"More Pics of Fantasy Kurganovas" Topic

Roginshibozz strike again!

The cigarett with holder totally breaks the 16th century look.

Seriously, I have never liked these figures from the first time the concept art was shown on TMP.
They are a perfect example of "Stephen King" syndrome, regarding detail. There is no one to tell them, "OK, that's enough detail."
So, they keep adding more. And more. And more. Why not? It's only CAD, and not "true" sculpting.

They are not sexy, they are not cute, they are not clever. They are mostly overdone ho-hum sculpts.
This is what they remind me of:
link

I'll pass on these

I think they're great. I know a gal who lives on the hill, she won't eviscerate you but her sister will…

Correct me if I am wrong, (and I hope that I am), but is the girl sculpt in the first pic sticking her tongue out?

Thats funny Wargamer

She is, Murph. She most certainly is…

The cigarett with holder totally breaks the 16th century look.

Must be a fantasy cig, the kind that doesn't give you lung cancer.

Apart from the cigarette, the 17th century head and sabre on the "young" one also looks out of style for the Renaissance theme used by the others, but only a century and a half here.

But I realize that the "witchhunter" concept of GW does the same, and historical authenticity is probably not the perspective you should take upon these minis anyway…

Come on guys: it says it's fantasy all over the place so, I guess, that makes it alright for the sculptor to make whatever he wants…we then like it or not.

Since we have lizardmen, ratmen and all kind of races and species that most of us accept, why not accept a girl with a cigar or with an out-ofcentury hat?

Cut them some slack! lol

If I were still into WH and doing Empire I would get some…or for a Mordheim band…they fit in there!

I have a large empire army and an even larger historical Maximilian force. No way in hell would I add a cigarette in it, not even for the Mechanicus on his team horse or my Firewizard on his Dragon.

I know this is irrational, but it is what I dislike. They can make whatever they choose, and then I decide wether I buy or not. Here I make clear (if they monitor this) what I will not buy.

I agree that the Witchhunters fit for Mordheim. I have none thus themed in my army.

The usual nonsense: "Cut them some slack because IT'S FANTASY!"
"Fantasy" is no excuse for being ridiculous. They were just as dumb when they were scifi. It seems to me we have had that argument before…

I drew a lot of criticism (and stifles) a while back when I commented "Has this sculptor ever seen a woman's body?"
In this case, maybe, although even Stacy Keibler doesn't have legs that long.

The bottom line is the bottom line. Criticism from John the OFM will not impact on a single sale, pro or con. As I said on an earlier thread about this line, "Those who like this kind of thing will like this kind of thing." I don't, but then I am not the target audience.

NOT-Mordheim, obviously, hence the heterogeneity of costume fashion – a silly tradition dating from the first 'D&D' minis, thye 'witch hunter' has to be in 'Salem, 1692' dress even in a 'medieval' background!
I preferred the very generic 'Fantasy Blood Vestals'.
The touches of 'humour' rather detract the minis; then the 'witch hunter' girl is not sticking her tongue out mischievously but 'carefully aiming', I guess?
Yet with a hat swapping giving her a tricorne (plastic WSS set?) the 'not Van Helsing' one could become a nice 'Lacepulp' monster hunter / mid-18th C. Buffy the vampire slayer – hope they kept the wooden stakes in the cape of the 'hunter' original design -a *genial* detail:

It's only CAD, and not "true" sculpting.

I simply don't care if I like the result.

They look fun.

There's something… lifeless about them. It sounds silly to say that about a miniature, but the computer design thing makes them too perfect for my taste.

There's something… lifeless about them. It sounds silly to say that about a miniature, but the computer design thing leaves them too perfect for my taste. That, and their overt 'naughtiness' is kind of annoying.

There's something… lifeless about them. It sounds silly to say that about a miniature, but the computer design thing leaves them too perfect for my taste.

So far they are 3D designs, not yet 'real' minis: compare the 3D images and actual masters of previous RH figurines.
Besides, for me better a good CAD than an ugly sculpt. 'Imperfection' can go too far for 'realism' (re the Orc-looking Foundry SYW French Gardes Françaises for instance). Besides CAD allows to avoid oversized heads, hands and feet: what looks to some 'oversized' here is deliberately so -and I'm not fond of the oversized *weapons*, but these are obviously intended to be GW (WHFB Empire, Mordheim) compatible. BTW, since it was mentioned as a criticism, the legs are *not* too long, they are perfectly 'in scale' for an Adriana Karembeu-like (1.26 m of legs out of a total of 1.83 m) girl.

.

.

their overt 'naughtiness' is kind of annoying.

De gustibus coloribusque non est disputandum
I greatly prefer the 'Landsknecht sniper' here over the LAF Bruegelburg ones.

*What* naughtiness anyway??? Why was Raquel Welch chosen to play in '1 million years BC' and 'Fantastic Voyage'? Why was Angelina Jolie chosen to play Lara Croft? Far more a matter of pure aesthetics than naughtiness: in 'entertaining / escapism' movies and TV programs all women I know prefer to watch a beautiful actress than an ugly one.

I think they are great and will be ordering them!

Someone needs to give the Raging Heroes chicks some ChapStick.

Uncanny Valley, perhaps?

I am all for believing that they are what they are, and if anyone wants to do better – in whatever medium they are welcome to try.

I think they fit the most famous fantasy rules figure designs to a T (they are GW without GW license)

I would buy them if they fitted my 1702-1713 campaign, which is "historical" but with a few elements of Imagi-nations included with female militia that are overtly displayed! I know that its not realistic, but then again we are in the main grown men playing with toys!

And going back to leg length – I have met some females that had much longer legs by proportion to the rest of their bodies than the figures….. I can remember meeting two models used by Pretty Polly, who had legs that were almost twice as long as the rest of their body….. talk about legs up to their armpits.

I think the stance is wrong – and this is true from my experience of CAD work – what looks ok on the screen looks strange when held in the hand. I had to pose my girlfriend sometimes to get the look right whilst I designed figures on the screen. – I had to dress her in two or three wraps of cloth and old shirts to try and get the draping right as well,

@ Maddaz111

I would buy them if they fitted my 1702-1713 campaign

For characters like these: link ?
I wholeheartedly second this wish!

Btw do you have a blog? If not I friendly urge you to open one. It's free, easy (I can testify that even a dinosaur from the age of mechanical typewriters can manage ), requires no maintenance and you post at your own pace. At stimulating support to record your projects -having your texts published forces you to put your ideas clear and straight) and progresses. And more reader-friendly than any alternative, Photobucket or the like (practically no captions), Yahoo groups (illos in a separate folder) and even forums where pic can indeed be inserted in the text at the right place: a blog offers more flexibility in layout and it's purely *yours*, your posts are not scattered among a flood of messages from other members.

About 18th C. female soldiers: TMP link