Thommy H:
Hm. Doesn’t look that friendly to me. In fact, he looks a little…anarchic…or disorderly…or…you know…chaotic. Just a thought.
Tribun:
Yes, he’s from the darkside! Look at his wand…Hello, eight pointed star?
tjub:
Haha, I have to agree with you… Clearly he’s on our side! 
nitroglysarine:
I like the detail, but i’m not sold on the pose tbh.
clam:
Nice seeing Felix back doing something new and unique - rather then all the GW look-a-like’s he has done lately. And this one is a must have for me - beautiful dwarf wizard
Pyro Stick:
The head looks a bit too Mantic for my tastes but i probably still would have bought it if forge world werent about to come out with sorcerers.
Baggronor:
He’s a very flexible Dwarf My arms don’t go that far back straight. Maybe I just need some exercise…
I like the billowing beard.
Ugly Green Trog:
I like the model except the face. Anyone think of Carol from Where the Wild Things Are when they look at him?
Admiral:
Excellent, although the beard guard on the helmet look a tad odd. With those lightning bolts on his rune staff (it’s even an eight-pointed star), he could easily be used for Chaos Dwarfs with some conversions.
AoW has understood the sole principle of fantasy miniature production: You can never have too many dwarves.
Zanko:
Looks promising but I would like to see more detailed pics! :~
:hashut
nitroglysarine:
Ha, just imagined him as a gymnast, and the staff is a swing bar ;D
cornixt:
“Rune Priest”? Despite his connections with GW, if he wants to keep them off his back then copying their IP so closely is not a very good way of doing it.
Nice model though. Nice to see some different poses, I was rather disappointed in his very static chaos dwarf.
Admiral:
Mr. Paniagua should just switch the name into “Dwarf wizard”. He looks lika a wizard, after all. It’s also nice to see that the AoW character range is getting its variation is poses. I like the gymnastic dwarf’s strong impression. I’ll get one for my Chaos Dwarfs later on, as a companion for the AoW Dwarf Lord of Chaos.
It’s somewhat funny that the wizard’s pointy beard guard will fit in perfectly with my CD’s headgear style. A leather shoulder guard, and it’s set.
Pyro Stick:
"Rune Priest"? Despite his connections with GW, if he wants to keep them off his back then copying their IP so closely is not a very good way of doing it.That pic was a leaked pic. The model has since been officially posted on the avatars of war forum under the name "Dwarf Rune Master"
cornixt
Thommy H:
I think “rune” would be the issue rather than the particular title he has - Rune Priest isn’t a GW thing either, it’s a Runesmith in Warhammer.
Admiral:
That pic was a leaked pic. The model has since been officially posted on the avatars of war forum under the name "Dwarf Rune Master"I still think that "wizard" would be better, since it's safer visavi GW's intellectual property, and a more fitting description for the miniature.
Pyro Stick
nitroglysarine:
I really do hate this (not a slight at anyone here) but the fear that surrounds GW IP.
People are afraid of using phrases for models even if they pre-date GW entirely, just bugs me. I’m not saying people should call their models ‘Dark Angels Space Marines’ But Rune Priest should be entirely fine as long as they aren’t a clone of a GW model.
Also aren’t the space wolves librarians called Rune Priests?
Thommy H:
The point is that if it creates as association - and I’d argue that a Dwarf wizard with “rune” in the name does that - you’re essentially piggy-backing on someone else’s work. The whole point of IP law is that it prevents other people from taking credit (i.e. making money) for something someone else did. So if I tried to sell (for the sake of argument cough) shoulder pads for Space Marines with big dragon logos on them and called them “SALAMANDERS’ SHOULDER PADS”, I would be profiting from the hard work done by all the people over at GW who have spent years developing the imagery of Salamanders Space Marines. And the very fact that it does leech of that work is precisely the reason it would sell. If I didn’t use the exact terms, no one would buy it.
A “Dwarf Rune Priest” is not as strong an example as that, but that’s the basic idea behind it. Someone does the hard work and makes a lot of money, someone else does very little work and makes money because of their hard work, and that’s called IP theft.
nitroglysarine:
I think somehow we are both agreeing and arguing at the same time.
I guess it just the barrier that causes problems, where does the line lie?
Would a series of shoulder pads that were called “Geco Off-earth Military Soldiers” be okay?
Thommy H:
No one knows where the line is. GW sets it pretty low - they’re quite draconian with their letters, as everyone knows. Chapterhouse Studios are currently contesting in the US courts that they’re perfectly within their rights to use GW’s IP for their own profit, and that the bar should be much higher. In fact, they think they should be able to produce anything from GW’s fictional settings that GW do not themselves produce (Chaos Warshrines, Doom of Malantais, Salamanders upgrade parts, etc.) and use those exact names since otherwise, you know, they won’t sell.
The point is though that most people are fairly comfortable with the idea of producing something with is recognisably compatible but essentially a different product (which is what AoW, Gamezone do) and even GW lets that kind of thing slide as long as the names are different enough. The issue is confusion. GW doesn’t want anything out there that could be confused by the layman for something they produced because they have no way of controlling the quality or the content. So if someone makes a model called “Dwarf Runesmith” that looks like a GW Dwarf, and then they make a variant with it raping an Elf, there’s a problem. And if someone makes a lookalike Armies book, and fills it with racial slurs, there’s a problem. So GW heads it off at the pass with a blanket “just don’t do it”.
They have the right to protect the fictional universes they’ve invested time and money in creating. I know I wouldn’t want someone profiting from something I wrote without my permission. It’s not so unreasonable.