A fairly simple question, but one that I hope will get some interesting answers!

I've been re-practising my sculpting for a while, and should be starting serious work on a number of miniatures in the not-too-distant future. I've been putting quite some time and effor tinto research, concept and design for what I'll be working on, and it's occured to me - I've not done an ounce of 'market research'!

So here goes asking for some ideas and opinions from people - what do you think makes a good minature? What would motivate you to buy something?

For me, the most important elements are:

1 - Anatomy. The model has to be anatomically correct for me. That's why I'm such a huge fan of Tom Meier's miniatures. I realize that's probably a minority opinion as many miniatures today are intentional anatomically incorrect (large head/large hand syndrom).

2 - Character. The model should have lots of interesting details that show the model is a real personality. Westwind dwarfs are great for this as they have lots of expression in their face and lots of little details in their clothing and weapons.

3 - Pose. A good dynamic and interesting pose for characters is vital. A great pose for rank and file troops that gives the unit a cohesive look is important as well. For example, if the unit is an aggressive attacking unit ... then all models in the unit should be looking as if they are running forward. Similarly, they should also rank up nicely.

If you want some general sculpting tips, I would strongly recommend Tom Meier's sculpting blog. He gives a lot of really useful tips:

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

This is very much a personal taste thing and the big question is what exactly are you sculpting?

If its characters then I would agree with Raj that detail is nice.
However, for RAF troops, people want to get them on the board quickly and detail can be a hinderence.

Taking Tom Meier as an example - his stuff is some of the best sculpting i've seen but its not easy to do an army quickly as the level of detail involves hinders a lot of quick paint techniques.

Pose is important and i agree it should be dynamic but also taking into account its space in a regiment.

I suppose for me a model should just try to take the nature and qualities of the army it is representing into account in its design. This should be followed through the entire range. It's good to have your own take on what these characteristics are as well as your own style but these should still be within the fantasy norm so that players can utilise the models with other ranges as well.

Find a bit of a niche as well, especially with regards to AoA, still plenty of troops in the lists that there aren't any/many models for...

I have to agree with Raj and say anatomy. Not just the proportions between limbs, but correct facial structure as well. Some models get the details great, but exaggerated cheek bones/crossed eyes/etc. can really ruin a potentially great model.

It's a tricky question really.
A lot depends on the character of the model.
Anatomy is important and if it's not 100% realistic it at least should look right. A GW model is way off base anatomically but it hangs together well as a piece (most of the time). Rackham too has a habit of elongating things but again, they look great. Often true anatomy minis look strange as we are all so used to the normal exaggerated styles.
A good pose can turn an otherwise bland model into a great piece so that needs to be considered. A model needn't be dynamic - some of my favourites are quite static but the poses are just perfect.
Detail is great in some cases but needn't be overdone. Sometimes a good, clean model is just as nice.

Here are a couple of examples:
I love these guys. Some are static, some dynamic but all have beautiful detail and wonderful character. There seems to be a certain 'carelessness' in all of them that befits a militia.


This guy has little in the way of sculpted detail but has a top pose and dymanics.


This lady from Corvus Belli is quite static but the pose is great and the anatomy is just about true scale.

You can see though, with real human anatomy minis can tend to look a bit thin. A cracker of model though.

For characters there are a lot of things that are important, but the most important is character.

This is one of my absolute favourite character models.

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

He has so much character it's amasing. He's calm cool and collected, he's puffing away on his pipe and he is about to blow away a charging skaven. His pose is dynamic, his detail level is high but not cluttered. He ranks up well. He just lives and breathes Dwarf. Awesome.


Then there is this one:

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

It is highly detailed and has some cool features, like the book. Pretty cool overall, if not quite the quality of the Avatars of War models.

So what's wrong with it? The Goblin head... wtf is it doing there? The sculptor has decided that Dwarfs standing on goblin heads looks cool, and it does... But how did that head get on the shield? All I can picture is some other Dwarf coming up to his lord bringing with him a goblin head and placing it on the shield so his lord can look cool... Next his mummy will come along and clean his face with spit on a hanky.

It's silly.


Check this thread out for ideas on what people like in Dwarf models

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

For me I would say that there is a certain grace that can be taken in exageration.
For example, if I wanted a figure of Dr. Doom, I would prefer him to have his legs posed spectacularly, his hands a little larger than normal, and that he have a larger head. For certain figures a Dyanamic look wins over anatomical correctness.
But not with those STUPID Empire State Troops heads.