Dragon II preview

[klarg1]

The torso actually looks reasonably close to the art to me. If I compare it to how I would interpret the art, yes, the braces are slightly oversized, and I would probably have the center torso project less far in front of the shoulders. On the other hand, I would totally believe that those were minor variations intended to support the variant build.

The arms look bigger and blockier to me than in the art, but not enough to be considered a severe problem. Overall, I think it's a pretty reasonable interpretation.

[Siberian-troll]

Braces is minor problem here, but round shoulders is really undersized. At least at third.
Dragon is famous for round shoulders and snout, but this mini lost trademark parts for nothing.

Still, it's all curable by heavy sculpting over and creative filing.

[Alex Keller]

Yes!!!!!!

I love this even more now that the mini comes with the option to turn in into a more traditional Dragon!

The size/scale issue doesn't seem to be as much of an issue with this mini.  I'll get a couple!

[Wolverine]

glad to see a new mini out, doesn't really remind me of a Dragon, but thats o, what I don't get is the missile box looks like it carries a quad pack of Arrow-IV's, wonder why its so massive ?
Thx,
J

[SteelRaven]

Any way to know who sculpts which mini?

[M4cr0Dutch]

glad to see a new mini out, doesn't really remind me of a Dragon, but thats o, what I don't get is the missile box looks like it carries a quad pack of Arrow-IV's, wonder why its so massive ?
Thx,
J

It is a Dragon II with an Arrow-IV system, but parts are provided to configure it as a standard Dragon.

[klarg1]

Any way to know who sculpts which mini?

It's usually printed on the blister. Aside from that, maybe asking here will get you an answer.

[cavingjan]

glad to see a new mini out, doesn't really remind me of a Dragon, but thats o, what I don't get is the missile box looks like it carries a quad pack of Arrow-IV's, wonder why its so massive ?
Thx,
J

That has been the way that arrow iv has been drawn since the early days. The 3050 Catapult was that way.

[Siberian-troll]

That has been the way that arrow iv has been drawn since the early days. The 3050 Catapult was that way.

3050 Catapult had FIVE missiles.  :-\ Patriot too.
But Naga-KU O-Bakemono and that Dragon - only four. As I presume, it's mystical kuritan way of things...  :)

[Archer77]

Heck! I like it! O0

[StCptMara]

3050 Catapult had FIVE missiles.  :-\ Patriot too.
But Naga-KU O-Bakemono and that Dragon - only four. As I presume, it's mystical kuritan way of things...  :)

Catapuls and Patriot, clearly, Load a whole ton into the launcher at once, while the Combine Arrow IVs
clearly use a different loading mechanism. That is how I always saw it, anyway.

[Neonwraith]

Great work of painting. Hm I think i can live with the little missmatch from the painting

[tapdancingbeavers]

I'm not sure if it's inexperience or just not paying attention to the art but IWM really needs to do something about a lot of their sculpts.  Lots of parts such as the cockpit and elbow joints are just wrong and there's a lot of smooth surfaces that are shown to have detailing.  I don't expect it to be perfect due to modelling off a single image and some details not translating to miniature form but this kind of model is disappointing to say the least.

[Men Shen]

Well I think the new policy on these boards should be no more sneak peaks because the negativity is astounding and I feel I am actually getting dumber for having read most of these posts. There will come a time when people stop doing stuff like this because they feel it's not worth the hassle.

[phlop]

Well I think the new policy on these boards should be no more sneak peaks because the negativity is astounding and I feel I am actually getting dumber for having read most of these posts. There will come a time when people stop doing stuff like this because they feel it's not worth the hassle.

I printed out a copy of the art work and held it to what Jal has posted. The sculptor, to me; has followed fairly closely to the art work. The areas that I see, are around the cockpit and the shoulders. Nothing that really detracts from the overall mini. On the artwork the are separate panels with hinges at the shoulders where they slope down to the arms. The plate where the cockpit resides doesn't have some panels, the mini tends to look like a solid plate.

I feel that the sculpt says Dragon II. It also gives what so many have been asking for, a posable Dragon and the ability to have several variants.
As an artist, you can't please everybody.
I personally hope this practice of releasing minis before they are realeased does not stop. It gives us the ability to see and make our opinions on whether we like it or not. This one I like. Can't wait to get a few for my Kuritans.  O0

Oh yeah, wonderful painting Jal.  O0

[IAMCLANWOLF]

There will come a time when people stop doing stuff like this because they feel it's not worth the hassle.

I sure hope not. Too many amazing projects in the pipeline for this to fall by the wayside... [brew]

'Sides, the feedback within this thread has been mostly positive. AND, not one of us has even viewed the traditional variant, built with the additional kit parts.

Head up, shoulder back... O0

[tapdancingbeavers]

Well I think the new policy on these boards should be no more sneak peaks because the negativity is astounding and I feel I am actually getting dumber for having read most of these posts. There will come a time when people stop doing stuff like this because they feel it's not worth the hassle.

So we shouldn't be critical because they are giving us something?   ???  I'd be happy if they could at least get the cockpits close to the art.  :-\

[Sellsword]

I like this one a lot.  It isn't a perfect representation of the art but then most of the minis are not.  You can even go back to the "prized" original 3025 unseen minis, look at them and see that they aren't exactly like the art.  The Battlemaster, Marauder and Archer come instantly to mind but all were good sculpts.

Personally I don't care if the mini doesn't match the art exactly.  My criteria are:

1. Does the mini represent the art?  Or Can I tell that the Dragon II is supposed to be a Dragon II?
2. Does the quality of the mini stand by itself without the art? Or If I didn't have the TRO art would I still want to buy the Dragon II?

If the answer is yes to the above 2 questions then to me it is a good sculpt.  The Dragon II meets both my criteria.

A perfect example is the Sunder Resculpt.  Fantastic mini.  It definitely stands on it's own.  Though the sculpt doesn't match the artwork, I can tell it is supposed to represent the TRO Sunder.

 

[Jal Phoenix]

Quick, find me the Corvette in this image.




How about this: machines produced on various planets over centuries have a little bit of drift.  Even models of the same machine produced in the same place will change as they address issues that arise from heavy use and incorporate MechWarruior feedback.  Maybe those precious shoulder struts got bigger because the Arrow IV put too much stress on the old ones.  Perhaps the cockpit didn't provide a large enough field of view.  Pick a reason, or create one of your own.

The Dragon II is a fine mini.  It's not egregiously off like the Warlord or Reseen Kraken.  It comes with the minor variances that should be expected when someone sculpts by hand a two inch high, 3D representation of a piece of 2D artwork that shows only one angle.  Having one in hand will show you what a good piece of work it is, and unless you constantly have the artwork open on your painting or playing surface, you're not going to notice these minor differences.  Honestly, I didn't notice, and I had to have the artwork out to help me assemble it. 

Bottom line, if you don't like it then don't buy it, but please don't ruin it for the rest of us.

[DarkSpade]

Differences from the artwork to the mini are fine as long as the mini is both recognizable and looks good on the table.   From what I can see, the Dragon II pulls off both.  It's also a good looking mini on its own regardless of the artwork.   


As for the example above, if I was looking forward to getting a corvette, I'd be very disappointed if the baby blue one showed up in my driveway.  That thing is ugly.

[Sellsword]

Differences from the artwork to the mini are fine as long as the mini is both recognizable and looks good on the table.   From what I can see, the Dragon II pulls off both.  It's also a good looking mini on its own regardless of the artwork.   


As for the example above, if I was looking forward to getting a corvette, I'd be very disappointed if the baby blue one showed up in my driveway.  That thing is ugly.

HA!  And just to show that tastes vary and you can't please everyone, the baby blue vet is the only one that I would want to show up in my driveway.

[mdauben]

1. Does the mini represent the art?  Or Can I tell that the Dragon II is supposed to be a Dragon II?
2. Does the quality of the mini stand by itself without the art? Or If I didn't have the TRO art would I still want to buy the Dragon II?

I think Sellsword has the right of it.  There is always going to be issues translating a 2 dimentional drawing into a 3 dimentional miniature.  Some things you can draw on a flat representation just don't work out in 3D.  On the other hand, if the mini is cool looking that is the most important thing (at least IMHO).

[IAMCLANWOLF]

...the baby blue vet is the only one that I would want to show up in my driveway.

Seyla!

Some things you can draw on a flat representation just don't work out in 3D.

Quoted for truth.

[Jal Phoenix]

HA!  And just to show that tastes vary and you can't please everyone, the baby blue vet is the only one that I would want to show up in my driveway.

Never cared for the C1 myself.  I own a C3 (red one to the far right) and I'll never go back! 

[mdauben]

Never cared for the C1 myself.  I own a C3 (red one to the far right) and I'll never go back!

I've never been a huge fan of the 'vette (I'm more of a Porsche guy) but if I had to pick one model, I actually kinda like the new C7   (especially in Sword of Light red! 8) )

[Fragger]

The mini is really growing on me the more I stare at the parts pic and I'm looking forward to have one (or four) right in front of me.



Oh, it would be awesome if we could get a picture of the mech in the regular Dragon variant. But please no running pose where the angles are weird.

[RMDC]

So Corvettes come with C3? But looks like now they're showing off a full Level II in traditional ComStar livery, probably all C3i equipped...

(On-topic: it's a great mini regardless of how closely it hews to the art, and Jal treated us to a fantastic bit of work for the preview.)

[Burning Chrome]

So Corvettes come with C3? But looks like now they're showing off a full Level II in traditional ComStar livery, probably all C3i equipped...

(On-topic: it's a great mini regardless of how closely it hews to the art, and Jal treated us to a fantastic bit of work for the preview.)

Heh.  Beat me too it.

One DCMS Sworder w/C3 and the ComStar LII, representing models of the same vehicle from the original Star League model to present day, all with C3i.

 ;D

[Lorcan Nagle]

So we shouldn't be critical because they are giving us something?   ???  I'd be happy if they could at least get the cockpits close to the art.  :-\

There's constructive criticism, and then there's being critical.  I don't want to attack anyone's opinion, as I'm sure everyone feels that their opinions are valid, but there comes a point when expressing that opnion can cross over into the territory of beating a dead horse.

Take, for example scale creep.  For one reason or another, IWM have decided to make their minis bigger.  That scale creep is generally consistent with current mini offerings, but less so with 80s and 90s vintage minis.  Is it valid to say yo don't like the minis getting bigger?  Sure.  Is it valid to say the new minis are bad because they're bigger?  Less so, but just because I'm not a fan of stating absolutes like that.  Is it valid to bring up scale creep in every thread about a new mini?  I suppose, but it's likely not going to win you many fans.  And ultimately, IWM have made their decision and they're likely not going to change it becase of a few people talking about it alot on the forums.

(please note that I'm not addressing you specifically in that paragraph.  I don't even know right now if you have complained about scale creep, I'm just picking it as a it is a common gripe so as to try and keep my comments as neutral as possible)

There's also the consideration of criticism going too far - witness a vocal minority of forum members complaining about Herb's humourous demeanour, and as a result Herb switching to an ultra-formal posting style to everyone else's chagrin.

[Burning Chrome]

There's constructive criticism, and then there's being critical.  I don't want to attack anyone's opinion, as I'm sure everyone feels that their opinions are valid, but there comes a point when expressing that opnion can cross over into the territory of beating a dead horse.

Take, for example scale creep.  For one reason or another, IWM have decided to make their minis bigger.  That scale creep is generally consistent with current mini offerings, but less so with 80s and 90s vintage minis.  Is it valid to say yo don't like the minis getting bigger?  Sure.  Is it valid to say the new minis are bad because they're bigger?  Less so, but just because I'm not a fan of stating absolutes like that.  Is it valid to bring up scale creep in every thread about a new mini?  I suppose, but it's likely not going to win you many fans.  And ultimately, IWM have made their decision and they're likely not going to change it becase of a few people talking about it alot on the forums.

(please note that I'm not addressing you specifically in that paragraph.  I don't even know right now if you have complained about scale creep, I'm just picking it as a it is a common gripe so as to try and keep my comments as neutral as possible)

There's also the consideration of criticism going too far - witness a vocal minority of forum members complaining about Herb's humourous demeanour, and as a result Herb switching to an ultra-formal posting style to everyone else's chagrin.

I don't believe anyone that critiques a mini is attempting "win many fans".  Most likely they are addressing a valid (to them) concern. 

Your next few statements are confusing as you mention,  "IWM have made their decision and they're likely not going to change it becase of a few people talking about it alot on the forums."

And then, "I'm just picking it as a it is a common gripe so as to try and keep my comments as neutral as possible", both regarding scale creep.

If it is only "a few", then how can it be "a common gripe" as that would lead many to believe it is more than a few expressing a concern/opinion?

I find it odd that posts that "try to keep it neutral" tend to be about the individuals posting critiques rather then just keeping it about the mini in question.

Your points on what is valid and what isn't aren't so. 



But that is just my opinion and perhaps a "few" others as well.  ;)