Nathan Caroland Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 New one from PP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ritual Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Nope! :disappoin :lame: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeadAsbestos Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 It would make a nice gargoyle for Tyranid players. The GW gargoyle is one crappy model! This one, not bad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witchfire Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 F****ing sweeet !!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green stuff Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Concept-wise : interesting. Realisation-wise : take back your copy and redo your work. The center body part is pretty cool but I'm having a damn hard time believing that such a creature can exist without eyes, ears, and other organs. Flight being blind is a big impossibility in my world (and for those who are thinking sonars, you either need ears or a "soft medium" (not that carapace the creature has on it's head) to let the sonic waves into the sensor organ (plus, air doesn't carry sound very far). As for the wings ... how hard is it to type "bat" in Google to get some decent anatomy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincegamer Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I agree with GS. The wings are atrocious. The legs are well done. They belong on a different critter too. My first thought was not wings, but genitles. How does this thing reproduce? Because if it has to mount a female, you're going to have one dead female with all those spikes in her back. Or is this female? Some species do mate through the mouth, but not anything very complex, and this mouth appears to have gills behind it, which would make depositing reproductive material difficult. I guess the overall effect I'm getting is this is a creature someone made out of his bitz box - nothing matches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacemunkie Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 The wings are rubbish. Way too OTT. The rest is ok. Dunno why designers should have to consider practicalities such as eyes and ears when designing a completely non-existent fantastical creature. There are any number of explanations of how it could 'see', 'hear' and 'reproduce'.... This gets marks for at least trying to be different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green stuff Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 @Scott : A couple of years ago, some biologists gathered and went through all the creatures in Star Wars episodes 4, 5, and 6. Their conclusion was that not one of them could have evolved to their form and survived as a species. I have no problem with orcs, elves, dwarfs, Aliens, Predators, ... even dragons (although the flying type is OTT). But a blind flying shark ??? Not long ago Cyril critiqued one of Mick's orc designs saying that the muscles were rubish and he got flamed. I'm sorry, but anatomy and basic physic laws are more or less a constant in species, be the creature fantasy or not ... that is if you want the univers you're playing in to have some form of realism. If you want an orc to be able to give a slug with his axe, he's going to have a certain amount of muscle groups and they must be placed at the right places. Why would a flying shark have gills? How would it hunt down it's prey blind in mid air? How would it defend itself blind and def? The wing bones are all bent which is not good structure for such a big beast if it needs to fly. The wing membranes are all wrinked, but if it was flying, the membranes would be smoothed out from the pressure. Like I said, the idea isn't bad, but the sculpt could have been better IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witchfire Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 it's hard to speak about biology when talking about a creature that is basicly made from the blood of an imortal dragon who's spirit reside in a rock shoved inside an ogrun's torso to use the marvel catch-all explanation : it's a mutant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green stuff Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 a creature that is basicly made from the blood of an imortal dragon So your dragon has blood, this means it uses it to feed it's muscles in oxygen and nutrients. Since it has muscles, these need to be placed correctly to respect action/reaction constraints. The time when men believed that gods shaped them from clay is over. Let's see sculptors get their anatomy right . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supervike Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I believe in a universe where blind sharks fly and fire burns from darkest to lightest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witchfire Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 So your dragon has blood, . it aslo has an aura a few kilometers wide that cause mutation since they are so outside of nature's realm if it is killed his athang(heart) will grow a new body from nothing the only way to realy kill an IK dragon is by having his heart eaten by an other dragon from what is sayd in the Monsternomicon(IK monster manual) they are as unatural as can be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green stuff Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 they are as unatural as can be Maybe that's why I don't play any of PP's games . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ritual Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I believe in a universe where the only function of muscles is to make the owner look cool! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacemunkie Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 But it's fantasy. Plus there's the fact that you are basing all this on carbon based lifeforms that live on this planet. Who's to say silicon, sulphur or some other substance may not be the biological building blocks for species that haven't been discovered yet. Factor in different atmospheric conditions, gravity......etc, etc..... I just find it faintly ludicrous and a little backwards to suggest that people can't use their imaginations. Anatomical correctness (??) has its place, but those rules are there to be broken. I certainly don't buy into what the anatomy police constantly spout about this hobby - it'd be a far duller place if all sculptors did too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supervike Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I think it is an interesting debate....I DO want to see realism too, but not at the cost of imagination. I am finding that I like 'exaggerated' more than realistic anyhow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witchfire Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 the answer i allway say ,to my D&D players when they try to reason with by talking about the laws of physics or genetics, IT'S MAGIC:flypig: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green stuff Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 For silicon, it should be relatively the same as carbon since they're in the same atomic column. As for sulphur, the only creatures found on earth based on that are sea worms that live 10000 meters underwater. Way before the dinosaures, 99% of all life forms was wipe out. What did they look like : insects, centipedes, ... nothing very "out of this world". @witchfire : magic is SO over rated . But to get back on topic, give me bigger wings, mean eyes, tympaniums, and underbelly on that creature and I'll be a happy painter . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacemunkie Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 But again, you're basing your arguement on what we already know, and refusing to even consider the stuff we don't Just because sulphur based lifeforms are like rocking horse cack on Earth, doesn't mean to say that there aint some sentient sulphur beings somewhere! I simply don't subscribe to things not existing because we currently think they can't. History proves this line of thought to be wrong:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green stuff Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I simply don't subscribe to things not existing because we currently think they can't. History proves this line of thought to be wrong:) True . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ritual Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 What I want from minis is that they should look fairly believable. If a mini has muscles that look pretty much like muscles do in real life it's easier to accept the mini if the anatomy is more or less correct. The same argument holds for other things as well, I think. For instance, I would be bothered if a flying creature has wings that seem obviously too small. I'm not too peckish about it, though, just as long as things are more or less immediately believable. I don't want to think up far-fetched explanations for things that seem wrong to me at first glance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witchfire Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 a beholder (eye tyrant) is so anatomicaly beleivable:thumb: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ritual Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 You didn't read my post correctly (or you chose to misunderstand it)... I said that IF a mini has muscles and a musculature that look somewhat like in real life, the most imediate way to perceive them is like real muscles and then some sort of believable anatomy is required, IMO. A monster that bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything in real life can of course look pretty much like anything! I feel that the argument 'It's fantasy! Maybe it works that way in that fantasy world!' is often used to excuse a poor sculpting job. If the sculptor has made the effort to sculpt real-looking muscles and arranged them in a way that looks somewhat life-like, why not go all the way and find out how proper anatomy is? I'm not saying it has to be 100% correct, but any obvious errors will bother me! Maybe not so much if I like everything else about the mini, but, it will irk me nonetheless, since I would think of it as an error or lack of interest from the sculptor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witchfire Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 You didn't read my post correctly (or you chose to misunderstand it)... i wasn't replying to your post , sorry if i insult you , it wasnt my intention Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ritual Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I wasn't insulted at all (if I was easily insulted I wouldn't get into on-line discussions... )! I understood your post was humorous! I just felt that I wanted to clarify my point. Even if your post wasn't in response to mine, at least I got to elaborate my view on this subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.