Thursday, 13 February 2014

Belegar Ironhammer review


As a long time dwarf collector, but lapsed Warhammer player, I was fairly ambivalent about the dwarfs release. My army is pretty much complete as it is, and the recent drive to bigger, dumber looking models has not been to my taste. The first wave of releases is, by now, pretty much old news and opinions can be found all over the web - good, bad and indifferent. I like to see the models in the flesh before I make up my mind, so I selected what looked to be the best of the bunch, Belegar Ironhammer.

As you would expect, the detail is (mostly) quite superb. The metal scroll work, the carved runes on the oathstone, the embroidery on the cloak are all lovely and crisp and should paint up a treat. Click on the image for a decent sized view and see for yourself. You might notice that some detail is lacking - the teeth for example are not sculpted and as usual the hair of the moustache is just two or three giant strands. But this is nitpicking, overall it is a very solid sculpt and one that I would consider using in my army.

I have seen some criticism of the pose. A better battle-ready stance would be to hold the shield at the front to protect the body. The shield would be more visible, but of course most of the beard and face would be obscured. I reckon the decision on the pose is a good one, it allows the maximum detail to be easily seen and thus should be easier to paint. It's also possible, as the second photo shows, to exclude the oathstone and have a more traditional base. Leaving the back banner off is also a possibility, there is a little groove in the rear of the armour that could easily be filled, or overlooked if the player wants to swap the banner in and out between games.

As a big fan of dwarfs and Norse imagery, this sculpt is a winner for me. Now, to see how it paints up.

5 comments:

Minitrol said...

Good review. I like the new models for the most part they look like actually fearsome warriors now. But that aside I really like mthe open pose it's cool to see the interior off a shield and in my mine he has declared a challenge and is not yet at battle ready stance or he is exhorting on the rest of the throng!

I expect I'll pick this up soon.

In hindsight do you still think the Avatar of War Slayers are worth it? Thinking abut picking some up.

Old Fogey said...

Thanks for the comment. In hindsight, I still like the slayers, though the axes are a bit thicker than I would like. But they are still far better than any others on the market, including the official metal figures, in my view anyway.

Duarte said...

Didn't really like the new line of Dwarfs. I prefer Avatars of War's line, though they've been using the same faces and other parts across different units. Far more warrior-like than these, in my humble opinion.

Old Fogey said...

Same here, I much prefer the AOW look, it's more traditional dwarf like, better sculpts of the old GW plastics in many ways. The new GW ranges are verging towards sci-fi. They are so different from the old GW that it might look odd putting them into my old army, whereas the AOW stuff would slot in more readily. I am still waiting to see what the new ironbreakers will be like, but really all I want are hammerers and crossbow troops to round out my army. Maybe AOW will get round to it, some day.......

Duarte said...

They released crossbow units, AoW, though they're expensive: 39 euros (30/35 pounds) plus shipping for 12 units.

I must confess that I prefer the old GW longbeards over the new ones. I don't know if I agree on them going more sci-fi-ish, though they're certainly more cartoonish, in my opinion. AoW veterans don't take to my liking either, too grubby and violent. Though I got 10 thunderers and they're amazing.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...