Kev Adams Orcs

WARDUKE

Member
Hi all,

Quick question.

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

http://www.solegends.com/citcat1993/cat1993p573-01.htm

I know its when the look kind of changed for GW Orcs, so was just wondering what people's opinions of where they fall in the spectrum is. If I remember correctly, it kind of spanned 3rd - 4th Edition.

Thanks.
 

Fimm McCool

Member
If you want them to be I think is the answer... For me they certainly are. They are a nice period before the coming of the over-serious Grimdark when Orcs were smiling as they beat you on the noggin' with a bright red axe. :)
 

Fimm McCool

Member
Some of the older orcs hung around long into 4th edition. But others more enlightened than I may tell you about that. :)
 
Well they're definitely not 3rd Edition era, as WFB4 came out in '92, and stylistically they're at the more comical end of the spectrum that came into being with 4th Ed.

Personally I don't like them, but, having said that, if *you* like 'em, who cares.
 

Tex

Member
dieselmonkey":1bz8e3e6 said:
Well they're definitely not 3rd Edition era, as WFB4 came out in '92, and stylistically they're at the more comical end of the spectrum that came into being with 4th Ed.

Personally I don't like them, but, having said that, if *you* like 'em, who cares.

Exactly my thought
 

willlucv

Member
I've never regarded Oldhammer as a set of rules to be strictly adhered to, in fact to many people (myself included) they are just the opposite. I choose the figures I want based on whether I like them. Hence my Mcdeath Caledonian Commandos have a Reaper highlander in their ranks, and a second unit are likely to made up of non Citadel (Footsore, Hasslefree and Crusader) miniatures.

I quite like the early 90s sculpts, although my ideal for the look of orcs, goblins and their 40k counterparts was the work of Paul Bonner, who was apparently in accord with Kev Adams stylistically.
 

Zhu Bajie

Member
Not that Oldhammer is necessarily a category of miniatures, if one wants to use it in such a way, aesthetically the early 90s are so far removed from Citadels 80's Orcs, it would take some very special pleading to say they belong in the same category as the FTO or C Series Orcs, which are much more grimey, scrawny, whimsical, tolkienesque and folkloric.

They're not my cup of tea, but like what you like, paint what you like.
 

Erny

Member
They are as mentioned post 3rd ed, released for 4th but then where the cut off between oldhammer and new hammer is subjective. Personally I have a nice big unit of them, yet to be painted but they will form one of the center pieces of my 4th ed orc army. Stylistically they are a bit more comical but they are closer to the orcs of 3rd ed than they are to the orcs of 6th when all orcs became ogre sized. Indeed the last orcs I feel fall into the same size and period for me are the Brian Nelson Biguns. Another unit for my 4th ed army. The Boar boys that came out about the same time are all ready showing signs of ogreism.

Older sculpts were certtainly mixed in wi8th units of them and they look fine, a slightly darker pallet knocks some of the comic off them too. Go for it, they won't make a period correct 3rd ed unit but who cares and if your happy aiming for accuratley 4th you're bang on the money. you just need a unit of the mono pose boys with swords to really get the 4th ed look.
 

Snickit

Member
Erny":3m5zugc2 said:
They are as mentioned post 3rd ed, released for 4th but then where the cut off between oldhammer and new hammer is subjective. Personally I have a nice big unit of them, yet to be painted but they will form one of the center pieces of my 4th ed orc army. Stylistically they are a bit more comical but they are closer to the orcs of 3rd ed than they are to the orcs of 6th when all orcs became ogre sized. Indeed the last orcs I feel fall into the same size and period for me are the Brian Nelson Biguns. Another unit for my 4th ed army. The Boar boys that came out about the same time are all ready showing signs of ogreism.

Older sculpts were certtainly mixed in wi8th units of them and they look fine, a slightly darker pallet knocks some of the comic off them too. Go for it, they won't make a period correct 3rd ed unit but who cares and if your happy aiming for accuratley 4th you're bang on the money. you just need a unit of the mono pose boys with swords to really get the 4th ed look.

Woohooo!!!! My brother returns!!!!!

My thoughts precisely. They're 4th but more towards 3rd Ed than the gorilla orcs of late 5th Ed (that became standard for 6th onwards). 4th was a time of change but GW had still not quite gotten around to producing new mini's for every troop type and it was still acceptable to use mini's for what you wanted them to be, not what they HAD to be. As they did not redesign all of the ranges you still had older mini's being used, especially in Orc, Dwarf, Skaven, Undead and Chaos armies. The only armies to have extensive redesign were Empire (at the end of 3rd), the three flavours of Elf and of course the completely reworked Chaos Dwarfs.

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

Are they Oldhammer? Dunno. One persons Oldhammer is another persons Middlehammer. Purists using 1st would call 3rd Middlle by comparison. My Hammer mostly comes down somewhere between 3rd and 4th so for me they are Oldhammer enough and I like them so for me that's good enough. :lol:
 

Zhu Bajie

Member
Snickit":3iga9xad said:
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.
 

Snickit

Member
Zhu Bajie":z5osal8g said:
Snickit":z5osal8g said:
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.
 

Gallivantes

Member
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
 

Zhu Bajie

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

Snickit":bux5fat2 said:
Zhu Bajie":bux5fat2 said:
Snickit":bux5fat2 said:
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
cat1991bp166orcboyz-00.jpg


1993 Orc Boyz:
cat1993p573-01.jpg


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
0501orcs-01.jpg


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.
 

Gallivantes

Member
Zhu Bajie":3ey35odm said:
...although I don't have them in hand and can't really judge if their sizes match well.
Why allow me, sir

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":3ey35odm said:
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.
 

Attachments

  • Some_Orcs.jpg
    Some_Orcs.jpg
    249.6 KB · Views: 2,095

Snickit

Member
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.
 

Zhu Bajie

Member
Gallivantes":1ha0x9gg said:
Zhu Bajie":1ha0x9gg said:
...although I don't have them in hand and can't really judge if their sizes match well.
Why allow me, sir
file.php

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.
 

WARDUKE

Member
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.
 
Back
Top