# So...this is the new Ettercap?:(



## NarlethDrider (Oct 23, 2007)

After looking at some scans of the poster of the DoD minis, this is apparently the new ettercap [sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]

not sure I like it---I'll at least have to add another set of limbs to it---my "houserule" all spiderkin have to have at least 8 limbs


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 23, 2007)

Why do you think it's the ettercap? Does the poster explicitly say that?


----------



## Sammael (Oct 23, 2007)

Unfortunately, yes.

Here are the poster scans, courtesy of AesophDarkfable and ktatroe of Hordelings.

http://www.hordelings.com/site/images/tmp/dod/index.html

(please don't hotlink to pictures.... I think it results in porn as a bandwidth-stealing measure)


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 23, 2007)

It's got two more than the 3e ettercap. So... a step in the right direction?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 23, 2007)

*shrug*

I have no problem with it. It's different from the old ones, and it's not the coolest design ever, but it's still a pretty solid "vaguely humanoid spider critter," and that's all that really matters, IMO.


----------



## Sammael (Oct 23, 2007)

Incidentally, if you look at the poster, you'll see several creature appearance changes:

Ogre
Ettercap
Sphinx
Dryad (BLECH)
Harpy


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 23, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, yes.
> 
> Here are the poster scans, courtesy of AesophDarkfable and ktatroe of Hordelings.





Looking at those, some immediate observations:

Macetail Behemoth? Surely that is just an Ankylosaurus!

Blackwoods Dryad - doesn't look *nearly* as attractive as a standard dryad 

Visejaw crocodile? Distinct from a normal crocodile in what way? red scales?


----------



## DandD (Oct 23, 2007)

A Manticore Sniper? Oh well, at least that thing doesn't look like that horrible freak from the 3rd edition Monster Manual.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 23, 2007)

To me, the painful part is the male Harpy. That kind of defeats the whole concept, and use of the word Harpy as their name, doesn't it?


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 24, 2007)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> To me, the painful part is the male Harpy. That kind of defeats the whole concept, and use of the word Harpy as their name, doesn't it?




Are you sure it's a male? I can see them simply not wanting to make the breasts incredibly obvious on a miniature.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 24, 2007)

No, but that was the opinion of both my wife and me. If it doesn't look like a female, is it one for minis purposes?


----------



## The Little Raven (Oct 24, 2007)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> If it doesn't look like a female, is it one for minis purposes?




Well, harpies are supposed to be ugly.

And I've seen some ugly women that I've accidentally called "dude" before.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Oct 24, 2007)

The skinny frame and large head of the sahuagin cause it to resemble a murloc from _World of Warcraft_, though the latter are not scaly, having a shinier, froglike skin texture.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Oct 24, 2007)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Are you sure it's a male? I can see them simply not wanting to make the breasts incredibly obvious on a miniature.




It has a male figure regardless of breasts. The whole point of sculptures is to show the figure not hide it. This goes all the way back to the Greeks.


----------



## Wolfspider (Oct 24, 2007)

Yeah, I'm not so impressed with the ettercrap myself.

Personally, I think most of those minis are pretty ugly.  I do like how the ogre has changed, though.


----------



## Mortellan (Oct 24, 2007)

That's the saddest collection I've seen from D&DM. Star Wars minis have to be made by the same people and their stuff doesn't look half as churned out as these.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 24, 2007)

Wow!

Craptacular doesn't even begin to describe these....

That's the worst dryad, harpy, and ettercap I've ever seen.

What the heck are they thinking?!?!?


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Oct 24, 2007)

i feel that these minis have regressed from what wizards target audience wants. This is the kind of stuff that drove away potential players.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Oct 24, 2007)

the fire elemental and nightmare are cool though, along with the demon weapon swarm and the blade spider, but most of these lack a feeling of the kind of fantasy that excites me. they feel dull, and full of ism


----------



## Mortellan (Oct 24, 2007)

Indeed its a turn off. And while they are regressing, they can go back to school on how to mold plastic weapons that aren't warped out of the box and thereby ruining what slim chance you had at a good mini in the first place.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 24, 2007)

Hey, that tiefling has itty-bitty horns! All is good in the world!


----------



## Mortellan (Oct 24, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> the fire elemental and nightmare are cool though, along with the demon weapon swarm and the blade spider, but most of these lack a feeling of the kind of fantasy that excites me.




Yeah when they are using a 'special effect' mini they seem to be better in general. Maybe it's because you know they are trying harder. But just regular run of the mill monsters and races must lose quite a bit from concept sketch phase to modelling phase.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Oct 24, 2007)

sahuagin is kindof cool in the "i wanna fight 100s of these cute little guys" kindof way. Its a really good sculpt with a good paint job. yay!


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Oct 24, 2007)

DandD said:
			
		

> A Manticore Sniper? Oh well, at least that thing doesn't look like that horrible freak from the 3rd edition Monster Manual.




I liked the 3e revamp of the manticore a lot. It made what I'd always considered a slightly silly and fairly boring monster more interesting. It reminds me of how seals could be mistaken for mermaids. Seals look nothing like people, but I can say from personal experience that you can mistake them for a swimmer or surfer from a distance. The same principle applies to the 3e manticore - up close it doesn't look much like a human at all, but from a distance or in a quick glimpse, it may seem to have the face of a man. 

Anyway, I like this new ettercap look - except for the wrong number of limbs.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 24, 2007)

Er...no thanks.  On all counts except ogre.  (I wonder if I can still use my 3.x Edition minis with the new 4E rules?)

Just kidding, of course.  But it would only _slightly_ surprise me if someone claimed otherwise.

EDIT: Okay, I suppose the naga isn't too terrible either.  But the rest can stay on the shelf.


----------



## Aldarc (Oct 24, 2007)

The ettercap looks like it has an extra right back foot underneath its body, so maybe it does have four sets of appendages, just two sets for walking and two for fighting.


----------



## grimslade (Oct 24, 2007)

These minis look worse than the Harbinger set. The paint jobs are awful and most are featureless blobs. Is the ettercap a new type of formian? Looks more like an ant man than spider-man. The yuan ti looks awful, kind of a melted red crayon. The harpy is just bad. The sauhuagin looks like a cute and cuddly little critter. We have had good sculpts of sauhuagin in the past why go for the cartoonish over sized head deal.
The ogre, fire elemental, nightmare and naga look good though.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 24, 2007)

I really don't see what's wrong with the ettercap. Sorry, but it looks just fine to me.


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 24, 2007)

Bfugly.


----------



## Hairfoot (Oct 24, 2007)

Ironically, the ettercap is the only miniature in the range I don't dislike.  The dwarven brawler looks like a tanked-up System of a Down fanboy looking for a hipster to punch out.

EDIT: and since when can a dinosaur with a brain the size of a walnut become lawful good?  Does it have a second, morality-oriented, brain in its tail?


----------



## VirgilCaine (Oct 24, 2007)

grimslade said:
			
		

> The sauhuagin looks like a cute and cuddly little critter. We have had good sculpts of sauhuagin in the past why go for the cartoonish over sized head deal.




Maybe it's _Gremlins_, vague ideas of _Warhammer_ goblins, and _The Darkness_ comic's Darklings, but those Sahuagin seem evil to me. More of a "Beavis and Butthead" stupid, crude kind of evil, but evil nonetheless.


----------



## Vigwyn the Unruly (Oct 24, 2007)

Um, yeah, these are just really bad. They look frankly like total junk. Something I wouldn't even buy for a nickel apiece at a garage sale. Yuck.


----------



## Davelozzi (Oct 24, 2007)

Yep, I have to agree with the consensus, it looks like a terrible set of minis.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 24, 2007)

Eh. I don't get all the fuss. Yes, some of the sculpts are bad. Some of the sculpts in _every_ set have been bad. While I'm not an avid minis collector, I have enough--and I've _seen_ almost all of them--to know that every set has a pretty wide mix of bad, adequate, and good, with a few great ones thrown in.

While this certainly is far from the _best_ set released to date, I don't think it's any worse than average.


----------



## Markn (Oct 24, 2007)

I really like the Ettercap, Sphynx and Dryad!  While I think the set is weak overall I am encouraged by SOME of the looks/redesigns of some monsters.


----------



## DanChops (Oct 24, 2007)

I'm going to have to go against consensus here.  While, as typical, an awful lot depends on how the final production paints turn out, there are a good number of pretty cool minis there.  
There's a nice range of humanoid adventurer-types (always important for new folks looking to get minis for their party.)  For example, the Dwarf Maulfighter, Human Cleric of Bahamut, Merchant Guard, Cliffwalk Archer, Elf Conjurer, Eternal Blade, Halfling Enchanter, Halfling Rogue, and Shadar-Kai Assasin all fit this role very well.  Of those, the Eternal Blade and Shadar-Kai Assasin are the two whose paint jobs concern me the most, but both have reasonably interesting sculpts and the fact that both are uncommons gives me hope that the paint jobs will be acceptable enough as well.
Of the non-humanoid/monster minis, several stand out to me as pretty dang cool.  The Sphinx, Thundertusk Boar, Nightmare, Sahaugin, Shadow Mastiff, Blade Spider, Demonweb Swarm, Flame Snake, Naga, Large Fire Elemental, Ravenous Goul, and Werewolf Champion would all see a place on my table any week.  
With respect to the new designs, I'm partial to the new Ettercap and Ogre.  I suspect that the Blackwoods Dryad either (a) represents a 4E "plant shape" Dryad ability or (b) is the offspring of a Dryad and a tree.  I'm cool with either one.  However, if that is indeed what the default 4E Dryad will look like, then I'm very dissapointed.  As for the male Harpy, meh.  While it's not the first time D&D has diverted sharply from the source mythology, and certainly won't be the last, I'm not very stoked about the concept of male Harpies.  
So, of the 60 figures, I see immediate use for 21 of them at my table.  Not that dissimilar from previous sets, really.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 24, 2007)

So the new ettercap killed the thri kreen and took its things? Ugh.


----------



## Dendread (Oct 24, 2007)

These look less like D&D minis and more like a set of Monster in my Pocket. 

I also don't understand the reasoning behind changing the look of creatures or deviating from thousands of years of mythological and folkloric tradition (aka, the harpy, sphinx, dryad) seemingly just for the sake of changing stuff. It just seems disrespectful.


----------



## pogre (Oct 24, 2007)

This set is a step back for the WOTC mini line. I don't know what happened - they seemed to be making progress in the last few. I don't see any I would even want to repaint.


----------



## Mortellan (Oct 24, 2007)

Tradition is out the window in 4e. Everything shall be reimagined!


----------



## Nyaricus (Oct 24, 2007)

I really, really like that Flame Snake. Holy crap does it look cool!

cheers,
--N


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 24, 2007)

*So...this is the old Ettercap.*

From the MM3.5: the Ettercap 

Frankly, I can only see the new one as an improvement.


----------



## gothmaugCC (Oct 24, 2007)

If i'm not mistaken that ettercap concept art is a piece by wayne reynolds sketched out for the original Monster manual for 3.0 oh 10 years ago now?. I had it on file with his old sketch work for the beholder, a piece entitles "insect warrior", and the krenshar, along with some concept pieces that didnt make the final drafy (harpy I think)

*looks at the scans of the next miniature set*

*cries*

THey said ONE mini from the set wanst going to make it to the MM 4.0, right? Cause looking at the miniatures there's a half dozen or so I'd give the axe to.


----------



## Lurker37 (Oct 24, 2007)

I've never used Minis. 

Looking at this, it seems that won't change in 4E. If these minis are based on 4E artwork then I won't be using the artwork from the books either.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Oct 24, 2007)

I like the elf conjurer. The merchant guard is also nice.


----------



## Soel (Oct 24, 2007)

Only one that I like is the Blackwoods Dryad. 

As far as ettercaps go, I love WAR, but I still prefer D'Terlizzi's version from 2e.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Oct 24, 2007)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> I liked the 3e revamp of the manticore a lot. It made what I'd always considered a slightly silly and fairly boring monster more interesting. It reminds me of how seals could be mistaken for mermaids. Seals look nothing like people, but I can say from personal experience that you can mistake them for a swimmer or surfer from a distance. The same principle applies to the 3e manticore - up close it doesn't look much like a human at all, but from a distance or in a quick glimpse, it may seem to have the face of a man.



Exactly my opinion, as well!

As for the actual miniatures... that is a pretty sorry, ugly bunch, overall. 

The fire elemental, the elf conjurer and the nightmare look good; the sphinx and the werewolf are promising, too. The rest? Very bleh, with some downright ugly sculpts (or lousy paint jobs).


----------



## VirgilCaine (Oct 24, 2007)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> I like the elf conjurer. The merchant guard is also nice.




Elf conjurer looks like he's staring off into space. The merchant guard looks like he's modeling for a statue.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 24, 2007)

Soel said:
			
		

> As far as ettercaps go, I love WAR, but I still prefer D'Terlizzi's version from 2e.



I may have to look for that one. I haven't seen an ettercap yet that looked remotely spooky or spidery, despite absolutely loving the monster itself.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 24, 2007)

I like the new ettercap concept picture way better than the 3.0 and 3.5 versions, but I mildly dislike the changes to the ogre and the sphinx (tolerable), and totally hate the minis of the dryad and the harpy, hoping they are not going to be the new standard concepts!


----------



## Fifth Element (Oct 24, 2007)

Ever since the announcement of 4E, all new WotC things are bad. Am I right, guys? Let's hear it!

Seriously, there are some stinky sculpts in there...just like there is in every set. Most of them are good, or at least adequate.


----------



## Ant (Oct 24, 2007)

Very disappointed with what I've seen here.  Sure, all sets have some questionable minis but this is just ... wow. 

The "new" manticore, ettercap, harpy and naga also get the thumbs down. 

And yes, mhacdebhandia, the similarity between the sahuagin the murloc didn't escape me either.  No doubt a coincidence.  No doubt ...

On a more positive note, I really like the nightmare, large fire elemental and ogre brute (in particular).


----------



## Jinete (Oct 24, 2007)

Is the tiefling cleric wielding his *tail* in his off hand?


----------



## Wolfspider (Oct 24, 2007)

Jinete said:
			
		

> Is the tiefling cleric wielding his *tail* in his off hand?




Yes, I believe *she* is.

Kinky.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 24, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I may have to look for that one. I haven't seen an ettercap yet that looked remotely spooky or spidery, despite absolutely loving the monster itself.


----------



## Nebulous (Oct 24, 2007)

The ogre brute is hands down the best mini in the set.  But i have so many ogres from different games i hardly need a new one, especially a pricey rare (i'll still get it though).

Anyone ever played or bought the game Descent by Fantasy Flight? Well, i have it and it comes with 3 or 4 large ogres, 3 large giants, 3 large manticores, 3 large nagas, four or five large spiders, 3 large demons, 3 large dragons, and handfuls of beastmen, skeletons, necromancers and maybe something else i'm forgetting. Oh yeah, 12 player characters.  Oh, and hellhounds and gargoyles. 

Anyway, my point being that they look *great*.  Not painted, but easy to paint and the sculpts are way better than most of these from WotC.  Even just primed they look amazing.

Check them out here to compare: Just keep clicking around to see different models and paint jobs, there's varying degrees of talent.

manticores:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/211428

ogres:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/211430

demons:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/211431

whole set

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/256845

Oh, and new ogres, apes and abominations in the expansion

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/235444


And really, why the hell did they put a RARE anklyosaur in this set?  Who was really clamoring for a rare dino?  You can pick that up for a buck in a Big Lots bargain bin.


----------



## Elphilm (Oct 24, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> I like the new ettercap concept picture way better than the 3.0 and 3.5 versions, but I mildly dislike the changes to the ogre and the sphinx (tolerable), and totally hate the minis of the dryad and the harpy, hoping they are not going to be the new standard concepts!



I seriously doubt the dryad at least is going to be anything close to a standard one in 4E. Seems like a wicked variant of some kind - perhaps the Black Woods are a particularly nasty place in Feywild.

I don't really have any other comments about the minis since I have no experience on minis in general, other than that the Shadar-Kai Assassin is apparently wielding what can only be a spiked chain.


----------



## D.Shaffer (Oct 24, 2007)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> EDIT: and since when can a dinosaur with a brain the size of a walnut become lawful good?  Does it have a second, morality-oriented, brain in its tail?



That's the fault of the (alignment based) faction system for DnD minis. When everything has to belong to a faction (And the choices are LG, CG, LE, CE), you get some wierd results.


----------



## hazel monday (Oct 24, 2007)

I think Hasbro was aware they'd sell less stuff during the edition transition. So they stuck all the doo-doo sculpts into this interim set. Yep, that's the impression that I get.


----------



## Nebulous (Oct 24, 2007)

Well, we also have to consider that the poster linked in this thread only has 35 of the 60 miniatures.  There's a lot more we haven't seen.


----------



## NarlethDrider (Oct 24, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> So the new ettercap killed the thri kreen and took its things? Ugh.



the webspinner mini is an offspring of the above two, a etter-kreen  

despite my harrasing the poor ettercap, I still look forward to gettin a case of this group---as well as a few xtras of others


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 24, 2007)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> So the new ettercap killed the thri kreen and took its things arms?



FIFY


----------



## grimslade (Oct 24, 2007)

I guess my annoyance with this set is that I have liked a lot of the concept art for 4E so far but some of these sculpts are not my cup o' tea. Some of it is an atrocious paint job too.
I don't mind the Black Woods Dryad. I suspect that is a new variation for 4E and different tree fey are fine, especially if they can be evil. Plus I like that sculpt.
The ettercap does not look spider-y. It looks like an obese thri-kreen. It does look better than the original sketch in the Fiend Folio, however. I want a brutish man-spider who uses tricks and traps to lure prey into its web not a fat formian.
There are good sculpts here and this is only a partial list of the 60 sculpts but man some just set my teeth on edge.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Oct 24, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> FIFY



Not really.


----------



## Festivus (Oct 24, 2007)

Mortellan said:
			
		

> Tradition is out the window in 4e. Everything shall be reimagined!




You say that like it's a bad thing.  I don't see the problem with these figures, they all look ok for tabletop use.  I like that the mounts don't have anyone on them... now I can put whomever I want on it (it was my understanding that you will be able to put a medium mini on any mount figure).  

Remember some of these are extreme closeup shots... many of my minis look fine from a distance, but horrible close up.


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 24, 2007)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> To me, the painful part is the male Harpy. That kind of defeats the whole concept, and use of the word Harpy as their name, doesn't it?




Just because the only harpies in mythology were female doesn't mean all of them are. By that logic there would be only male minotaurs, because the only minotaur in myths was male. All the orcs in LotR were male (I think?), does that mean only male orcs (like in the Peter Jackson version...I never understood the mining for orcs thing but it was an interesting concept)?

And the word harpy comes from the greek word "to snatch." Women are called harpies in reference to the myth, not t'other way around.  Of course mythological harpies were not the D&D version, which were conflated with sirens. The original harpies didn't charm people, they stole food and defiled what they couldn't take.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 24, 2007)

Human cleric looks fine to me, as does the lawful good anklyosaur.  The sphynx is ok, I guess.  The elf conjurer looks fine.  The nightmare looks cool, as does the flame snake.  The naga is cool....or would be, without the bones sticking out of his face.  Fire elemental is fine (nice to see the transclucent stuff on this and the nightmare).  The ogre looks good.

Some of the other minis (ettercap, harpy, manticore) look pretty crappy to me, but I don't think it's a worse percentage than any other set.

RC


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 24, 2007)

DeTerlizzi's ettercap is certainly better than the 3E (and apparently 4E) ones. Still, not quite as skin-crawling as "humanoid spider who traps and kills solitary travelers" ought to be.


----------



## JRR_Talking (Oct 24, 2007)

dont like them at all, even the ogre

all part of the cartoony, consoley swicth that is 4e

the more i hear the less im impressed.

add 4e to the 2e game i never played


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 24, 2007)

Most of the 3E DDM stuff was pretty cartoony too. I don't think you can really get super-offended by the quality of sculpts in terms of what it says about the 4E art direction. (You can certainly get offended by them as miniatures fans, of course.)


----------



## Kunimatyu (Oct 24, 2007)

Reaper's prepaints are looking really good right about now...


----------



## Amphimir Míriel (Oct 24, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> sahuagin is kindof cool in the "i wanna fight 100s of these cute little guys" kindof way. Its a really good sculpt with a good paint job. yay!




Granted!

"...you and your companions are exhausted from your trip through the mountains when you arrive at the coastal village of Innsmouth..."


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 24, 2007)

The elf conjurer looks like he's just about to sing a musical number.

The eternal blade: Princess Leia finally got some sensible armor.

Angel of vengeance? Ick. Looks like kleenex in armor.

Dwarf brawler needs bathroom break badly.

Merchant guard: Sure, it looks like he's posing. He lied on his resume and did not, in fact, major in fightering. He's a 3rd level bard but doesn't want anyone, least of all his employer, for find out.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Oct 24, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> The eternal blade: Princess Leia finally got some sensible armor.



Glad I wasn't the only one - I was like "Is this for real, or is that a repainted Leia?"


----------



## Klaus (Oct 24, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> DeTerlizzi's ettercap is certainly better than the 3E (and apparently 4E) ones. Still, not quite as skin-crawling as "humanoid spider who traps and kills solitary travelers" ought to be.



 Well, there's always the picture for the Master of Flies (iirc) from Savage Species.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Oct 24, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Well, there's always the picture for the Master of Flies (iirc) from Savage Species.



Even pre-4E announcement, I wasn't going to get this, but I'll see if I can find the picture online.

I love me some creepy talking spiders, and I'm getting close to either just making monstrous spiders talk in Midwood or using ettercaps for an upcoming encounter, but I'd like to get an ettercap illustration that really inspires me before I make the choice to go that direction.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 24, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Incidentally, if you look at the poster, you'll see several creature appearance changes:
> 
> Ogre
> Ettercap
> ...




That's not a dryad....that's a shambling mound.  They must have mixed up the titles..

Yeah...not liking some of the changes.

Likely it's all about "simplying" roles.  Afterall, if monsters are to be fought, then one like the dryad needn't be attractive, right?

I do like the new ogre...looks more like a smaller giant.  Which is kinda what they are.  But I'm not big on the sphinx, dryad, or harpy.  I agree that the harpy might be like that simply because they don't want to show mammaries?

Banshee


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 24, 2007)

The Reaper minis look really bad in person, imho. I don't think those are a good solution for most people that are willing to use ebay.

All you all that are hating (and I don't disagree with some of the specifics), do you dislike the line in general?


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 24, 2007)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Just because the only harpies in mythology were female doesn't mean all of them are. By that logic there would be only male minotaurs, because the only minotaur in myths was male. All the orcs in LotR were male (I think?), does that mean only male orcs (like in the Peter Jackson version...I never understood the mining for orcs thing but it was an interesting concept)?
> 
> And the word harpy comes from the greek word "to snatch." Women are called harpies in reference to the myth, not t'other way around.  Of course mythological harpies were not the D&D version, which were conflated with sirens. The original harpies didn't charm people, they stole food and defiled what they couldn't take.




In LotR, they weren't mining for Orcs.  They were breeding Uruk-Hai, which in the movie, was done via unnatural crossing of humans and orcs.  So maybe they couldn't be bred without Saruman's intervention (in the movie).  The voice over at the time they were showing the creatures being pulled out of the ground was talking about him creating Uruk-Hai.

Banshee


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 24, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> In LotR, they weren't mining for Orcs.



Yeah, that would be way to WoW. That's what you do in WoW, right? Mine for orcs?


----------



## shaylon (Oct 24, 2007)

Overall I would call it a weak set based on those pics.

-The Visejaw Croc looks very generic to me, not a good paint job at all.
-Yuan-Ti Malison?  I hope they repaint it.  Hell I wish they would resculpt it.
-Dwarf Brawler looks incomplete to me.

The Sahaugin looks awesome though!


----------



## Klaus (Oct 24, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Even pre-4E announcement, I wasn't going to get this, but I'll see if I can find the picture online.
> 
> I love me some creepy talking spiders, and I'm getting close to either just making monstrous spiders talk in Midwood or using ettercaps for an upcoming encounter, but I'd like to get an ettercap illustration that really inspires me before I make the choice to go that direction.


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 24, 2007)

"I like big butts and I can not lie..."


----------



## Shortman McLeod (Oct 24, 2007)

Vigwyn the Unruly said:
			
		

> Um, yeah, these are just really bad. They look frankly like total junk. Something I wouldn't even buy for a nickel apiece at a garage sale. Yuck.




Oh, come on.  For a nickel apiece at a garage sale you know darn well you'd buy them.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 24, 2007)

Shortman McLeod said:
			
		

> Oh, come on.  For a nickel apiece at a garage sale you know darn well you'd buy them.



I've gotton real minis at that price at garage sales. Heck, most of these fail in comparison to the Battlemasters minis.


Hey, did that angel fly out of Dreamblade? I kin da likeit, but it sure looks out of place.

3.5 Ettercap was the best version of the thing ever. The new one is an uttercrap.

Ogre is slight improvement over the 3E jar-jar ogres. Still have seen better.

No fragging way a spider sould ever be a rare. Especially not after halloween.


----------



## Odhanan (Oct 25, 2007)

I don't like the way the monsters are redesigned. 

The minis themselves aren't any worse than the previous ones: some are good, some are average, some suck. That's the new design that is weak, I think. I MUCH prefer the old ettercap, for instance.


----------



## GreatLemur (Oct 25, 2007)

Man, a lot of these minis just look like _hell_.  I don't use miniatures, and I've never even owned any pre-painted minis, so maybe this is par for the course.  They're not really meant to be scrutinized at five times their actual size, after all.

I've never particularly cared about ettercaps one way or another, so I can't say this redesign really bugs me.

That angel is a bit crappy looking.  I think they were going for a really ambitious effect that the medium just failed to support.

I actually really dig the new dryad look.  Sexy tree women are a dumb idea.

The Blood of Vol fanatic looks completely badass.

That sahuagin is pretty lame.  Kobolds already had the "cutely pathetic scaley humanoid" angle sewn up.  Sahuagin oughta look like this.

Ogres are lookin kinda different.  Maybe not a good change, but probably not a bad one, either.

That harpy looks like ass, but I definitely support the idea of male harpies in general.  This whole one-gender-species bit ain't something I can buy into.


----------



## NarlethDrider (Oct 25, 2007)

I'll apply some green stuff & another set of limbs to the ettercap if necessary----moding minis is fun & I need some spidery companions to go w/my ogre skirmisher-fiendish huge spider drider I hope to use that mini one day

redesigning is fun, I'm building my 4E world one drawing at a time---hopefully I'll get the art thread up tomorrow---yea, I even have a version of an ettercap


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 25, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> DeTerlizzi's ettercap is certainly better than the 3E (and apparently 4E) ones. Still, not quite as skin-crawling as "humanoid spider who traps and kills solitary travelers" ought to be.




Looks like an ordinary bugbear to me. The one from 3.5 actually creeps me out. The 4th edition one looks like a muppet from the Dark Crystal or Labyrinth.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 25, 2007)

The Eternal Blade looks like a cross between Christopher Walken as Feng and Bjork.

The Yuan-Ti... is red.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Oct 26, 2007)

*For your viewing pleasure or viewing horror.*

Wizards have put up the pictures here: D&D Minatures Gallery: Deserts of Desolation.


----------



## hong (Oct 26, 2007)

That gelatinous cube is so anime.


----------



## llamatron2000 (Oct 26, 2007)

Cliffwalk archer.  Elves with moustaches.  Mmm.

Angel of Vengeance?  really cool.

That cyclops is also good.  Its a sort of regression to a more classical look.

And....I don't know what you guys are talking about.  Black Woods dryad looks friggin' AWESOME.  I get the image of this organic, wooden creature stalking through the woods, surrounded by ever-moving roots.

ZOMG UMBER HULK IS SO AWESOME.


But...yeah.  I like a lot of these models, despite what others might say.  These minis look kinda epic.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Oct 26, 2007)

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> Wizards have put up the pictures here: D&D Minatures Gallery: Deserts of Desolation.




The miniatures predictably benefit from the clarity of these non-magazine scan pictures. If Desert of Desolation is weaker than recent sets, I'd say it's only slightly so. 

My Favorite miniature is definately the Human Cleric of Bahamut.






EDIT: Looking back though, it doesn't compare to War Drums. They'll need to improve the modeling and painting of the next set to reach the impressive standard they established with that one.


----------



## Turjan (Oct 26, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> *shrug*
> 
> I have no problem with it. It's different from the old ones, and it's not the coolest design ever, but it's still a pretty solid "vaguely humanoid spider critter," and that's all that really matters, IMO.



Sorry, but I don't see a single thing that reminds me of a spider here.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Oct 26, 2007)

I´m really not a miniatures player, but i like most of the figs. I´m sure i can live with those guys showing up in the MM - especially the Feral Troll, one of my favourites in 4e already.

But somebody should tell WotC that spiders have ALWAYS 8 legs - thats what makes them spiders instead of insects. 

Oh, btw, when i look at the drider, i almost regret that i do not use minis. I would really like to see the faces of my players when i drop THAT on the table. That thing is hideous! And i mean that in the very best way.


----------



## Creamsteak (Oct 26, 2007)

Those look pretty cool.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 26, 2007)

llamatron2000 said:
			
		

> Cliffwalk archer.  Elves with moustaches.  Mmm.




Cliffwalk is a subtype of shifter.

Several great minis there. I specially like the Animated Statue, the Ogre, the cleric of Bahamut and the Sahuagins.


----------



## Nebulous (Oct 26, 2007)

Is the Sahuagin Baron a Large mini?  I can't tell from the picture.

I actually like this set quite a lot.  I'll definitely be picking up some of these.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Oct 26, 2007)

Wait. Wait. Wait.

Wait.

There's a WARHORSE mini?!?

Explain how the  that's supposed to be worth the money. 

Either I'm ON the warhorse, which, using other WOTC minis, is impossible to arrange without glue. Or I'm not on the horse, and I can use a square of paper for the horse. 

What a waste of plastic.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 26, 2007)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> The miniatures predictably benefit from the clarity of these non-magazine scan pictures. If Desert of Desolation is weaker than recent sets, I'd say it's only slightly so.
> 
> My Favorite miniature is definately the Human Cleric of Bahamut.
> 
> ...




He's got... a pick?

Why have the minis gone down in quality? Did they make all their DDM 1.0 sculptors drink cyanide or something?


----------



## Zamkaizer (Oct 26, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> He's got... a pick?




The Heavy Pick is Bahamut's favored weapon. I'm not entirely certain why, but I think it's because it resembles a dragon's tooth.


----------



## ZappoHisbane (Oct 26, 2007)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Wait. Wait. Wait.
> 
> Wait.
> 
> ...




They've introduced mounts into this set.  I'd imagine the Thundertusk Boar, Nightmare and possibly Shadow Mastiff and Lockjaw Croc are ones as well.  I'm guessing the large figs are slightly offset on their base to allow you to place a medium or smaller figure on the large base with them.  Hopefully there's even a little depression on the base so that the 'rider' will fit snugly.

All in all it's a fantastic idea, especially for those of us who use the minis for the RPG as well as the skirmish game.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 26, 2007)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> The Heavy Pick is Bahamut's favored weapon. I'm not entirely certain why, but I think it's because it resembles a dragon's tooth.








 Yep. Considering that core D&D usually does not usually have a 'claw' weapon, I'd say it is a decent pick.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Oct 26, 2007)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> My Favorite miniature is definately the Human Cleric of Bahamut.



That mini is my favorite as well.

As far as the figs in general, they look fine to me.  I'd like to get each one (but I *hate* collecting random boxes - I really like the Reaper pre-paint business model).


----------



## heirodule (Oct 26, 2007)

Don't like the new ettercap

And don't like the new manticore, even though its D&D traditional.

the 3e one looks more like its original woodcut


----------



## heirodule (Oct 26, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Yep. Considering that core D&D usually does not usually have a 'claw' weapon, I'd say it is a decent pick.





ha ha 

I have an aversion to arming enemies with picks and scythes. Nothing says "I hope I luck out and kill you randomly" like a x4 crit weapon. But 4e will fix that


----------



## Nebulous (Oct 26, 2007)

heirodule said:
			
		

> ha ha
> 
> I have an aversion to arming enemies with picks and scythes. Nothing says "I hope I luck out and kill you randomly" like a x4 crit weapon. But 4e will fix that




I once used a death squad of rogues all armed with scythes to attack the party.  Not a single crit in the whole fight .   What's the rationale behind 4x damage anyway?


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 26, 2007)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> The Heavy Pick is Bahamut's favored weapon. I'm not entirely certain why, but I think it's because it resembles a dragon's tooth.




Probably. 

Actually, Complete Divine liss' Bahamut's favored weapon as either 'heavy pick' or 'bite'.

(Sorry, no claw.    )


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Oct 26, 2007)

heirodule said:
			
		

>




So anime.  

I dunno, maybe I'm weird (hush!), but I don't mind the new figures at all. I think the ogre's pretty beefy and huge looking.


----------



## PieAndDragon (Oct 26, 2007)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> There's a WARHORSE mini?!?
> 
> Explain how the  that's supposed to be worth the money.
> 
> ...




I'll get more use out of the warhorse minis than I will any other in my collection ! I've waited ages for exactly this mini, having made heavy use of my lone unicorn and various mounted on horse minis in the past.

Like the look of the set, especially the dwarf maulfighter, cleric of Bahamut, thundertusk boar, blood of Vol fanatic, flamesnake, ogre brute and yuan-ti malison. 

Gonna buy me a case tomorrow.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 26, 2007)

The ragedrake will also be a mount, though I think only Orcs can mount it in the DDM skirmish game.

There won't be a depression in the plastic for placing other minis there. Just too expensive to have different kinds of bases, and it would weaken the base.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 26, 2007)

The new ogre I will give a solid B+ to. It actually looks pretty fierce.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 26, 2007)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> The Heavy Pick is Bahamut's favored weapon. I'm not entirely certain why, but I think it's because it resembles a dragon's tooth.



 Yes, it does.

Every draconic deity that lists "bite" as a favored weapon offers "pick" for nondraconic followers. If the deity lists "claw" as a favored weapon, the alternative is "scimitar".

I wonder if "tail" becomes "flail" and "wing" becomes "shield bash".


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 26, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Yes, it does.
> 
> Every draconic deity that lists "bite" as a favored weapon offers "pick" for nondraconic followers. If the deity lists "claw" as a favored weapon, the alternative is "scimitar".
> 
> I wonder if "tail" becomes "flail" and "wing" becomes "shield bash".




I don't see the logic of either. A pick is a swung weapon; a dagger is more like a bite. And scimitars slash, not shred.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 27, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I don't see the logic of either. A pick is a swung weapon; a dagger is more like a bite. And scimitars slash, not shred.



 Piercing vs. Slashing, I guess.


----------



## Najo (Oct 27, 2007)

Anyone else think that the names of the monsters is very Magic the Gathering like? Every monster either has a descriptor added to it, a proper name or it is given a replacement name that "fantas-izes" it. It feels different from previous editions. Not saying that is bad, just an observation on a subtle difference from 3.5's "feel."


----------



## Felon (Oct 27, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Visejaw crocodile? Distinct from a normal crocodile in what way? red scales?



I just figured the new presentation of dire animals would be to give them some "kewl" compound noun name instead of just appending the word "dire" in front of them all.


----------



## pawsplay (Oct 27, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> I just figured the new presentation of dire animals would be to give them some "kewl" compound noun name instead of just appending the word "dire" in front of them all.




It probably also occurred to them that compound names are trademarkable in a way mythological creatures are not.


----------



## Felon (Oct 27, 2007)

Prince of Happiness said:
			
		

> I dunno, maybe I'm weird (hush!), but I don't mind the new figures at all. I think the ogre's pretty beefy and huge looking.




I don't mind'em myself either. In fact, I just bought a complete set on eBay. 

Not sure what the problem with the ettercap is.  What, it was somehow better as a portly defenseless little creature that looked pitiful rather than vile?


----------



## hong (Oct 27, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I don't see the logic of either. A pick is a swung weapon; a dagger is more like a bite. And scimitars slash, not shred.



 And Han shot first, dammit.


----------



## Beckett (Oct 27, 2007)

Najo said:
			
		

> Anyone else think that the names of the monsters is very Magic the Gathering like? Every monster either has a descriptor added to it, a proper name or it is given a replacement name that "fantas-izes" it. It feels different from previous editions. Not saying that is bad, just an observation on a subtle difference from 3.5's "feel."




That's for the D&D miniatures crowd. There's already been a Troll figure (back in Harbinger). When they made a new troll, they couldn't just call it a Troll again, so they called it a Troll Slasher (Troll 2 is pretty boring). Now they're releasing a new troll, the 4E version, so they had to call it something else. Other monsters are treated the same way, but their RPG stats should be the same as ever.


----------



## Najo (Oct 27, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> It probably also occurred to them that compound names are trademarkable in a way mythological creatures are not.




This is more what I am saying about the MTG referrence. Between the names and the visuals, it looks like they are making more material they can legally protect. Like what they did with the monsters that were original within D&D. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the approach to the monster manuals we get. Instead of a generic troll, we get a specific type of troll in a roll. It allows them to make up more monster over time by taking away classes and feat customization and then making specific specicies and role fullfilling versions of monsters.


----------



## Gundark (Oct 27, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Dryad (BLECH)




Well warhammer fluff with Dryads was that they could take on "tree like appearance for battles, when not fighting they looked elfish.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Oct 27, 2007)

ZappoHisbane said:
			
		

> They've introduced mounts into this set.  I'd imagine the Thundertusk Boar, Nightmare and possibly Shadow Mastiff and Lockjaw Croc are ones as well.  *I'm guessing* the large figs are slightly offset on their base to allow you to place a medium or smaller figure on the large base with them.  Hopefully there's even a little depression on the base so that the 'rider' will fit snugly.
> 
> All in all it's a fantastic idea, especially for those of us who use the minis for the RPG as well as the skirmish game.




It's a fantastic idea--if they go with what you're guessing. If they don't...


----------



## megamania (Oct 27, 2007)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Incidentally, if you look at the poster, you'll see several creature appearance changes:
> 
> Ogre
> Ettercap
> ...




The Dyrad is an Eberron creature I believe.  A non-good Dryad that lives in a cursed forest.  One of the novels spoke of black wood trees and the evil dryads that live in them.


As for the Etercap- the new figure looks exactly like this so yes- this is it.  Looks more like someone placed the Savage Species template 'insectoid' onto a critter but that's okay.

Most of the changes I can deal with.


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 27, 2007)

I'm not against dryads looking more like humanoid trees, as long as nymphs maintain uber-hawtness.

Makes the two more distinct that way...


----------



## Klaus (Oct 28, 2007)

megamania said:
			
		

> The Dyrad is an Eberron creature I believe.  A non-good Dryad that lives in a cursed forest.  One of the novels spoke of black wood trees and the evil dryads that live in them.
> 
> 
> As for the Etercap- the new figure looks exactly like this so yes- this is it.  Looks more like someone placed the Savage Species template 'insectoid' onto a critter but that's okay.
> ...



 No, Darkheart (the darkwood dryad mentioned in the Eberron trilogy The Dreaming Dark, by Keith Baker) was described as having humanoid features, specially a face.

This mini looks more like Kid Treant.


----------



## Wulfram (Oct 28, 2007)

Gundark said:
			
		

> Well warhammer fluff with Dryads was that they could take on "tree like appearance for battles, when not fighting they looked elfish.




Yeah, it reminded me quite a bit of my Warhammer Dryads.  Though after a quick search it seems the WH dryads have now been made more spindly since I stopped playing


----------



## Simia Saturnalia (Oct 28, 2007)

Not a minis player (heh), but as far as I'm concerned: the astral stalker, Blood of Vol fanatic, new dryad, new sphinx, new ogre, shadow mastiff, troll, and the umber hulk are BAD-ASS. The crocodile, both sahaugins, the naga, and the manticore are bloody stupid.

Also: tieflings are red, then? So it's actually a Hellboy thing? 
I don't know how I feel about that. And the cleric looks frelling retarded holding his tail like that.

Also also: Does the "only one monster from the set isn't in the MM" count for the various humanoids too? 'cause under those circumstances, I'd say "Blood of Vol fanatic" doesn't make the cut. I of course assume it doesn't.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Oct 28, 2007)

Wulfram said:
			
		

> Yeah, it reminded me quite a bit of my Warhammer Dryads.  Though after a quick search it seems the WH dryads have now been made more spindly since I stopped playing



Here's a link to a GW gallery of dryads. Of course, those are dryads on the battlefield, angry about someone intruding into their home forest; a calm and relaxed dryad might be much less creepy-looking.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Oct 28, 2007)

Simia Saturnalia said:
			
		

> Also: tieflings are red, then? So it's actually a Hellboy thing?
> I don't know how I feel about that. And the cleric looks frelling retarded holding his tail like that.




I believe the Tiefling in question is a 'her.'


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Oct 28, 2007)

I don't really mind changing the appearance of monsters around, at least within reason.  

BUT WoTC PLEASE, GET BETTER ARTISTS.  YOU COULD FIND THEM WITH A QUICK INTERNET SEARCH

Tell me which of the below ettercaps you prefer.  1.) the 4e version 2.)CoW version


----------



## Felon (Oct 28, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I don't really mind changing the appearance of monsters around, at least within reason.
> 
> BUT WoTC PLEASE, GET BETTER ARTISTS.  YOU COULD FIND THEM WITH A QUICK INTERNET SEARCH
> 
> Tell me which of the below ettercaps you prefer.  1.) the 4e version 2.)CoW version



Seems like the deck is a bit stacked, since one is a rough sketch and the other is a polished, photoshopped piece of work. But yes, the "CoW" (whatever that means) version looks pretty cool. Then again, I think WotC actively intend for certain creatures look less than terrfiying; they want some schlub monsters that look eminently defeatable.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Oct 28, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Seems like the deck is a bit stacked, since one is a rough sketch and the other is a polished, photoshopped piece of work. But yes, the "CoW" (whatever that means) version looks pretty cool. Then again, I think WotC actively intend for certain creatures look less than terrfiying; they want some schlub monsters that look eminently defeatable.




One is finished and polished the other is rough, I would have picked something closer to a sketch but I don't have many images that could work for an ettercap.  Spiderish is not my favorite look given that I'm an slight arachnophobe so choices were limited.  

Thing is even taken back to a rough level the posing and anatomy of the CoW (Creature of the Week) version is much better.  One it looks far more like a spider in structure than the grub with legs sketch.  The WoTC version simply doesn't look threatening, it looks like you turned over a fallen log and handed a couple weapons to what you found there.  It isn't something players are going to look at and think of as a threat even to low-level characters.  When monsters look like shlubs even if they were meant to be used at lower level that interferes with their perception as a threat and lessens the impact of victory over them.


----------



## KB9JMQ (Oct 28, 2007)

I am not a skirmish player (that's what Heroscape is for) but I like these minis.
I have everyone made so far and plan on buying this set.
Yeah some might not be the best but the time and talent it takes to do even a decent mini makes it worth my while to buy these.
Besides my kids love these things and play with them all the time.


----------



## Felon (Oct 29, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> The WoTC version simply doesn't look threatening, it looks like you turned over a fallen log and handed a couple weapons to what you found there.  It isn't something players are going to look at and think of as a threat even to low-level characters.



I think you're in the right area here. Only certain monsters are supposed to see genuinely threatening. The rest you take a sword to without hesitation--kill them and take their stuff. D&D is way more about inducing a sense of empowerment than menace.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Oct 29, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> I think you're in the right area here. Only certain monsters are supposed to see genuinely threatening. The rest you take a sword to without hesitation--kill them and take their stuff. D&D is way more about inducing a sense of empowerment than menace.



We must be playing a different game because my players have never hesitated in attacking just about anything despite how threatening it looked.  How much sense of empowerment can a person get from defeating a monster that looks like your seven year-old daughter could thrash it.  The point of the game is that the PCs are the ones who go out and crush the things that terrify most everyone else.  Even for low-level characters the monsters need to actually be threatening in appearance to convey why all the other people who asked them for help didn't just deal with it themselves.  Monsters that don't appear dangerous enough are even more of a problem than monsters that appear too threatening.


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 29, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> Seems like the deck is a bit stacked, since one is a rough sketch and the other is a polished, photoshopped piece of work. But yes, the "CoW" (whatever that means) version looks pretty cool. Then again, I think WotC actively intend for certain creatures look less than terrfiying; they want some schlub monsters that look eminently defeatable.




I'd like my characters to face powerful and intimidating foes. That means something more like CoW than the stupid grasshopper/roach thing we got with the 4E ettercap.


----------



## Nebulous (Oct 29, 2007)

ehren37 said:
			
		

> I'd like my characters to face powerful and intimidating foes. That means something more like CoW than the stupid grasshopper/roach thing we got with the 4E ettercap.




I agree, but a simple solution is to SHOW the players that creepy ass picture of the CoW ettercap and simply use the plastic grasshopper as the token.  They'll be plenty creeped out.

Alternatively, the "less threatening" miniature in the new set (which i agree is not particularly scary) might look like a pushover (a bug under a rock so to speak), but maybe it packs a serious wallop that sends low level PC's running for the hills.


----------



## grimslade (Oct 29, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> I agree, but a simple solution is to SHOW the players that creepy ass picture of the CoW ettercap and simply use the plastic grasshopper as the token.  They'll be plenty creeped out.
> 
> Alternatively, the "less threatening" miniature in the new set (which i agree is not particularly scary) might look like a pushover (a bug under a rock so to speak), but maybe it packs a serious wallop that sends low level PC's running for the hills.




It's more than not being scary. The 4E (Desert of Desolation) ettercap is not evocative of a spider. It looks like a bloated grasshopper or a grub with legs. An ettercap is a bloated man spider. The bloated part comes from the large bulbous abdomen of a spider. The new art misses the monster and puts a 6 legged melted thri-kreen in its place.

I will admit the complete set looks a lot better than the partial set we originally saw. I put it at a little better than Harbinger.

The CoW art is a little to close to an aranea for me but it looks very cool.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Oct 29, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> I agree, but a simple solution is to SHOW the players that creepy ass picture of the CoW ettercap and simply use the plastic grasshopper as the token.  They'll be plenty creeped out.
> 
> Alternatively, the "less threatening" miniature in the new set (which i agree is not particularly scary) might look like a pushover (a bug under a rock so to speak), but maybe it packs a serious wallop that sends low level PC's running for the hills.




My post wasn't about the miniature, though it could be, so much as it was about the art overall.  The minies are really just placeholders (the best can still be cool), but the real action of the fight is happening inside the heads of the players.  Having good monster art to show the players and inspire the DM is very important.  It's not like there's a shortage of good artists and WoTC isn't going bargain basement on their art for 4e.  So it pains me when I see subpar art where even minimal diligence could have pointed them to those who do a much better job.


----------



## NarlethDrider (Oct 29, 2007)

LOVE the CoW spider thing---will find some use for it


----------



## Nebulous (Oct 30, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> So it pains me when I see subpar art where even minimal diligence could have pointed them to those who do a much better job.




It is very sad that there are phenomenal artists out there who are not hired by Wizards. Their current art is not bad by any means, but i often think that if they had more variety it would be so much better. Point in case with that CoW ettercap; if that was in the MM i would just about cry with joy. 

And who would like to see full page artwork of stuff actually *happening *in the MM's?  I'm thinking of the original Fiend Folio that had a whole party of adventurers up against githyanki.  Sure, it was b/w, but it was a very evocative picture. I'd love to see more interactive action scenes rather than exclusively static portraits of monsters.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Oct 30, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> It is very sad that there are phenomenal artists out there who are not hired by Wizards. Their current art is not bad by any means, but i often think that if they had more variety it would be so much better. Point in case with that CoW ettercap; if that was in the MM i would just about cry with joy.



In agreement here, for the most part it's not that the art is _bad_.  Most of it seems to at least fairly decentwith quite a few very good pieces, but they are limiting themselves and that means the art isn't what it _could_ be. From the art I've seen the core books are using maybe half a dozen artists for most of the art.  This isn't a good idea regardless of how talented any single artist is.  Instead they should determine how much art they need, get down a rough description of the qualities those pieces of art need, then go cruising art sites looking for artists that meet the description.  No single artist should be doing too many images for the core books, instead each should be pointed at images most suited to their individual style and many more artists used.



			
				Nebulous said:
			
		

> And who would like to see full page artwork of stuff actually *happening *in the MM's?  I'm thinking of the original Fiend Folio that had a whole party of adventurers up against githyanki.  Sure, it was b/w, but it was a very evocative picture. I'd love to see more interactive action scenes rather than exclusively static portraits of monsters.



Wouldn't mind seeing that myself, not for every picture but intersperced with static portraits.  Also they might add a scale silhouette to monster entries that compares their size to a normal human.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 30, 2007)

Nebulous said:
			
		

> It is very sad that there are phenomenal artists out there who are not hired by Wizards. Their current art is not bad by any means, but i often think that if they had more variety it would be so much better. Point in case with that CoW ettercap; if that was in the MM i would just about cry with joy.
> 
> And who would like to see full page artwork of stuff actually *happening *in the MM's?  I'm thinking of the original Fiend Folio that had a whole party of adventurers up against githyanki.  Sure, it was b/w, but it was a very evocative picture. I'd love to see more interactive action scenes rather than exclusively static portraits of monsters.



 For my part, I've been sending portfolio links like crazy, but got no reply.


----------



## Nebulous (Oct 30, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Wouldn't mind seeing that myself, not for every picture but interspersed with static portraits.  Also they might add a scale silhouette to monster entries that compares their size to a normal human.




Yeah, maybe just two or three large pages in the whole book.  And i agree with the silhouette, that was a great innovation from the Monsternomicon that i've never seen another d20 book replicate. 



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> For my part, I've been sending portfolio links like crazy, but got no reply.




I'm sorry to hear that.  I like your stuff. They could at least say "No" so you don't waste more time with them.


----------

