Talk Fantasy Football

August snuck up on me, and I nearly forgot it's monthly poll time once again!

Last month we had the "Average Tabletop Match Time". Looks like 2.5 hours was the average, with either 2 or 3 hours being the next closest results. Granted there are a lot of variables in your 'average' tabletop match.

This month is the peculiar question regarding the Grashnak Blackhoof model. Should he have hoofs or toes?! As you can see, GW decided to give him human like toes in the 3rd edition miniature. A curious choice as most minotaurs I've seen have hooves.



Unfortunately, I couldn't find any pictures of Grashnak with actual hooves, other than the Cyanide game:



What's your preference? Also if you happen to know the story behind the "toed" version of Grashnak, love to hear it!

Edit: special thanks to Traveler for all those glorious miniatures pics on his site. Great resource! http://www.blood-bowl-miniatures.de/

This has always quietly infuriated me.

Traditionally, a minotaur was the bull head on the body of a man, so no hooves would be correct (as would be the human-like legs on the GW figure, as opposed to the beat legs on the Cyanide version).

But I think it looks better with hooves, so that's the way I vote.

Darkson wrote:Traditionally, a minotaur was the bull head on the body of a man, so no hooves would be correct (as would be the human-like legs on the GW figure, as opposed to the beat legs on the Cyanide version).

But I think it looks better with hooves, so that's the way I vote.

This.

i say toes as i find it hilarious looking.

He has hooves.

Hthark the Unstoppable with 4 feets

His name kind of gives it away, doesn't it?

I kind of like the idea of an odd minotaur with toes instead of hooves. As Darkson pointed out, originally they just had the head of a bull.

But yea, his name is "Blackhoof", which also argues the point against toes. If it wasn't for that, I would vote "toes" right away, as I'd love to read the fluff on how he got those toes. Or why some minos have toes and some have hoofs, or other parts.

The Warhammer Minos of the same era had feet.............so I think that's why. As for the above reasons, I prefer hooves too.

Darkson wrote:Traditionally, a minotaur was the bull head on the body of a man, so no hooves would be correct (as would be the human-like legs on the GW figure, as opposed to the beat legs on the Cyanide version).

I am not too fussed either way. Mythology says he should have toes but his name suggests hooves. Maybe with each generation they get closer to be a Human and only one of his parents had hooves. Maybe he became a Blood Bowl player because he was an outcast for having toes!

Thanks harvestmouse, that seems likely.

faust_33 wrote:But yea, his name is "Blackhoof", which also argues the point against toes. If it wasn't for that, I would vote "toes" right away, as I'd love to read the fluff on how he got those toes. Or why some minos have toes and some have hoofs, or other parts.

I'm okay with Minotaurs in either footwear persuasion. They look fine both ways. Hooves make them more of an upscaled beastman, whereas feet fit better with the greek mythological history.

But if you're going to name someone "Blackhoof", effing MODEL THEM WITH effing HOOVES.

Milo wrote: if you're going to name someone "Blackhoof", effing MODEL THEM WITH effing HOOVES.

Perhaps it was another extremity that ended in a hoof. Chaos Minotaurs mutate quite easily (single rolls), after all.