conversion, just build it without it. Will still be the same pose you decided to convert into.

Except many of those look stupid without the piece.

How that looks tiptopping in air by fingernails?

(not to mention then we get people complain about modeling for advantage...)

You know some peopre don't want to use only gw approved basing style? Why you think gw should be able to dictate how to base your armies?

I just hope they don't nerf FEC too bad. Losing out the ability to bring in more ghouls would make me sad.

Model looks good tho!

 rybackstun wrote:
I just hope they don't nerf FEC too bad. Losing out the ability to bring in more ghouls would make me sad.

Model looks good tho!

They'll probably do it like most other summoning is done now where you just bring back destroyed units.

I think those foot claws are one of the rumour engines?

JSG wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Gonna laugh if Ushoran is Summerking as... summer is probaply the furthest thing from undead abomination!

Although it is really likely that madness spread by said progenitor is anything then just "normal" madness.

Ushoran is the summerking. It was one of his epithets before he went mad/rogue.

Summer is also the season of where fruits are the most bountiful and is a metaphor for golden age and time for feasts, before the decline of autumn. It is very appropriate for the Flesheater Courts and their tragedy : they think it is summer coming again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:


Except many of those look stupid without the piece.

How that looks tiptopping in air by fingernails?

(not to mention then we get people complain about modeling for advantage...)

You know some peopre don't want to use only gw approved basing style? Why you think gw should be able to dictate how to base your armies?

Exactly. Thus, it is not the "tactical rock" that is the issue, but the pose itself.

But the pose is also part of the miniature, because you have to choose one when you sculpt it. Even T-posing (that people will find even stupider, BTW).

So this pose, it is made best with a rock as support obviously. Don't blame the rock, blame the pose.

CoALabaer wrote:
Yeah yeah, tactical rock...
Most tactical rocks are different pieces, so if you actually care about it you can do your own design with minimal effort.
This one looks like it will be.

And it is just SUCH a great pose!
I thought the Chaos Furies were a bit much but he is a character and MAN, this just oozes out style!

Most of the ones i've encountered were molded to the feet tbh

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Most of the ones i've encountered were molded to the feet tbh

Nothing a good modelism knife can't handle.

That's why I love 3D sculpting : you change change the pose more easily. Hell, some 3D sculptors do make the same miniature with different poses for a price. Something GW can't obviously do the same since people don't need a leader / hero miniature in that many numbers with a wide variety of poses, it would never be profitable.

That's something that can be done only with 3D printing files at the price they're currently sold.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 rybackstun wrote:
I just hope they don't nerf FEC too bad. Losing out the ability to bring in more ghouls would make me sad.

Model looks good tho!

They'll probably do it like most other summoning is done now where you just bring back destroyed units.

Big sad if true. Maybe if they get a Chaos style "summoning" table that would be nice. Do things in game and get stuff to throw onto the table!

Are the Gorewardens meant to be archregent/ghoul king level characters? I assumed they were originally lower-tier "lieutenant" characters, like dukes or princes who would serve the ghoul king in charge. Or that they were the "royal gatekeepers" or prison wardens or something in a ghoul king's royal court. But it looks like the lore is that they serve the Summerking, hence the spinal-sun motif around their necks.

Unless the article referring to them as the Summerking's kinfolk is in a spiritual sense since all FEC came from him? Like how Teclis made the Lumineth or Deepkin?

The "sun motif" is actually meant to be what the FEC perceives as a nobles ruffle collar, so that in itself doesn't mean anything.

As someone who has collected undead for 2 decades, i love that model and the direction for FEC. the "Ruff" is an awesome idea, and I'm a big fan of keys as a motif.

On a personal note, the price rise on characters like this is absurd. I was in a local game store last weekend and a skink starseer was $60. the new astrolith bearer was $45.

Granted, that may be me as a Grognard, but I remember characters costing $15 in blister packs. $20 if they were cavalry.

 GaroRobe wrote:
Are the Gorewardens meant to be archregent/ghoul king level characters? I assumed they were originally lower-tier "lieutenant" characters, like dukes or princes who would serve the ghoul king in charge. Or that they were the "royal gatekeepers" or prison wardens or something in a ghoul king's royal court. But it looks like the lore is that they serve the Summerking, hence the spinal-sun motif around their necks.

Unless the article referring to them as the Summerking's kinfolk is in a spiritual sense since all FEC came from him? Like how Teclis made the Lumineth or Deepkin?

The way I am taking the introduction of the Gorewarden is this.
They are the FEC foreman, stockgrower, cowboss. They watch over their cattle and protect them if it is needed, like any Bretonnian.

So a village might be under ownership by a ghoul king, or archregent, and not even know it. Gorewarden would serve as their king's voice when it is needed.
When it's time to feast the gorewarden picks the best cattle for the feast.

JSG wrote:
It's a meme that people on this forum are wedded to.

The only people wedded to tactical rocks are the GW miniatures team.

It is an obsession for a few people on this site. For this particular model, it works well however. You couldn't get that pose without it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

JSG wrote:
It's a meme that people on this forum are wedded to.

The only people wedded to tactical rocks are the GW miniatures team.

Not true. Other companies / sculptors use support for dynamic poses, be it rocks, ruins or even furniture. People moan on GW because of their own bias towards GW, that's all. And you're one of them.

Here, have a tactical cart example in spoiler :



You obsess on rocks ? Have at thee as well :



People totally have the right not to like the miniature's parts for sure, but moaning about "tactical rocks" in itself is stupid.

Here, to me, the rock serve other purposes than just support for dynamic pose : it's an ancient stone like the ones used in antique empires to delimit their frontiers / miles, it's a subtle way to the background of Flesheater courts being descendants of a glorious past. Since the monster above itself is supposed to be a warden, it's also a direct hint to his role. And the corpse tied to it is a gruesome rememberance they are cannibalistic monsters. So it's way more than "a tactical rock" ; it serves to give atmosphere to the miniature itself as well as giving it something to stand on for its predator pose.

Others forcing one basing style for armies doesn't make gw right. It makes both wrong at customer unfriendly. Basing should be free for customer to decide. Not forced on

tneva82 wrote:
Others forcing one basing style for armies doesn't make gw right. It makes both wrong at customer unfriendly. Basing should be free for customer to decide. Not forced on

Well, it's a design choice. If you want to be as neutral as possible, it considerably limits the poses themselves you can use. There's also the problem of repetition and "same looking" miniatures when you look at them from a battlefield level. There are people hating that kind of "boring poses" as well.

Here, it's a hero. It needs to stand out. There are several ways for that : having a big miniature like a monster or a really tall guy, or using support so that it's above ground level in comparison to mere troops in your army.

The difference between old GW miniatures and recent ones is that they are indeed more focused on a specific pose. But that's why they're standing out ; if you use dynamic / unique poses, they are in the way of variances because not all combinations work with it.

Sarouan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Others forcing one basing style for armies doesn't make gw right. It makes both wrong at customer unfriendly. Basing should be free for customer to decide. Not forced on

Well, it's a design choice. If you want to be as neutral as possible, it considerably limits the poses themselves you can use. There's also the problem of repetition and "same looking" miniatures when you look at them from a battlefield level. There are people hating that kind of "boring poses" as well.

Here, it's a hero. It needs to stand out. There are several ways for that : having a big miniature like a monster or a really tall guy, or using support so that it's above ground level in comparison to mere troops in your army.

The difference between old GW miniatures and recent ones is that they are indeed more focused on a specific pose. But that's why they're standing out ; if you use dynamic / unique poses, they are in the way of variances because not all combinations work with it.

And importantly, you can just.... not put it on the rock/trim it off.

Sarouan wrote:
Not true.

Did you just "Well ackshually" tactical rocks?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Sarouan wrote:
Not true.

Did you just "Well ackshually" tactical rocks?

Well at least I give arguments, unlike you who try to make it look like an universal truth about something horrible in the miniature world. People will decide which is the more relevant.