Kev Adams Orcs


Discuss anything related to miniature games not covered in other forums

Moderator: Moderators

Posts: 1972

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:19 pm

Post Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:58 pm

Re: Kev Adams Orcs

Snickit wrote:So, using them alongside older Orc mini's is aesthetically correct because that's what was happening when they were released.


It might be historically correct for 4th Edition, but it's far from being aesthetically correct.
User avatar

Posts: 633

Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:05 am

Location: Dunstable, Bedfordshire

Post Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:56 pm

Re: Kev Adams Orcs

Zhu Bajie wrote:
Snickit wrote:So, using them alongside older Orc mini's is aesthetically correct because that's what was happening when they were released.


It might be historically correct for 4th Edition, but it's far from being aesthetically correct.


To some perspectives it is, to others not, live and let live, both valid.
User avatar

Posts: 297

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:50 pm

Post Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:18 pm

Re: Kev Adams Orcs

Well, the jury still seems to be out on the "what is Oldhammer" question. Which I like, because it's interesting to see the varying perspectives out there. My own 2 cents:

As far as I am concerned they are certainly straddling that line and I can't commit to calling them fully either sort. They are certainly on board a ship that has left the Oldhammer Harbor, but they've barely left the bay and I think I can see the anchor is still dragging behind. If they come to dock again I'd certainly recognise them, maybe even welcome them depending on what sort of party I was throwing. But I'd also be aware that these guys set out on a new journey and they are not the orcs I once knew.

My biggest "for" argument is that they are Kev Adams work, and Kev Adams is a big name in Oldhammer circles. Personally I also put great stock in the fact that an artist's work is the main angle of interest, not whatever brand he happened to release it under. You can find his work under various labels and I personally think they are often very good Oldhammer fare regardless of age and make.

My biggest bugbear isn't to do with any timeline of release, but the conceptual design. They bear a striking resemblance to Mark Gibbons artwork that was used in the orc army list for 4th and my guess is that it heavily influenced Kev's sculpting work. This is the biggest departure from the older aesthetic for me. In older publications you see the work of Paul Bonner, Russ Nicholson, Tony Ackland, Gary Chalk, David Gallagher and others who undeniably helped form the look of the earlier orcs. Not so much the Adams ones of '93. I am seeing differences in costume design, weapon design, anatomical morphology, poses and facial expressions.

Scale creep — or whatever you attribute the size change to — is another point of interest. I am on the fence as to whether this is good or bad in my book, it rather depends on how you'd plan to use them. On the one hand it bugs me a little that they aren't "right" in scale for a more seamless mix/match blend with older orcs. But on the other hand maybe seamless regimental uniformity isn't what you want for your orcs. Some people welcome the image of a really ragged, jumbled mob. I also think they can make an attractive option for Big'Uns, who are present as an army list option pre 4th, and actually useful alongside old lead for Oldhammering in that sense.

So I fed this into my computing machine and the answer is that they are Oldhammer, but only to a degree of between 47-53%. If you give them a period paintjob and smack a banner the size of Essex on them they may even go as high as upper 80's. And if you paint them brown they become Ancienthammer, which you can learn more about if you go to the back of a bookstore and give the secret handshake to the old grognard who sits there reading the 1978 Ral Partha catalogue.

This thread reminded me of Zhu's excellent blog article on orcishness, very entertaining read and I will take the liberty to link it here http://realmofzhu.blogspot.se/2015/12/an-unnatural-history-of-fighting.html
"We attack at dawn. The plan is victory." - unknown

Posts: 1972

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:19 pm

Post Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:03 am

Re: Kev Adams Orcs

Nice post there Gallivantes, agree with much of that, and thanks for the link.

Snickit wrote:
Zhu Bajie wrote:
Snickit wrote:So, using them alongside older Orc mini's is aesthetically correct because that's what was happening when they were released.


It might be historically correct for 4th Edition, but it's far from being aesthetically correct.


To some perspectives it is, to others not, live and let live, both valid.


Sure. Sorry, my answer was rather short and blunt, rather than opening it up and inviting further discussion, as it should have been.

If your're talking about these boyz:

1991 Orc Boyz
Image

1993 Orc Boyz:
Image

Then you're right, these look 100% compatible aesthetically to me, although I don't have them in hand and can't really judge if their sizes match well. But the 1991 releases would be right at the tail end of 3rd Edition releases, and are closer to the release of 4th Edition than 3rd. I'll come back to that shortly.

In 1987 when Warhammer 3rd Edition was released, these were what Orcs looked like:

1988 catalogs Orc Warriors
Image

Where I would disagree 100% that these have any aesthetic compatibility with the 1993 releases. We could do a compare and contrast at length to highlight the similarities and differences, but I think they're pretty obvious, not only in the morphology of the creature design, but in the posing and sculpting style as well.

So one problem is that the tying of an Edition of Warhammer to a specific range of miniatures does not really make sense, there is no 1:1 relationship. So when saying "Third Edition Orcs" one person might be thinking of one style of orc, whilst someone else will have a different image in mind. It's a bit of a false frame to begin with.
User avatar

Posts: 297

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:50 pm

Post Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:07 am

Re: Kev Adams Orcs

Zhu Bajie wrote:...although I don't have them in hand and can't really judge if their sizes match well.

Why allow me, sir
Some_Orcs.jpg
A single Ruglud's visible amongst the '93 range
Some_Orcs.jpg (249.56 KiB) Viewed 123 times

With the size I think there is a difference clearly visible in height and chunkiness between these two ranges (91 vs 93), but not a startling one by orders of magnitude. The "size variation defines pecking order" that describes them could look something like this I imagine. Highly subjective of course.


Zhu Bajie wrote:So one problem is that the tying of an Edition of Warhammer to a specific range of miniatures does not really make sense, there is no 1:1 relationship. So when saying "Third Edition Orcs" one person might be thinking of one style of orc, whilst someone else will have a different image in mind. It's a bit of a false frame to begin with.

For sure.
"We attack at dawn. The plan is victory." - unknown
User avatar

Posts: 633

Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:05 am

Location: Dunstable, Bedfordshire

Post Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:45 pm

Re: Kev Adams Orcs

Aren't Ruglud's 2nd Ed anyway? The stats on the box suggest 2nd to me but as I own neither 1st or 2nd Ed I'm happy up be corrected.

The Orcs I think of as 3rd era are the plastic Regiments Orcs, Rugluds and Harboth's amd are Oldhammef Orcs in own my head but yes I agree that the Orcs released during 4th and the older gangly orcs would look odd together.

Rugluds sit between the two styles and, for me at least, sit well with either in my honest opinion.

The very different Orcs of the plastic multipart era all the way up until now are far far far removed from any of them.

For me.

Posts: 3

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:31 am

Post Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:37 am

Re: Kev Adams Orcs

Are the Kev Adams 1993 Orcs still considered part of the WFB 3rd Edition era Oldhammer stuff?


เย็ดสาว
User avatar

Posts: 633

Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:05 am

Location: Dunstable, Bedfordshire

Post Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:31 am

Re: Kev Adams Orcs

phallyka wrote:Are the Kev Adams 1993 Orcs still considered part of the WFB 3rd Edition era Oldhammer stuff?


เย็ดสาว


Not 3rd ed no, they were released during the time of 4th ed.

Posts: 1972

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:19 pm

Post Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:44 am

Re: Kev Adams Orcs

Gallivantes wrote:
Zhu Bajie wrote:...although I don't have them in hand and can't really judge if their sizes match well.

Why allow me, sir
Image
With the size I think there is a difference clearly visible in height and chunkiness between these two ranges (91 vs 93), but not a startling one by orders of magnitude. The "size variation defines pecking order" that describes them could look something like this I imagine. Highly subjective of course.


Hah. Great shot. Actually, these don't mix all that well to me now I've seen them. The consistently extended maxials of the later ‘simian’ Orcs give a really different feel to the face, and the slightness of the earlier figure are pronounced enough for different types. Orc Warrior and a Black Orc or something.

Rugluds appear on page 27 of Warhammer Third Edition, were launched at the same time (WD95) and were available throughout 3rd Ed. If we have to have a definition of ranges by edition, then the miniatures that appear in the actual rulebook would seem to be a good guide. Miniatures aside, the imagery of 3rd ed is enormously variant, even the Warhammer Armies book cover harkens back to the Perry's C-series orcs rather than Kevs more standardized square-heads, the later long-faced, extended simian type doesn't really feature beyond some minor variants. I expect it's following the overhaul of Orc design done in the studio during 40k:Waargh The Orks.

Posts: 39

Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:33 am

Post Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:13 pm

Re: Kev Adams Orcs

Thanks for the great responses folks.

I started playing WFB with 4th edition, and probably played more 5th than any edition, but I spent my childhood looking at the catalogs and White Dwarf, and dreaming about 3rd edition WFB stuff I could never afford.

I have a set of Ruglud's and a set of Harboth's that I will be putting together for a "3rd edition era" army, as well as some of the late 80s metal Orcs, and plastic regiment Orcs. Additionally, I have a bunch of Marauder Orcs from that time period, but in comparing them to the Citadel ones, the scale seems a bit small, and they are stylistically different, so I haven't decided whether to try and mix them together.

I've got about 10 or so of the Kev Adams Orcs, The matching Command, and a handful of plastic monopose Orcs from that era. I think I will build those into a separate force to use when we play 4th/5th Edition.
Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.