I don't know why, but a great many folks seem to be obsessed with the idea of minotaurs having hooves. They whine and moan about minotaur models having feet, and even scult hooves onto some models with feet. Now, GW plastic minotaurs are a whole diferent thing... The fooves are quite hideous, and though they make some sense (being mutated creatures of chaos), full-on feet would have been better. The point I make is that te original minotaur from greek mythology was simply a man with the head of a bull - very similar to the previous GW metal models. That was the only bull part it had. No hooves, no tail, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur

http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media...04-A3932A7A.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mwRfhbiJQGk/TaRe...00/minotaur.jpg

Minotaurs are not bull variant satyrs, and it seems silly to me when people make them into that.

The fooves are more similar to a bull's hooves than the hooves that you normally see sculpted onto the minos. Of course, stating a certainty(like you did in your title) about a mythological beast is hilarious. Ha! But in one of the many threads about minos on this forum, someone showed a real bull who had very similar hooves.

While we are on the subject, I don't think that the Hippogriff like the one in Harry Potter looks right, shouldn't it have eagle talons for the front feet? As per GW? ;)

Don't think for me it was a matter of feet vrs hooves. I collect all the OOP minotaurs and they have a variety through out. With the latest metals, however, the "feet" models were not as nice as the "hoof" models.

I wholeheartedly agree with scapegoat! ^_^

Funny, that you should say so. This Minotaur had tail...



...and the one GW uses in current armybooks illustration has hooves.

Looks like that minotaur got a hoof between his legs. :blink:

:lol:

Ya got me! That's the first one I've seen with a tail... ever. So I wasn't even looking. Good eye. I'm also saying GW is wrong as of this current edition, models and illustrations.

And also, Chaos is right. This whole thing is, admittedly, a bit over-dramtic. But I was tired, and I hold to my point. The hooves trend has been bothering me for a long time and I had to vent.

Although you have to admit GW has some logic for it: In the new armybook the beastmen are called "Cloven Ones", so everyone has cloven hooves... Minotaurs, Cygor, Ghorgon, the Giant on page 77...

These aren't greek minotaurs - they're warhammer minotaurs, and in my opinion, the optics of minotaurs with hooves works a lot better for the army.

You can't compare a warhammer creature to it's real-world mythological equivalent since GW has gone out of it's way to make their world unique while including many typical fantasy archtypes.

If you go back in time, there's a pretty even split between feet and hooves on warhammer minotaurs, meaning it's obviously not what one would consider a consistent mutation.

In the last edition didn't the 2 handweapon version have feet, and the great weapon version have hooves? And great weapons are GREAT, so hooves are GREAT. That's obviously what the designers were trying to convey. Right? Ha! :P :lol:

Yup. And the previous edition single hand weapon ones were feet. Mordheim mino has feet. Back in realms of chaos there was a mix too. Same thing in blood bowl, where each release seems to flip flop.

This is my view as well. Minotauros was just one individual, this is a whole race of creatures derived from him.

I think if CENTIGORS can have FEET then it makes a weird twisted kind off sense that minos have hoof-feet.

but preferably minos would have feet and centogors would DEFINITELY have hooves, god they have ugly feet.

:gripe:

I like the centigors and their feet. :P

Really? :blink: well do you like them better than those models made from gors/marauder horses? because THEY are awesome enough to make me want to feild centigors just because of the models(if only all units did that :D )