The Curious Case of the Goblobber

Ok, this may be old hat to you, but I recently noticed something odd concerning the Goblobber while flicking through the 3rd edition rulebook for Warhammer Fantasy Battle. Now, we all know what the brilliant Goblobber and crew from ’87 looks like. A masterpiece by Michael Perry from the golden age of Citadel captured splendidly on the box art for the war machine. 

The glorious Goblobber as we know it

However, on p. 105 of the rulebook we see the Goblobber with the bow-part mounted reversed. What is this about? It is clearly the same model as the one from the box cover. Did something happen to the model between the two photos? Was the bow loose and mounted wrongly by the photographer when taking the picture for the rulebook?

The Goblobber as seen on p. 105 in the Warhammer Fantasy Battle rulebook p. 105.

This is certainly curious. I started googling images of the Goblobber and while most people have assembled their ‘lobbers with the bow in a traditional way, such as this one, brilliantly painted by Jaekel.

The Goblobber painted by Jaekel

But I also discovered this by Orclord on the Stuff of Legends page.

Orclord’s Goblobber

Here the bow or crossbeam is also mounted the ‘wrong’ way round and the caption for the image even comments on this without further explanation.

What is this about? Is there a connection here? how this did happen twice? I am puzzled and I clearly have too much time on my hands when having time to ponder such hobby oddities. Does anyone of you Oldhammer scholars have some info to share concerning this, which can shed some light on the matter

Again, sorry if this topic has already been discussed to death on Facebook or some other forum.

 

To base or not to base?

I am pondering a little problem at the moment. It has been quite some time since I ventured into painting any fantasy war machines, but I am now working towards finishing an old project of mine (more about that at a later stage), which involves a goblin stone thrower. For this I roughly two years ago got my hands on the lovely Skull Crusher, sculpted by the one and only Kev Adams and released in 1986 as part of the Machineries of Destruction series. Cool stuff.

The Skull Crusher box cover

Now, as suggested by the title of this post, my problem is if I should base stone thrower or not. I’m really in doubt here as both solutions have benefits and drawbacks. To base it would allow me to do all sorts of fun things with the model as a whole and turn the thing into a little mini diorama, just like Mr. Adams did when he painted the Skull Crusher himself for the box cover.

The Skull Crusher as painted by Kev Adams. Lopvely, lovely Work in his classic style. Photo by Steve Casey.

However, these bases can be slightly clumsy in actual gaming situations and somewhat limit the integration of the model on the table. For instance, the classic problem of wanting to put the stone thrower on a hill, but the base is too big for the hill, while the model as such alone would fit nicely. You know the problems. And then there of course also is the crew – should they be integrated into the base or not?

So many decisions to make.

If you have any advice, let me know, I would be glad to hear it, while I slowly start prepping the model.