Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 07:56:59


Post by: Dshrike


I think most of us can agree that the 40k setting is fairly interesting, full of rich flavor, character, and possibilities for personal storytelling. However, in creating such a vast universe, GW occasionally (or often, depending on who you talk to) make some choices that you simply don't agree with / don't like. What is YOUR top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspects of the 40k setting? Examples can go from Space Marines being an all Male force to the Tau having Japanese origin names. Anything you don't like about the artistic choice GW went with goes.

Feel to express why you don't like a particular thing as well.

I'll start, items listed in no particular order:

5.) Centurion / Dreadknight Armor: I can't help but think that just look silly. One looks like Randy Parker from a Christmas Story bundled up with too many sweaters "I can't put my arms down!" and the other looks like the terribly conceptualized walkers from the 3rd Matrix movies.In the fluff they're supposed to already be wearing power armor, so it just seems redundant to put even MORE armor on them.

4.) Tyranid Bio Weapons: Why do these things look like guns and swords? Wouldn't the hivemind had though bioweapon would be better to be part of the creature (ala Biovores or thorax weapons)? The way they're designed, it's like the termagaunt could just pick up any ol weapon it wants at will (Now that would make for an unusual First person shooter video game)

3.) Catachan: I could never quite get around why the Imperium would hold such a planet. On Arrakis, the Fremen prevailed there because of the universal need for melange. With Catachan, I just don't see why the Imperium habits it at all. It would seem that it would take more resources to sustain a large enough population to make dozens of regiments per year as opposed to simply getting soldiers elsewhere. Oh, and look at those muscles! Looks like GW was watching too much Rambo and not enough actually looking at natives that have thrived in dangerous jungle for generations.

2.) The New Space Wolf Flyers: They look like Goofy's head. Which is goofy. The weapon placement doesn't make much sense either, this thing has to dip forward to get any line of sight on ground targets.

1.) Wraithknights: I'm not really digging the fluff behind the pilots of WraithKnights. I don't know if Pacific Rim came first, or the Eldar dex, but I didn't like the concept in either setting. Two minds trying to control a 4 limbed walker just doesn't work for me.



Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 08:10:01


Post by: Peregrine


1) Tyranids.

2) Tyranids.

3) Tyranids.

4) Demons as a whole army instead of a rare summoned monster in a conventional chaos army.

5) Pretty much every new unit released since 5th edition.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 08:37:06


Post by: Paradigm


Honestly, nothing. 40k has one of the best and most diverse aesthetic backgrounds in sci-fi, and I love every aspect of it. Sine bits are over the top or nonsensical when considered logically, but that's all part of the appeal.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 08:44:52


Post by: thenoobbomb


1) Tau
2) Tau
3) Tau
4) Tyranids
5) Tyranids


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 08:54:21


Post by: BrotherOfBone


1) Skulls on everything. Ooh it's grimdark, know what grimdark needs? SPOOKY SKULLS!

2) All the Greater Demons. They just look ridiculous (except the FW ones).

3) Taurox. The 4 tracks make no sense, tracks are designed to spread weight, so making them smaller defeats the purpose of having a tracked vehicle.

4) Dreadknight. It breaks you in half if you turn too quickly, how could anyone design this and not see it?

5) Every SoB model ever. They just look horrendously ugly.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 09:03:49


Post by: Furyou Miko


1) Lack of Helmeted Sisters.

2) Lack of female Guard heads.

3) Lack of female Sisters heads (and generally the oversized 'hero scale' heads that make it look like their armour is less than a half cm thick).

4) Dreadknights having Terminator pilots - should be a PAGK, since the DK provides Terminator-level protection anyway and even the GK don't have an infinite supply of Terminator suits.

5) PAGK. The wrist storm bolters look... silly on PA gauntlets. Sorry. They just do.

Also, Dshrike - in Rogue Trader, Hunter-Killers had lasguns That's why Termagants carry their weapons.



Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 10:11:23


Post by: BlaxicanX


1. Sisters of Battle armor isn't revealing enough.



Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 11:51:30


Post by: Fifty


1. The terrain and scenery is too Gothic these days

2. Necrons look like toys (I know they are toys, but they do not need to look like it)

3. Tyranid bioweapons, like you said

4. Dark eldar grotesques

5. I'm sure I will think of something


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 13:31:27


Post by: Freakazoitt


1. Leman Russ tank. Ugly

2. power fists. Somethig like anime characters weapon or other weird stuff

3. Some of the tyranid things. Especially shooting weapons and living space ships

4. Centurion. If it fall, it will never stand up

5. Space Marine figures. They looks little compared to IG/Eldar


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 13:32:59


Post by: vipoid


In no particular order:

- The Taurox. It looks like a badly-converted Tonka toy.

- A lot of the 'big' models like the Wrathkinght and Riptide. I don't know exactly what it is - possibly a combination of the scale and the spindly limbs (relative to their size). It just always looks like my opponent is proxying a Power Rangers action figure or something.

- Why do most Tyranids have hooves?

- What do Necrons have against making capes out of fabric (or some equivalent)? It works fine for Lords, but Necron Overlords appear to be wearing bead-curtains on their backs.

- IG infantry. The bodies are nice enough models, but all the heads look like angry potatoes. Also, Creed appears to be having a stroke.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 13:35:47


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Furyou Miko wrote:


3) Lack of female Sisters heads.








Anyway, the new Demonettes.
Are are those supposed to be lithe and seductive...
Speaking of demons, I don't like the 5th ed Bloodletters. I get that they are going back to the old version of bloodletters, before they were turned into bull-demon things, but the current versions just don't look intimitating to me.
The 3rd ed (?) versions looked imposing. The new ones look too wirey. They remind me of lil' Wayne for some reason.

The new flayed ones are also pretty bad.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 14:52:16


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


1. The way 40k building kits are designed and put together. You rarely see anything that actually looked like a building at one time.
2. Nids with guns. Again, mouth-guns, thorax-mounts or even entire gun limbs would look better.
3. Marine bikers and Land Speeders (except the Scout Bikers and LS Storm). I just think the Space Marine bikers are pointless and serve no purpose when compared to jump-packs, drop pods, Rhinos/Razorbacks and the aerial transports. Battlefield skimmers don't feel right in an Imperial army.
4. Taurox. Replace it with regular wheels and make it smaller or something and it would look and feel better to me.
5. The lack of female guard heads. I don't need boob plates or stuff like that, just an unhelmed female head or perhaps a ponytail coming out from under the helmet.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 15:17:13


Post by: Purifier


This guy:



It's a species that evolves rapidly to face any threat... and yet they have to evolve their weapons separately? Why are they not built in? Why is a tyranid evolved to fight space marines completely harmless unless you separately evolve a weapon and stick it in his meaty little fist?

Just a sidenote: I am continously surprised how poorly people here think of the centurions. I love the gimpy little f*ckers. They look bad ass.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 15:37:00


Post by: Arbiter_Shade


 Purifier wrote:
This guy:



It's a species that evolves rapidly to face any threat... and yet they have to evolve their weapons separately? Why are they not built in? Why is a tyranid evolved to fight space marines completely harmless unless you separately evolve a weapon and stick it in his meaty little fist?

Just a sidenote: I am continously surprised how poorly people here think of the centurions. I love the gimpy little f*ckers. They look bad ass.


Well...I agree that the gun biomorphs look goofy, there is a fluff reason they are spawned separately. The idea is that the gun has a separate mind so that it can effectively be a smart gun. It lets the gun worry about shooting and the body worry about moving, it is about efficiency even if it does look ridiculous.

For me, I hate all the Newcrons. I love Tomb Kings, I play Tomb Kings, I have no idea why we needed Tomb Kings in SPAAAAACE!


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 15:39:14


Post by: vipoid


 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

2. Nids with guns. Again, mouth-guns, thorax-mounts or even entire gun limbs would look better.


I think some look ok - like spinefists and the MC devourers/deathspitters.

It's the ones that look like they're holing a regular gun in both hands that bugs me.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 15:40:00


Post by: Veteran Sergeant


Freakazoitt wrote:5. Space Marine figures. They looks little compared to IG/Eldar
Maybe yours do.*


1. Everything Space Wolf. All of it. It's all awful. I used to be okay with some of it, but Wolf Sled, and Wolf Cavalry, and Flying Clown Shoe killed it finally. With freeze rays (because when you live on a frozen planet the logical technological progression is to invent something that makes it colder. But hey, heat rays were already invented and we're Space Wolves. We do what we want!). But it was always sillibad. Long hair and beards on guys designed for fighting in vacuum and hostile environments.Good luck sealing that. The models should all have these awkward haircuts and beards from where their hair was sheared off by the armor seals.

2. Dark Eldar. Eh. Space bondage fetishists. On Green Goblin/Hobgoblin Hoverboards. And Jabba's skiffs.

3. Space Marines in your Space Marines while you Space Marine. Wraithknights and Centurions are just ugly. stupid looking models. Even worse, the Centurions have no reason to exist in the fluff. They filled zero operational shortfalls in the Space Marine inventory. They're large, slow targets in a rapidly moving surgical strike force. Dreadnoughts were kinda cool because of the idea of the Marines preserving fallen heroes to fight again. Centurions? Stupid. And if the Grey Knights can make a giant battle suit to fight big scary daemons, why leave the little vulnerable guy on the front of it where he's easier to damage?

4. Catachans. Good lord, they're bigger than Space Marines, lol. Coulda done that aesthetic with slightly more proportionate bodies.

5. Most of the newer stuff. The wheels have come off the design train. Taurox. Spanish Conquistador Stormtroopers (the helmeted heads are cool though). Flying Clown Shoe. Stormguppies. Dark Angel Cathedral sleds. Wolf Chariots. Hellturkey. Khornemower. Centurions.







*But yeah, seriously. I wouldn't wish true/tall scaling on anyone. It's a horrendously time consuming project, and probably why, two years later, I have a full company's worth of models but only 60 or so assembled.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 15:40:50


Post by: Otto Weston


1. Space Marines. Most artwork though actually looks really good and inspirational, but the tabletop models just seem out of proportion and really don't appeal.

2. Taurox. Friendly Fire demonstrator supreme.

3. Tau Empire suits --- they're too Gundam for me.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 15:47:04


Post by: vipoid


 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

1. Everything Space Wolf. All of it. It's all awful. I used to be okay with some of it, but Wolf Sled, and Wolf Cavalry, and Flying Clown Shoe killed it finally. With freeze rays (because when you live on a frozen planet the logical technological progression is to invent something that makes it colder. But hey, heat rays were already invented and we're Space Wolves. We do what we want!). But it was always sillibad. Long hair and beards on guys designed for fighting in vacuum and hostile environments.Good luck sealing that. The models should all have these awkward haircuts and beards from where their hair was sheared off by the armor seals.


Agreed. Also, this made me smile.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

4. Catachans. Good lord, they're bigger than Space Marines, lol. Coulda done that aesthetic with slightly more proportionate bodies.


I think what saddens me is that GW seemed to choose the least interesting IG regiments to focus on. I'd much rather see more stuff for Steel Legion or Vostroyan.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 15:59:17


Post by: Boggy Man


1. Tau
2. Ratlings; Bad-ass space bikers were too silly, but you kept horny hobbits?
3. Tau
4. Lack of female ANYTHING if you don't play DE
5. Daemons looks like bugs, Deviled ham mascots, and chewed bubblegum.
6. The CSM Daemon engines aren't awful, but they look markedly toyish
7. Grey Knights, baby carriers and cluttered x-mas tree armor. They make Tau look dignified.
8. I can't math today, need more coffee
9. Tau


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 16:39:48


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Boggy Man wrote:

4. Lack of female ANYTHING if you don't play DE, Eldar or Sisters of Battle


Fixed that for you.
I do admit though that the lack of Guardswomen is a bit strange. It's already been established in lore several times that there are women in the Imperial Guard.
Surely it cannot be that hard to add a lady torso to the sprue. They did it for Eldar, after all.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 16:49:04


Post by: extremefreak17


1. Warp Spiders. FFS, those crap models have been around for 20 years.

2. Dreadknights. Baby carrier.

3. Pink Horrors. They look like mutated pink Gumbys

4. Most Nids, because Zerg did it better.

5. Any Tau without a helmet. WTF are those faces?


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 16:57:49


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


Well...they are aliens. Aliens don't have to look good


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 20:53:11


Post by: Overlord Thraka


1. Certain codexes being able to beat most other 'dexes without much difficulty

2. Dark Eldar

3. The focus on the Imperium. Why can't we have a larger focus on Orks or something? Orks have been the primary antagonist in nearly all the video games. Why can't we have them a little more in the actual game?

4.Dark Eldar

5. Lack of focus on Xenos armies in general. It's mostly Imperium or Chaos. And that's boring to pretty much everyone


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 21:01:43


Post by: Furyou Miko


I love how many of peoples "aesthetic" dislikes are actually about game rules...


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 21:12:12


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


In no particular order...

1. Hero scale in general. Realistic scale looks so much better. I think it's half the reason I prefer DKOK. Cadians would look so much cooler if they were realistic scale instead of bobble head scale.

2. Demons. Pretty much all of them. There are SO many cool ways demons can be modelled... GW have completely missed the mark. The only demon model I kind of like is the FW Bloodthirster.

3. The tendancy to over-bling models. With each new release, models for some reason have to be more and more blinged up. GW have seemingly lost the concept that something simple can look cool.

4. Eldar cone heads. Eldar are one of those armies I skirt around possibly collecting but never do, one of the big reasons I don't is the cone head helmets.

5. Ork vehicles have started to look too much like junk. I like the idea that they might be made from junk and repaired with junk, but IMO they've gone too far. This probably goes back to the "over blinged" thing. You look at Ork vehicles now and you can't tell what's what on them because there's too much junk. If there's no space to even paint some emblems on the vehicle because there's too much detail, IMO it's gone a bit too far.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 21:14:37


Post by: sarpedons-right-hand


1: Skulls
2: Skulls
3: Skulls
4: Skulls
5: SoB looking like men.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 21:21:44


Post by: BattleCapIronblood


Lack of variety on Space Marine heads without the helmets. It's always generic bald guy. But this one isn't so bad because there's been a few attempts at correcting these with some of the new models having beards and different hairstyles. I just wish there was a little more.

I actually brought up female Guards a long time ago and for some reason people thought I was crazy... There doesn't seem to be a problem here...

Not enough creepy and evil aesthetic on the Dark Eldar. They should have some pretty grotesque bits and models that are maybe FW exclusive. And I mean more grotesque than they are now.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 21:22:40


Post by: vipoid


AllSeeingSkink wrote:

3. The tendancy to over-bling models. With each new release, models for some reason have to be more and more blinged up. GW have seemingly lost the concept that something simple can look cool.


Agreed.

I much prefer models with just a few embellishments to the ones with so much crap on them that they resemble coral-reefs on legs.

 BattleCapIronblood wrote:
Not enough creepy and evil aesthetic on the Dark Eldar. They should have some pretty grotesque bits and models that are maybe FW exclusive. And I mean more grotesque than they are now.


I feel that way about tyranids. Considering their fluff, I think they should be a lot more 'icky'. As it stands, they look far too 'clean' and pristine.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 21:50:05


Post by: Ratius


G/morkanaut, just dont get them at all.
Skulls, we get it GW.
DE flyer, looks like the batwing to me
Red Terror model, should be amazing. Isnt.
Old one eye. As above.
Fire raptor from FW, hate it.
Flashgitz, too overbthe top.

But as mentioned above most of GWs stuff is aesthetically very good imo, had to think a bit about those listed and looking over my 5 armies and scenery kits, nothing screams dump me.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/14 22:18:01


Post by: Forgemaster Argos


My top 5:

5.) Certain ork aesthetics bother me, mostly along the comic relief lines. I prefer them darker and more sinister, as was portrayed in Space Marine from THQ, Grimskull was funny to some extent but still a great deal more realistic than Kap'n Bluddflagg and other sillier things.

4.) Dear Lord the Dread knight makes NO sense. I don't know why daemons wouldn't just pull the GK out of his harness and cripple the machine. Additionally, I feel their fluff ideas just too over the top, much in the way comic books are. I get that they're special and unique and powerful and rare and....blah blah blah, give them a flaw.

3.) Tyrannids should be more like the xenomorph species from the original Alien movies (before things went downhill in Alien 3); icky, sticky and truly terrifying... not purple.

2.) More clarity and expansion on some of the "mysteries of the galaxy". Example, the Ghoul Stars, there are so many vague references to this that would make great stories. I get the fact that we can tell the stories, but wouldn't it be great if we knew more officially to tighten up the canonical fluff (maybe this applies across the board as well)

1.) Space wolves make me facepalm on so many levels that have been mentioned above. 1000 thank yous to those who critiqued the idiocy that is now the Sons of Fenris. Murder... ah forget it...

FM Argos

Edit: Honorable Mention: attack bikes... side cars are only cool with certain cocktails...


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 00:26:11


Post by: Mythra


Tau chicken feet battle suits. Big and top hvy and itty bitty funny feet.

The DK baby carrier has to annoy everyone. I bought this one as soon as I saw it.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/469402-.html

The skulls on everything gets silly. Chaos I can see but why does the imperium have a skull fetish?

All their flying vehicles don't look like they can fly. Blocky and ugly. Nothing sleeK. The terminator one I use I like way better.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/501432-Alternate%20Stormraven%20GK.html

Lack of alien buildings. Nids, Necrons, and Tau use the aegis def line and bastions. They should have their own. I made my own quad gun out of clay and Nid bits. Would have made the wall too but I don't really like the nerfed quads now.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/601923-.html


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 00:42:37


Post by: BoomWolf


 BrotherOfBone wrote:

3) Taurox. The 4 tracks make no sense, tracks are designed to spread weight, so making them smaller defeats the purpose of having a tracked vehicle.


Actually that's not a very bad design, its actually combining the benefits of both and allowing you to traverse some areas neither can on its own.
Its just highly impractical on the engines as to make it WORK you need either multiple engines, or a godly transmission system.

Still, we actually experimented with these in the real world too, it was deemed too much trouble to be worth the benefits, but in the IoM-impractical doesn't mean yo don't do it.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 00:43:28


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


The baby carrier would look awesome as an Ork vehicle. I've always wanted to convert an Ork baby carrier after seeing The Matrix


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 02:28:45


Post by: Tydil


I have little experience in most armies so what I'm going to list are the tiny little details that make me dislike otherwise awesome things:

1. Catachans. Skin shouldn't even move around muscles like that. I love the Rambo theme and story behind them, just ugly ugly models.

2. Tyranid guns. Basically what everyone is saying. I don't care what the evolutionary reason is for separately evolving guns, it's stupid. If I did a Tyranid army, it would be all melee, and I'd lose all the time, and so be it. Also, I won't even get into the "StarCraft Zerg are better" because I know that will cause a huge argument...But I do think GW and Blizzard conspired to make this debate of who came first just to hide the fact that they are both ripping off Heinlein's Starship Troopers.

3. The "jazz hand" on the wraithknight. I agree the model would look better if it were thinner, and the fluff is stupid. But I'm a sucker for wraith-related things. But that hand, it's like he's doing a magic trick or something, definitely going to remodel that when I get hold of one.

4. I think it is the khorne lord of skulls. What a stupid thing. It's a big evil person on a tank. Not even centered. It looks like something an 8 year old would make from two different toys. I just don't like chaos/daemons stuff anyway (except old school noise marines). I get he's the lord of skulls, but does he need to keep watch over every skull ever? Which brings me to

5. Skulls for skull skull! Why? What happened to humanity to make skulls so desirable for building, decorating, turning into sword sheaths, eating soup out of, and using as your icon. What real armies ever used a skull as a symbol and weren't the super evil SS? I know this is all part of the humorously over-the-top scifi setting. I like that, that's why I occasionally like Angry Marines and enjoy the silly Ork things that happen, but skulls never made me say "ohhh cool!"

0. This should probably go first, just in case someone on here is a modeler of the offense sculpts mentioned. It should be said that they're still good, something I definitely can't model. I know a lot of people don't like some models that others love, but we here more about the hated models some times. Occasionally we should all say "I hate this, I think this is stupid. But that's clearly what the minority of people think and I'm still impressed by the work put in to those models."


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 03:12:44


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


Tydil wrote:
5. Skulls for skull skull! Why? What happened to humanity to make skulls so desirable for building, decorating, turning into sword sheaths, eating soup out of, and using as your icon. What real armies ever used a skull as a symbol and weren't the super evil SS? I know this is all part of the humorously over-the-top scifi setting. I like that, that's why I occasionally like Angry Marines and enjoy the silly Ork things that happen, but skulls never made me say "ohhh cool!"
Has to be done:



Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 03:27:43


Post by: Big Mac


1) tyranid bio weapon looking like regular weapon super glued to an arm
2) terminator armor and their dog face helm
3) grey knight fluff about them killing their own allies just because they might be tainted while fighting chaos
4) overly decorated imperium symbols on vehicles making nascar look normal
5) flying pigeons aka storm ravens and the like


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 03:32:03


Post by: VorpalBunny74


1. Wolf Chariot Sled
2. Wolf Chariot Sled
3. Wolf Chariot Sled
4. Wolf Chariot Sled
5. Armbar


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 03:47:57


Post by: TheCustomLime


1. Santa Grimnar.
2. The Wolf head flyer.
3. The Wraith Knight. It reminds me of a Power Ranger. Looks like something out of Power Rangers too.
4. Centurions. I don't get it. Why do they exist?
5. Thunderwolf Calvary. "Hey, we have access to some of the most advanced war gear and some of the most robust vehicles. LETS GO RIDE SOME DOGGIES WEEE".


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 03:53:28


Post by: kb305


i agree with peregrine, its all been going to gak since 5th edition.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 03:59:55


Post by: Swastakowey


1. How massively chunky and out of proportioned the models are. I dont think it in any way makes models look cooler. Im not a fan of historic sized models much prefer true scale. Issues like meaty limbs, meaty guns, meaty but squat tanks and other things like the Eldar Pilots having nowhere for their legs to physically fit in the crimson hunter and so on.

2. The useless clutter on all the models. It just adds to making the models look cartoony. As mentioned the skulls are a huge one.

3. The stiff spine. I dislike how the models are all stiff as they seem like they are all upright to the full ability of their backs. Few models are ducking, slouching and so on. I loved how the old Guardsmen looked a lot more human and fluid in how the where posed. Unlike the stiff back legions of today.

4. I dislike the rocks on many of the new characters that seem to be more normal now. The way many characters are made make them monopose but HARDER to convert. The new commissar for example is put together in such a weird way that it takes more skill to convert when you add in how the model is put together and the stupid rock propping up his leg (which looks like the other rocks all the other models are standing on). Things like putting scars on models annoy me too. They should make their models generic so we can add rocks or scars to models, rather than have to take them away.

5. Huge melee weapons. The knives and so on a massive and more chunky than the models excess chunky seems to handle. The grenades tend to be huge as well.

I guess most of my complaints revolve around how the models themselves dont look normal. In any way. It bugs me. Its one of the many factors that pushes me closer to playing historic games.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 04:14:05


Post by: Thokt


1) Unpainted armies. It doesn't look like anything when its all gray.

2) Skull factor on recent terrain and ROB board.

3) Eldar Jetbikes. They look so terrible I refuse to purchase despite their in game awesomeness.

4) Catachans. I think they're all terrible looking, but haven't seen them hit a table in quite awhile.

5) The santa sled is complete gak.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 04:24:07


Post by: MWHistorian


1. Skull dozer. Most ridiculously stupid thing I've seen in a long time.
2. Santa's sleigh. The concept is probably the worst I've seen.
3. The entire deamon line. Seriously, I find all the deamon figures to be flat out ugly and unterrafying.
4. Catachans. A bunch of 80's action heroes running around.
5. Heldrake. Instead of making a bad chaos fighter plane, they went with a giant stork/dragon thing that has nothing to do with chaos. It was the start of the power ranger look to the Chaos Marine line.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 05:01:13


Post by: adzila


1. The Kroot fluff. Giving birth by throwing up. Learning new things by eating someone who knows the new thing. Unless the fluff has changed since i read the old WD article.
2. Chaos. Although i saw a squad of Death Gaurd in the showcase that looked cool. Otherwise i just dislike all the models.
3. Dark Eldar. Everything about them.
4. The SM model scale issue.
5. Grimdark. Although i love it in some ways, some of the comedy/fun from the 90's would get me collecting a lot more.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 05:21:58


Post by: Jayden63


1 - The direction of the new ork designs. I get that they are ramshackle, but not that ramshackle. I hate all the extra details added like bolts and bits of metal shards stapled to them (I'm talking about the infantry guys, not the vehicles) for no apparent reason.

2 - Centurions - Just so bad looking.

3 - Marine flyers - Pretty much just fail on all accounts.

4 - The Dread Knight for every reason that has already been said.

5 - Sanguinary Guard - Lets put giant wings next to jump pack exhaust and give everyone a gigantic sword thus forcing melee. With giant wings strapped to their backs.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 05:50:11


Post by: OldSkoolGoff




I wasn't playing GW games when Tau came out. First time I saw them was on /tg/ years after. I thought it was a joke. Still wish it was.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 08:01:55


Post by: Inevitable_Faith


In no particular order.

5) Daemons, I don't find any of them very aesthetically pleasing. Nurgle models ain't bad but I hate nurgle. Tzeentch is bubble gum, khorne is generic and boring and slaanesh... ugh. Not to mention unless you run mono-god daemon army they tend to look like nyan cat threw up on your table. All the different colours for the different types of daemons destroys any sense of unity the army could ever hope to accomplish. And the codex "artwork". Good on you gw for tyring new art styles but I'm srry the daemo codex artwork has 0 appeal for me. (This daemon rant got out of hand...) I'm also adding possesed marines and obliterators/mutilators to this. GW has no idea how to make a good looking daemonically altered being.

4) Not updating models army-wide (letting some models get into their venerable years but updating others within the same force regularly). Point in case, some of the new eldar stuff looks great (obviously not everyone will agree but at least we can agree it's not the worst?) But then there's the jetbikes. I don't mind the bikes themselves, they look ok still. But those riders... so dated, so awkward, so... cone head. The new guardians look alright, even the cone-head is toned down. But those god-awful ancient eldar bike riders.

3) SoB exorcist tanks. I know it's themed but really gw? An organ? Atleast try to make it look like a weapon please...Nope, ok fine then. I'm strapping chaos havoc launchers to a rhino till you do. On a side note: the penitent engine and by extention dread knight. As stated before they look like baby carriers. No armored behemoth of war should ever have their pilot just hanging there waiting for a guardsman to shine a laser pointer in their eye so long they go blind...

2) Khorne lord of skulls. What even is that thing supposed to be? It's so impractical and... Ugh. Nuff said.

1) The scale of the space marines. They look good on their own in my opinion but then you stand them next to and Eldar guardian or a guardsman and their "I'm a 9-foot tall genetically enhanced ancient being bred for war" soon becomes "hey! who put the dwarf in power armour again?"

On a side note I would like to defend the centurions on one point. I don't care what they look like as a space marine but if you throw some spiky bits on them and a small amount of green stuff (with some defacing or scraping off of the imperial aquilas) they make perfect chaos obliterators. They even have enough weapons in the box to pretty much make them WYSIWYG on the table when comparing to the obliterators morphing weapon table. So it's not all bad guys, they serve an important purpose.

Last note: Let us all thank GW too for this because if they didn't put out the odd terrible looking model then we wouldn't have the creative drive to make some of the amazing and truly unique custom modelled armies we have today.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 08:17:44


Post by: angelofvengeance


1: Space Wolves in general. Particularly the character Wolfy wolfborn of wolf planet of the space wolves chapter.
2: Grey Knight baby carrier.
3: The Blood Angels rejig. Yes we get they've got a dodgy set of genetics, but could we perhaps avoid putting the word blood in front of every piece of wargear we have?


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 08:37:29


Post by: mitch_rifle


In no particular order

1.Posing: i find the unimaginary posing of most of GW line incredibly annoyingsome, most figures are either at the patrol or just some dull pose, id rather much see some more dynamic kits, especially for human forces

2. scale: whils i dont mind heroic scale i just wish some of the weapons made more sense, and also that non-power armoured humans and whatnot were a bit smaller and more normal looking

3. mk7 armour: so round and hideous the older marks look much cooler

4. Bare faces, im not a fan of the grimacing heads and the horrific scouts, id rather more action poses such as bellowing rage, exhastion, pain etc

5. Armour decoration: the decoration is just getting to much, many of my marine forces especially the stern/van guard have gone under the knife. its still plain dull mk7 armour regardless of how many little tokens and those ridiculous oath strips they slap on them



Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 09:02:02


Post by: Murenius


There are few things I find really displeasing in 40k, generally I like the hobby because I love quite some of the models, like many more and the most of the rest is at least at par.

However, my few exceptions:

- 2nd edition Plague Marines. I just hate them for some reason I can't even tell. And I love the current Plague Marines, so it's not the fluff or something like that.
- That sororitas model with the two putto angels. Seriously, I can't understand housewives buying those things and putting them on the mantelpiece, why would someone want to have that on his wargaming mini?!
- Some of the old "humour"/over the top stuff. I think the new Noise Marine kits are better in that they just allude at instruments and the body pose of the models is similar to how instruments would be held. The old noise marines were just too much. It's funnier if it's not spoken out directly.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 09:45:08


Post by: angelofvengeance


 mitch_rifle wrote:
In no particular order

1.Posing: i find the unimaginary posing of most of GW line incredibly annoyingsome, most figures are either at the patrol or just some dull pose, id rather much see some more dynamic kits, especially for human forces

2. scale: whils i dont mind heroic scale i just wish some of the weapons made more sense, and also that non-power armoured humans and whatnot were a bit smaller and more normal looking

3. mk7 armour: so round and hideous the older marks look much cooler

4. Bare faces, im not a fan of the grimacing heads and the horrific scouts, id rather more action poses such as bellowing rage, exhastion, pain etc

5. Armour decoration: the decoration is just getting to much, many of my marine forces especially the stern/van guard have gone under the knife. its still plain dull mk7 armour regardless of how many little tokens and those ridiculous oath strips they slap on them



If you look again, there's some Mk IV and Mk VI there too.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 11:38:26


Post by: Antario


1) Space Marines: too much bling on 40k marines. The are supposed to be space knights, not space gansta rappers. 30k got it right.

2) Chaos. The more it corrupts you, the more makes you look like a cartoon villain.

3) Tau: I actually love the art style as it reminds me of scifi greats like Elson and Foss. Why didn't GW hire a real mechanical designer to flesh it out? Tau suits and vehicles look like cheap knock offs of Japanese mecha shows.

4) Forgeworld Tyranids. Egan somehow managed to turn the Geiger inspired 3rd edition designs in to uninspired and misshapen blobs.

5) Newcrons: Terminators>Space Mummies


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 13:03:31


Post by: OgreChubbs


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
In no particular order...

1. Hero scale in general. Realistic scale looks so much better. I think it's half the reason I prefer DKOK. Cadians would look so much cooler if they were realistic scale instead of bobble head scale.

2. Demons. Pretty much all of them. There are SO many cool ways demons can be modelled... GW have completely missed the mark. The only demon model I kind of like is the FW Bloodthirster.

3. The tendancy to over-bling models. With each new release, models for some reason have to be more and more blinged up. GW have seemingly lost the concept that something simple can look cool.

4. Eldar cone heads. Eldar are one of those armies I skirt around possibly collecting but never do, one of the big reasons I don't is the cone head helmets.

5. Ork vehicles have started to look too much like junk. I like the idea that they might be made from junk and repaired with junk, but IMO they've gone too far. This probably goes back to the "over blinged" thing. You look at Ork vehicles now and you can't tell what's what on them because there's too much junk. If there's no space to even paint some emblems on the vehicle because there's too much detail, IMO it's gone a bit too far.


mmmmm you know heroic scale is smaller heads......right?


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 13:50:05


Post by: soomemafia


 angelofvengeance wrote:
1: Space Wolves in general. Particularly the character Wolfy wolfborn of wolf planet of the space wolves chapter.
2: Grey Knight baby carrier.
3: The Blood Angels rejig. Yes we get they've got a dodgy set of genetics, but could we perhaps avoid putting the word blood in front of every piece of wargear we have?


For some reason, naming things has always been difficult for GW.
Would you like a Blood Angels Furioso with Blood Talons or Blood Fists? Or maybe make him a psyker so he can use Blood Boil?

Canis Wolfborn is litralla translated into Wolf Wolfborn. Seriously.

And let's not forget Ferrus Manus! From 1d4chan, where they summed it up:
Iron Hands, who had iron hands, was the leader of the Iron Hands, who give themselves iron hands in honor of the iron hands of Iron Hands.


They tried...


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 13:52:33


Post by: vipoid


 Mythra wrote:

All their flying vehicles don't look like they can fly. Blocky and ugly. Nothing sleeK. The terminator one I use I like way better.


Yeah, this is something I find irritating. It doesn't even come under 'rule of cool' because most of the fliers just look ugly - with the absolute worst being the flying clown shoe. It looks like someone strapped jet-engines to a cargo crate. Maybe that would work for Orks, but I'd have thought the Imperium would have access to something a bit more impressive.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 13:53:37


Post by: angelofvengeance


Honestly- not really bothered by Iron Hands much since they have some interesting background material. Plus he fought a C'tan and then wore that douche as gloves for the rest of his life lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vipoid wrote:
 Mythra wrote:

All their flying vehicles don't look like they can fly. Blocky and ugly. Nothing sleeK. The terminator one I use I like way better.


Yeah, this is something I find irritating. It doesn't even come under 'rule of cool' because most of the fliers just look ugly - with the absolute worst being the flying clown shoe. It looks like someone strapped jet-engines to a cargo crate. Maybe that would work for Orks, but I'd have thought the Imperium would have access to something a bit more impressive.


Not sure about clown shoe but I'd say more of a flying wolf pen with reinforced shipping container bits..


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 19:21:42


Post by: throwoff


Chainswords - not only is it mental that these weapons give the same assault bonus as a rusty ork choppa in the crunch but they just wouldn't work the way the fluff portrays.

Skulls - too many skulls

Marine pistol holsters not even being big enough for laspistols...

Marine shotguns - not only hideous but why do they fire solid slugs.. I mean come on buckshot against nids would be more effective!!

Hurricaine bolters - the same ones on land raider crusaders are as powerful on those attached to centurion suits...


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 19:29:47


Post by: vipoid


 throwoff wrote:
Chainswords - not only is it mental that these weapons give the same assault bonus as a rusty ork choppa in the crunch but they just wouldn't work the way the fluff portrays.


Could you elaborate on them not working as the fluff portrays?

I suspect that in RL any weapon like that would either quickly get gummed-up with entrails and such, or else lodge in their victim's bone and wrench itself out of the hand of its wielder. But, I'm wondering if you meant something different.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 19:35:44


Post by: Unit1126PLL


1) Walking battlesuits being employed in terrain where one could just use tanks.

2) Giant monsters being better than armored tanks.

3) Tanks that can't move and fire any better than they could in World War I.

4) Tau

5) Tyranids.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 19:37:09


Post by: Furyou Miko


OgreChubbs wrote:
mmmmm you know heroic scale is smaller heads......right?


Uh, no. Heroic scale is why Space Marine and Sister of Battle heads are the same size as Space Marine and Sister of Battle helmets.

throwoff wrote:
Marine shotguns - not only hideous but why do they fire solid slugs.. I mean come on buckshot against nids would be more effective!!

Hurricaine bolters - the same ones on land raider crusaders are as powerful on those attached to centurion suits...


You're kidding, right? Buckshot would increase the 'nids armour save from 5+ to 4+. Buckshot does not penetrate well.

In fact, the only reason it's called Buckshot is because 'Duckshot' sounds less manly. Buckshot is only really used for hunting birds.

As for Hurricane Bolters, you do realise that the Hurricane Bolter is literally a battlefield jury-rig (originally) made by linking six regular Godwyn-pattern bolters to a single mount and trigger, right?


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 19:39:25


Post by: throwoff


 vipoid wrote:
 throwoff wrote:
Chainswords - not only is it mental that these weapons give the same assault bonus as a rusty ork choppa in the crunch but they just wouldn't work the way the fluff portrays.


Could you elaborate on them not working as the fluff portrays?

I suspect that in RL any weapon like that would either quickly get gummed-up with entrails and such, or else lodge in their victim's bone and wrench itself out of the hand of its wielder. But, I'm wondering if you meant something different.


Pretty much that, also no material would be effective against armour, flesh, sinew and emperor knows what else all at once. It's fundamentally a poor design of weapon.

Wonderfully grimdark but that's about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Furyou Miko wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:
mmmmm you know heroic scale is smaller heads......right?


Uh, no. Heroic scale is why Space Marine and Sister of Battle heads are the same size as Space Marine and Sister of Battle helmets.

throwoff wrote:
Marine shotguns - not only hideous but why do they fire solid slugs.. I mean come on buckshot against nids would be more effective!!

Hurricaine bolters - the same ones on land raider crusaders are as powerful on those attached to centurion suits...


You're kidding, right? Buckshot would increase the 'nids armour save from 5+ to 4+. Buckshot does not penetrate well.

In fact, the only reason it's called Buckshot is because 'Duckshot' sounds less manly. Buckshot is only really used for hunting birds.

As for Hurricane Bolters, you do realise that the Hurricane Bolter is literally a battlefield jury-rig (originally) made by linking six regular Godwyn-pattern bolters to a single mount and trigger, right?



Grimdark adamantium depleted uranium poisoned buckshot


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 19:42:21


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 throwoff wrote:
Grimdark adamantium depleted uranium poisoned buckshot


Each pellet hand-carved by an Adept of the Mechanicum into the shape of a tiny skull.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 19:45:28


Post by: throwoff


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 throwoff wrote:
Grimdark adamantium depleted uranium poisoned buckshot


Each pellet hand-carved by an Adept of the Mechanicum into the shape of a tiny skull.




Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 22:09:06


Post by: Psienesis


3) SoB exorcist tanks. I know it's themed but really gw? An organ? Atleast try to make it look like a weapon please...Nope, ok fine then. I'm strapping chaos havoc launchers to a rhino till you do. On a side note: the penitent engine and by extention dread knight. As stated before they look like baby carriers. No armored behemoth of war should ever have their pilot just hanging there waiting for a guardsman to shine a laser pointer in their eye so long they go blind...


The "pilot" of a Penitent Engine is not intended to survive the engagement... the PE is a device of punishment, not reward.

5. What real armies ever used a skull as a symbol and weren't the super evil SS?


Uh... it's... the Imperium. Um... maybe you should sit down... I'm afraid I have some bad news...


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 22:25:48


Post by: OgreChubbs


 Furyou Miko wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:
mmmmm you know heroic scale is smaller heads......right?


Uh, no. Heroic scale is why Space Marine and Sister of Battle heads are the same size as Space Marine and Sister of Battle helmets.

throwoff wrote:
Marine shotguns - not only hideous but why do they fire solid slugs.. I mean come on buckshot against nids would be more effective!!

Hurricaine bolters - the same ones on land raider crusaders are as powerful on those attached to centurion suits...


You're kidding, right? Buckshot would increase the 'nids armour save from 5+ to 4+. Buckshot does not penetrate well.

In fact, the only reason it's called Buckshot is because 'Duckshot' sounds less manly. Buckshot is only really used for hunting birds.

As for Hurricane Bolters, you do realise that the Hurricane Bolter is literally a battlefield jury-rig (originally) made by linking six regular Godwyn-pattern bolters to a single mount and trigger, right?


Heroic scale is when you measure a human out. The average person is 8 heads tall to 8 and a half. Where as heroic scale ie. what the famous artist draw/scult is 9 heads tall.

So to give them a better look they are exactly 9 heads from the gound to the top of their head. This is a well known thing of art........... maybe your thinking of chibi or some other form?

oh here is the linky http://www.webcomicalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/prop_var.gif

Oh and someone did use a skull before... pirates, They do fly around in ships.....so a flag of war of a skull and cross bones seems...right. Plus why not use a skull if I came home and said look I killed a moose I got his rib bone everyone would go pig bone and walk away. Need a skull damnit


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 22:29:33


Post by: Psienesis


The proportioning of GW's models does not fit traditional Heroic Scale. This is why the Guardsmen have huge heads and hands, and yet are not quite as tall as a Space Marine... and most SM figs are actually only 5 1/2 heads tall. Check out the FC Reclusiarch. His head is half the size of his torso.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 22:33:55


Post by: OgreChubbs


 Psienesis wrote:
The proportioning of GW's models does not fit traditional Heroic Scale. This is why the Guardsmen have huge heads and hands, and yet are not quite as tall as a Space Marine.

So they are not heroic they are normal sized just everyone is the same size rather then making a base model for them to all go off of. They said they are 28mm ie. the models are around 28mm they never claimed them to be 1/48 scale or anything....... so kind of a moot point to complain about. Unless all models are scaled to 1 set of determinants then all should be based around the same size for price equality and such.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 22:45:23


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


OgreChubbs wrote:
 Psienesis wrote:
The proportioning of GW's models does not fit traditional Heroic Scale. This is why the Guardsmen have huge heads and hands, and yet are not quite as tall as a Space Marine.

So they are not heroic they are normal sized just everyone is the same size rather then making a base model for them to all go off of. They said they are 28mm ie. the models are around 28mm they never claimed them to be 1/48 scale or anything....... so kind of a moot point to complain about. Unless all models are scaled to 1 set of determinants then all should be based around the same size for price equality and such.
They're not even close to normal size. I just measured a Cadian Sergeant... he's 4.2 heads tall.

But I've never heard the term "heroic scale" refer to anything other than miniatures with extra large heads/hands/weapons.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 22:50:20


Post by: Bobthehero


1) Orks
2) Orks
3) Orks
4) Orks
5) Some SW stuff I am not fond off, the sled is especially stupid


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 22:51:32


Post by: Sigvatr


1) Necron vehicles having drivers. They are mindless robots, why would they need actual drivers...

2) The new Resin FO with a hunchback.

3) That SM with a fat baby angel.

4) Taurox.

5) Regular SoB troopers with heads that look like We can find a better way to express this sentiment yes ? Thanks. reds8n


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 22:52:32


Post by: OgreChubbs


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:
 Psienesis wrote:
The proportioning of GW's models does not fit traditional Heroic Scale. This is why the Guardsmen have huge heads and hands, and yet are not quite as tall as a Space Marine.

So they are not heroic they are normal sized just everyone is the same size rather then making a base model for them to all go off of. They said they are 28mm ie. the models are around 28mm they never claimed them to be 1/48 scale or anything....... so kind of a moot point to complain about. Unless all models are scaled to 1 set of determinants then all should be based around the same size for price equality and such.
They're not even close to normal size. I just measured a Cadian Sergeant... he's 4.2 heads tall.

But I've never heard the term "heroic scale" refer to anything other than miniatures with extra large heads/hands/weapons.


Ya most of games work shop models are broken down into 4's.: Top of head to chin, chin to wasit, waist to knee, knee to ground


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 22:55:57


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


Whatever it is, it looks hideous


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 22:58:23


Post by: Banzaimash


-Wolf Chariot
-Flying Wolf Box
-Mordians
-Doomsday/ Ghost Ark
-Tomb Blades


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 22:59:30


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Sigvatr wrote:
1) Necron vehicles having drivers. They are mindless robots, why would they need actual drivers...



A couple of theories :

1) They have memories of what it was like to be organic, so they manually drive machines

2) They can't be arsed to install AIs everywhere.

What bothers me though isn't so much that there are pilots, it's that the pilot is always exposed.
I mean, they have mastery over time and space, yet still haven't worked out that a thick piece of metal covering the driver is a good idea?


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 22:59:30


Post by: Toofast


First, several SEAL teams and blackwater/xe services/academi use a punisher skull in their insignia or on morale patches. I'm ok with a skull here and there for the imperium, I just want to know who their architects are and why they feel the need to incorporate skulls into every structure. My top 5

1. Logan clause and his sleigh. This model alone almost turned me off SW forever. If I bought one, it would be to sculpt a Santa hat and bag of presents for Logan, paint the whole thing red and white and display it around the house at xmas time as a joke. I could even paint a red nose on one of the wolves...

2. Murderfang. First we have the ridiculous name, weapon name and special rule name. It's like they had 2 hours before the white dwarf and boxes had to go to print so they just called everything some version of the word murder. Then you have his alien ice claws that never melt. Really? They jumped a whole ocean full of sharks on that one. His exposed head is pretty bad too.

3. Thunderwolf cavalry. Considering where the fenrisian wolves come from in the fluff, I doubt they would ride their wolf brothers around like kids at a petting zoo riding ponies for fun. The models seem out of place to me.

4. Dreadknight. Why is the pilot exposed?! You spend all that time and money building a giant suit of armor and the pilot rides on the outside of it? It's just ridiculous.

5. Taurox. Not only is it hideous, it performs as bad as it looks. The last time I played against someone using these, I popped 3 of them on the first turn. I didn't just strip the points, I blew all 3 of them up. They're ugly as hell, the design makes no sense and the weak armor makes them a death trap.

I would've included the stormfang and centurions but now that I've built those kits, I actually like them. When I saw the pictures, I had the same reaction as a lot of people on here. However, they were fun to build and paint. Now that they're finished, the more I look at them the more they grow on me.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 23:02:11


Post by: xXWeaponPrimeXx


Company Based:
1) That the people who love the game can make better stuff than the company that invented it.

2) That the company then turns on its avid fans and does everything to crush them rather than try to, I dunno, embrace some of their ideas and maybe bring in some clearly excellent sculptors into the fold.

3) The yearly price hike.

4) Lack of love for fan favorite armies in favor of tons of love for the next big expensive model/set.

5) A general inability to sculpt in anything resembling a natural scale.

Fluff Based:
1) Power weapons can cleave through armor with ease, regardless of armor in the fluff, but now it has an AP value?

2) Black Templars used to be a fierce fighting force, now they're a footnote.

3) Imperial Guard (I will NOT call them AM).

4) The IG are supposed to be the faceless billions of citizens of the Imperium, but they're all male? Is humanity the reverse Asari in 40k?

5) Most of the tanks and what not need a design update without a price hike. Personally, the Taurox wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't as tall as it is. I think if it were shorter and lower to the ground it wouldn't look so ridiculous.

Side note:
Forgemaster Argos wrote:

3.) Tyrannids should be more like the xenomorph species from the original Alien movies (before things went downhill in Alien 3); icky, sticky and truly terrifying... not purple.


Watch the unedited director's cut and the movie is completely different from the drek that was released in theatres.

I watched it hear recently and I swear, the movie was 100% better.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 23:09:11


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 xXWeaponPrimeXx wrote:
Company Based:
1) That the people who love the game can make better stuff than the company that invented it.

2) That the company then turns on its avid fans and does everything to crush them rather than try to, I dunno, embrace some of their ideas and maybe bring in some clearly excellent sculptors into the fold.

3) The yearly price hike.

4) Lack of love for fan favorite armies in favor of tons of love for the next big expensive model/set.

5) A general inability to sculpt in anything resembling a natural scale.

Fluff Based:
1) Power weapons can cleave through armor with ease, regardless of armor in the fluff, but not it has an AP value?

2) Black Templars used to be a fierce fighting force, now they're a footnote.

3) Imperial Guard (I will NOT call them AM).

4) The IG are supposed to be the faceless billions of citizens of the Imperium, but they're all male? Is humanity the reverse Asari in 40k?



1) Power weapons do have an AP value though

2) Retcons ahoy!

3) See above

4) There are guardswomen in the fluff. They just aren't represented in the art or tabletop.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 23:12:25


Post by: xXWeaponPrimeXx


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 xXWeaponPrimeXx wrote:
Company Based:
1) That the people who love the game can make better stuff than the company that invented it.

2) That the company then turns on its avid fans and does everything to crush them rather than try to, I dunno, embrace some of their ideas and maybe bring in some clearly excellent sculptors into the fold.

3) The yearly price hike.

4) Lack of love for fan favorite armies in favor of tons of love for the next big expensive model/set.

5) A general inability to sculpt in anything resembling a natural scale.

Fluff Based:
1) Power weapons can cleave through armor with ease, regardless of armor in the fluff, but not it has an AP value?

2) Black Templars used to be a fierce fighting force, now they're a footnote.

3) Imperial Guard (I will NOT call them AM).

4) The IG are supposed to be the faceless billions of citizens of the Imperium, but they're all male? Is humanity the reverse Asari in 40k?



1) Power weapons do have an AP value though


Sorry Typo.

I miss they days gone by when power weapons were to be feared for cutting a swathe through your forces because not everything had an invuln save.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 23:15:11


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 xXWeaponPrimeXx wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 xXWeaponPrimeXx wrote:
Company Based:
1) That the people who love the game can make better stuff than the company that invented it.

2) That the company then turns on its avid fans and does everything to crush them rather than try to, I dunno, embrace some of their ideas and maybe bring in some clearly excellent sculptors into the fold.

3) The yearly price hike.

4) Lack of love for fan favorite armies in favor of tons of love for the next big expensive model/set.

5) A general inability to sculpt in anything resembling a natural scale.

Fluff Based:
1) Power weapons can cleave through armor with ease, regardless of armor in the fluff, but not it has an AP value?

2) Black Templars used to be a fierce fighting force, now they're a footnote.

3) Imperial Guard (I will NOT call them AM).

4) The IG are supposed to be the faceless billions of citizens of the Imperium, but they're all male? Is humanity the reverse Asari in 40k?



1) Power weapons do have an AP value though


Sorry Typo.

I miss they days gone by when power weapons were to be feared for cutting a swathe through your forces because not everything had an invuln save.


Oh yeah, that was a hell of a change.
I do like how they introduced different types of power weapons, but I imagine it was very inconvenient for everyone who relied on power swords to deal with 2+ saves.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/15 23:59:39


Post by: timetowaste85


Glad veteran sergeant said it first:
Space wolves. They're ugly, they're stupid, they're hypocritical donkey-caves, and power armor mixes terribly with wild manes of hair. It works for whfb chaos marauders in little to no armor when they are supposed to be untamed. Space wolves are still marines and should have sense of decorum. I wish SW were removed from 40k.

Tau shoulder pads suck

Imperial guard infantry (except new Storm Troopers: those are the best GW models out there).

Lord of skulls on tractor body.

Not enough daemonette on sister sapphic action.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/16 00:10:45


Post by: MeanGreenStompa


Catachans, not the artwork or the idea of them, the horrible huge-armed, slightly melted looking models.

Grey Knights, all of it. More marine than marine.

Chaos Marines, the current 'baroque' looking stuff (although the chosen from recent boxed set were much better), it's daft. I want less stuck on spikes and more eldritch terror.

Ethereals and space pope... We created a new high tech species, manga/tech/ranged and... and... urm... YEA! lets put a wizard in there with some bodyguards with spears!!!!!!

for my 5th, I'll echo the sentiment about 'bling'. Far too much clutter on the figures lately. The SM characters they released recently, covered in cherubs and skulls and toilet paper are a case in point.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/16 00:16:56


Post by: Exergy


 Dshrike wrote:

3.) Catachan: I could never quite get around why the Imperium would hold such a planet. On Arrakis, the Fremen prevailed there because of the universal need for melange. With Catachan, I just don't see why the Imperium habits it at all. It would seem that it would take more resources to sustain a large enough population to make dozens of regiments per year as opposed to simply getting soldiers elsewhere. Oh, and look at those muscles! Looks like GW was watching too much Rambo and not enough actually looking at natives that have thrived in dangerous jungle for generations.



good point. One would think that if Catachan produces so many good fighters, all those fighters would exterminate all the beasts and nasty plants.

the Fremen never tried to kill the worms, in part because they were gods and in part because
Spoiler:
they make the spice, and he who controls the spice controls the universe


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/16 03:42:27


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I built a Thanatar tonight.

I take back everything I said about gigantic stompy robots.

I'm in love now.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/16 06:36:42


Post by: fox-light713


 timetowaste85 wrote:
I wish SW were removed from 40k.


Yes while some of the new additions are rather...odd and completely unnecessary to add. SW are the only reason I have a SM army because I liked their aesthetic when I got into 40k in 3rd edition when their codex was a supplement to the SM codex.

Though for my dislikes (in no order)

-The Taurox, I can see where they got the inspiration from and I feel that they should have stayed with wheels and made it so it was no taller than a chimera

-the chest plates of the new plastic storm troopers, would have looked better with if they keeps with the look of the Kasrkin chest armor or the older stormtrooper chest armor

-the flying imperial boxes, there's little reason to have boxes flying in a planet atmosphere and they should stay in space where aerodynamics do not exists.

-Sculls on your Sculls so you can have Sculls decorating your Sculls.

-(edit) no female guardsmen, they should have the same ratio of male/female as the eldar guardian box sets.

Any others I have are more about GW itself which is the price increases on models that don't need it and the bad pricing all together where almost everything is priced higher than it needs to be. No plastic SoB because GW seems to only want to update the same plastic kits over and over.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/16 07:43:56


Post by: ImAGeek


I think a lot of people don't know what aesthetic means.

- Dark Angels, never liked them, the whole robed monk look doesn't work for me. Doesn't help I don't like heir background either.

- MkVII power armour, since the FW earlier mark armour came out I realised how much I don't like the plastic power armour kits.

- The older Chaos kits just look too bland compared to the newer stuff.

- Plastic Horrors and Daemonettes, just look crap compared to the old versions. This would probably be alleviated some if the old metals hadn't existed.

- Dreadnoughts. I hate Dreadnoughts. They're so static, and just look like a box on legs, they're awful. Contemptors though... Mmm.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/16 08:08:20


Post by: Mr Morden


Taurox - hate the look - will never own one

Dread Knight - as bad as the Taurox - will never own one

Centurions - horrible - will never own one

Tau Battle suits - just don't like them - like most other things - infantry, drones, vehicles but not the suits.




Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/16 12:28:51


Post by: Col. Dash


#1 Stupid skulls everywhere. Sometimes cool if its terrain like in one of the Terminator movies where the ground is covered in skulls and the terminators are walking over them. Stupid when people are wearing them all over their armor and all the buildings have them as decoration.

#2 Eldar cone heads.

#3 Silly decorations. Chaos terminators for example with their spikes that add a few feet to their height. How are these guys supposed to fight indoors or in a ship?

#4 Armor that makes no sense in its design

#5 Lack of aerodynamics in aircraft. Why are many of the leading edges which normally provide lift for aircraft instead blunt edges? There are no Imperial planes that are even remotely flyable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with rounding the edges to provide better lift thus getting better performance with minimal effort.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/16 13:27:58


Post by: MWHistorian


True, not quite aesthetic, but like others reminded me, I hate that there are so few female characters. The IG should be at least 1/3 female. (depending on planet I suppose.)
40k is too much a sausage fest even to the point of contradicting the fluff. There should also be more female Eldar and where are the female Tau?


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/16 15:01:33


Post by: squidhills


1. Taurox. Every reason I have for hating this has already been said by others, but I'm going to say it again until the Universe itself wakes up and erases that model from existance: it is too tall, it does not fit in with the established IG vehicle aesthetic, four treads is stupid, the turret design/placement makes it look worse, drivers eat the engine exhaust while disembarking troops eat the hull-mounted hellgun fire.

2. Logan Claus. What the feth? What the actual fething feth? I can not conceive of how anyone, stoned or sober, could think that model was a good idea. GW *has* to be trolling us.

3. Eldar coneheads. Hey, GW? You know how you keep saying 40K and WHFB are no longer in the same universe? You know how you keep insisting that 40K isn't WHFB in spaaaace? We might believe you if you didn't force this thirty year old High Elf aesthetic feature onto your spess elves. And if you hadn't gone full Tomb Kings on the Necrons, but whatevs.

4. Fugly Daemons. Daemonettes in particular, but Bloodletters aren't winning any beauty contests, either. Daemonettes are supposed to be seductive? Then I guess those plastic crazy-hair anorexic transvestites aren't Daemonettes, because they couldn't seduce a sex addict with a hyperactive libido. Bring back the metal Daemonettes. I don't care how uncomfortable boobies make you, GW. You need to grow up a little. Girls don't have cooties. Especially not little plastic ones.

5. Every vehicle kit the Dark Angels got for 6th Edition. Look, Geedubs... we called the DA the "gay Catholics" as a joke. You know, because of that guy who wrote that poem, and all the confessors and rosaries and "arch traitor Luther" and so on. We did not mean "Make every vehicle a cathedral with tiny stained glass windows and angels".


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/16 15:29:06


Post by: Zewrath


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 throwoff wrote:
Grimdark adamantium depleted uranium poisoned buckshot


Each pellet hand-carved by an Adept of the Mechanicum into the shape of a tiny skull.


Best post I've read in a while.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/16 17:39:18


Post by: gianlucafiorentini123



Surely it cannot be that hard to add a lady torso to the sprue. They did it for Eldar, after all.


A female torso would be pretty much identical to a male one, though it would be nice if they added some bare headed females.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/16 17:41:29


Post by: Ashiraya


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) Walking battlesuits being employed in terrain where one could just use tanks.

2) Giant monsters being better than armored tanks.

3) Tanks that can't move and fire any better than they could in World War I.

4) Tau

5) Tyranids.


Someone is a treadhead.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/16 17:48:37


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


Not to sound like a male chauvinist pig... but the Cadian models are AWEFUL proportions, I'd much rather GW fix the proportions of the male models so they actually look human before worrying about adding female models.

If they just added a female torso to the Cadians it'd look silly because the arms, legs and heads are too thick even for a man let alone a woman.

Though maybe the female models would also be fethed up in proportions enough to look like regular human males


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/16 20:49:59


Post by: Furyou Miko


MWHistorian wrote:True, not quite aesthetic, but like others reminded me, I hate that there are so few female characters. The IG should be at least 1/3 female. (depending on planet I suppose.)
40k is too much a sausage fest even to the point of contradicting the fluff. There should also be more female Eldar and where are the female Tau?


Female Tau are only distinguishable against male Tau to humans by the Y-shaped incision on their face instead of the vertical slit, so... craft knife fixes that issue pretty neatly.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Not to sound like a male chauvinist pig... but the Cadian models are AWEFUL proportions, I'd much rather GW fix the proportions of the male models so they actually look human before worrying about adding female models.

If they just added a female torso to the Cadians it'd look silly because the arms, legs and heads are too thick even for a man let alone a woman.

Though maybe the female models would also be fethed up in proportions enough to look like regular human males


I don't think it makes you a male chauvinist pig to make that comment, but I disagree. Fixing the models' proportions would mean they don't fit in with the rest of the older models in the army, whereas with the emphasis on the heads on GW models, female heads on equally disproportionate bodies would look just as good (or bad) as the male models.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/16 21:25:07


Post by: daddyorchips


Dark Eldar on flying surfboards.

Actually, most of Dark Eldar at all. That whole space bondage stuff is laughable.

Definitely agree about the lack of female guards. Its stupid and sexist and doesn't fit their own fluff.

Um....the Space Wolves have always been stupid but now they're really stupid.

plastic tables for playing on. yuk. what happened to a big bit of plywood painted green on one side and grey on the other?


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/16 21:34:25


Post by: Azza007


1) Vespids, have never liked the look or idea of them.
2) Landspeeders, hate putting them together and they just frustrate me in feel.
3) Mephiston, definitely in need of an update.
4) Same goes for Ragnar.
5) Hive/Tyrant Guard. Look shocking to me.

Dislike things such as Dreadknight and Centurions etc but seeing as they have been mentioned so much thought would add some new ones.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 06:15:29


Post by: Veteran Sergeant


 MWHistorian wrote:
True, not quite aesthetic, but like others reminded me, I hate that there are so few female characters. The IG should be at least 1/3 female. (depending on planet I suppose.)
Maybe they fill logistical support roles. I mean, the infantry in any given military is only a relatively small percentage. There's little reason to think that the Imperial Guard would be any different. Perhaps male consripts would go into the line Guard units, and the female ones into non-combatant roles or the Departmento Munitorum's various logistical branches. After all, planetary tithes of manpower aren't automatically all Imperial Guard. The Navy, DM, and even the AdMech requisition personnel from Imperial worlds.

I mean, there's no reason an IGuard regiment couldn't have female Guardsmen in it. And no reason not to offer more models for them. But it's also really not a "discrepancy" that there aren't more of them. Heck, if you want to contemplate some Grimdark, think about Cadia, lol. Its birth rate is synonymous with its recruitment rate. But the optimal time for human reproduction is also the optimal time for military service, and everyone is being recruited (into something, whether it be Navy/PDF/IG or DM). That means Cadia has military regulated and enforced breeding programs in order to maintain its population levels. For a closed ecological/sociological system like that to function, you'd have to imagine that younger women are tasked with having babies, and older women are then tasked with raising them (and apparently serving as auxiliary PDF too). Suddenly the lack of female line troopers starts to make sense. The real world can support its militaries because the ratio of soldiers to civilians is very low. When there are no civilians, that reproductive responsibility would fall on the soldiers.

Males have always been the disposable sex. One guy can make multiple women pregnant, but a bunch of dudes equals no babies without a female. It's one of the more widely believed causes for the evolutionary patterns that led to modern males being physically stronger and tougher than women, and there's very little reason to believe that pattern would change in a society like the Imperium where the vitae wombs of the DKoK are frowned upon (thus suggesting it adheres more or less to traditional reproductive habits).

Something uncomfortable to consider there, lol.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 06:39:54


Post by: MajorWesJanson


1. XV-9 hazard suits.
compared to the utilitarian military look of the other tau models, they added a bunch of unnecessary bulges and fins that has since spilled over to FWs other new Tau offerings. At least GW didn't go that route, and ave us the much nicer looking XV-8-02 commander suit and the XV-104 Riptide styles.

2. Chinork warkopta.
FW taking the ork "built from junk" aesthetic way too far. The thing looks like it was literally made of junk, with no two blades looking remotely alike, no interior, just a flat plate with some wings and fins holding up the rotors. And the stupid looking bike chain between the front and rear rotor.

3. current Greater Daemons (minus Tzeentch)
The Bloodthirster, Keeper of Secrets, and GUO may have been fine for their time, but they are rather hideous and oddly sad looking models. The Lord of Change and Fateweaver models look decent still, if they could be a bit larger, but the other three are jokes compared to more modern models- FWs exalted daemons, GWs own plastic balrog, and ultraforge/creature casters offerings. GW needs to put them out of their misery with new plastic GDs with parts for the named versions included.

4. Haruspex
The Exocrine looks great. The alternate build, not so much. The one on the website looks like someone just shot it and it's head exploded.

5. Grimnar's sleigh
It's not a bad kit, and Grimnar looks good. It's just that the sleigh and wolves pulling it look like they fit better with warmahordes than they do 40K. It has a more exaggerated, cartoonish looking feel that fits with many of the PP models I have seen.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 08:19:44


Post by: angelofvengeance


You can probably source some guardswomen from an indie studio some place? I've seen a few good ones (without boob armour plating)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Azza007 wrote:
1) Vespids, have never liked the look or idea of them.
2) Landspeeders, hate putting them together and they just frustrate me in feel.
3) Mephiston, definitely in need of an update.
4) Same goes for Ragnar.
5) Hive/Tyrant Guard. Look shocking to me.

Dislike things such as Dreadknight and Centurions etc but seeing as they have been mentioned so much thought would add some new ones.


If you don't like Mephiston's model you could always source his Calistarius model from Space Hulk


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 14:52:31


Post by: Lynata


angelofvengeance wrote:You can probably source some guardswomen from an indie studio some place? I've seen a few good ones (without boob armour plating)
Back when Necromunda was still around, GW recommended buying Escher minis. The 3E IG Codex had the all-female Xenonian Free Companies as a sample regiment, and they used the Escher design for their looks.
There also used to be a female Catachan back in the good ole' days of cheap metal, but for some reason she didn't make the change into plastics.

Spoiler:
official minis, OOP by now


As for the female Catachan Guardswomen that Codex fluff says are part of the shock troops, there used to be one or two neat conversion kits around, but I think they got into legal trouble with GW.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 15:19:43


Post by: Bakedbeans


Aspects

1. Flyers
2. Randomness
3. How they handled the Necron's new fluff
4. Not being able to create your own characters
5. Forced into having a pistol and chainsword (IG)

Aesthetics

1. Most of the new models from 6th on words
2. Tau Crisis suits and kin
3. Dark Eldar sail barges
4. The size of the Leman Russ
5. Too much detail on models



Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 15:49:23


Post by: Davespil


1. Witch Hunters/Inquisition - They look silly and terrible.
2. Flyers - They look silly, specifically the SM ones.
3. Squats - Sure, they don't exist anymore but they were horrible looking. Good on GW to put them out of their misery.
4. Eldar Gardians/Dire Avengers - Hate their helmets.
5. Leaders without a helmet - Put your damn helmet on, your in combat! I don't care how important you think you are.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 15:55:15


Post by: MWHistorian


 Davespil wrote:
1. Witch Hunters/Inquisition - They look silly and terrible.
2. Flyers - They look silly, specifically the SM ones.
3. Squats - Sure, they don't exist anymore but they were horrible looking. Good on GW to put them out of their misery.
4. Eldar Gardians/Dire Avengers - Hate their helmets.
5. Leaders without a helmet - Put your damn helmet on, your in combat! I don't care how important you think you are.

#5, definitely. I always modeled my leaders with helmets. That's where all your tactical data comes in, why on Earth wouldn't you have your danged helmet on?


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 15:57:07


Post by: gianlucafiorentini123


 MWHistorian wrote:
 Davespil wrote:
1. Witch Hunters/Inquisition - They look silly and terrible.
2. Flyers - They look silly, specifically the SM ones.
3. Squats - Sure, they don't exist anymore but they were horrible looking. Good on GW to put them out of their misery.
4. Eldar Gardians/Dire Avengers - Hate their helmets.
5. Leaders without a helmet - Put your damn helmet on, your in combat! I don't care how important you think you are.

#5, definitely. I always modeled my leaders with helmets. That's where all your tactical data comes in, why on Earth wouldn't you have your danged helmet on?


If it gets damaged.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 16:33:50


Post by: Troike


Hmm. To be honest, I don't find anything all that offensive. Generally, I think that each army's models do a good job of playing to their army's respective aethetics.

Though I will also say lack of female representation if we're counting that as an "aesthetic" issue. Also, the Space Wolves can get a bit silly with the whole viking/wolf aesthetic, at times. The hover-sled being pulled by two wolves is probably the epitome of this.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 17:46:03


Post by: iGuy91


5. Sisters need a re-work, badly
4. I prefer a more streamlined cybernetics look, in fluff pics, cybernetics, even good ones, look very very rough.
3 Tyranids, I feel like they ought to be a melee focused army, and should look more the part.
2. Imperial Flyers, other than the Vendetta and Valk, they are in no way aerodynamic, and shouldn't even be able to fly.
1. Tau, their streamlined look feels, and looks, out of place in this grimy, dark setting, esp with the japanese aesthetic their armor brings to the table.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 18:03:57


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 iGuy91 wrote:

4. I prefer a more streamlined cybernetics look, in fluff pics, cybernetics, even good ones, look very very rough.


Isn't that the theme though? Imperial Tech is meant to look rough and industrialized.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 18:05:57


Post by: vipoid


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Isn't that the theme though? Imperial Tech is meant to look rough and industrialized.


But, if that's the case, shouldn't it extend beyond cybernetics?


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 18:47:55


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 vipoid wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Isn't that the theme though? Imperial Tech is meant to look rough and industrialized.


But, if that's the case, shouldn't it extend beyond cybernetics?


It...does?
I mean, I wouldn't call a dreadnought nor a sentinel sophisticated. I mean, they have exhaust pipes jutting out of them.
The only other race that uses exhaust pipes are Orks.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Imperial Aesthetic. It has a nice baroque-gothic-industrial thing going for it. It's certainly ugly, but it's an cool sort of ugly


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 19:29:34


Post by: Breng77


1.) Unhelmeted heads-never really made sense to me. So we have guys with super armor, running around with their head exposed (I get it for variety but still). The fact that you can mount an unhelmented guy on the dreadknight seems super dumb to me.

2.)The Dreadknight- dumb design with the guy riding on the front. The centurion design is a little better, and a combination of the two would be better overall.

3.)Bad Naming conventions - Blood Angels getting Blood Everything, Space Wolves getting Wolf or Frost everything etc. I mean can we get some creativity please.

4.)Poor Scale- 10 marines are supposed to fit in a Rhino? Really seems a bit tight to me, same with the drop pod, basically all vehicles seem way out of scale.

5.)Lack of female miniatures in general- I get the no female space marine thing kind of due to fluff, but IG, Eldar, Tau...all could use female sculpts of models.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 19:36:25


Post by: soomemafia


 Davespil wrote:
2. Flyers - They look silly, specifically the SM ones.

Not all of them, the Vendetta actually looks like it could stay in the air. (It also isn't designed to be a METAL BAWKS like the rest of the Imperial flyers).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote:
4.)Poor Scale- 10 marines are supposed to fit in a Rhino? Really seems a bit tight to me, same with the drop pod, basically all vehicles seem way out of scale.

I remember seeing a Rhino IRL for the first time. I must say, I was extremely disappointed to see that cute little tank that could maybe hold two Marines if they were really close to each other


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 19:39:39


Post by: Red Marine


Skulls. All the damn skulls. Theres so many on IoM stuff it makes them look like FB Undead armys.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 21:09:47


Post by: Dshrike


Breng77 wrote:
4.)Poor Scale- 10 marines are supposed to fit in a Rhino? Really seems a bit tight to me, same with the drop pod, basically all vehicles seem way out of scale.


They have to it nut to butt style!

Would probably be one of the most claustrophobic things I could imagine.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 21:17:00


Post by: tyrannosaurus


1. Mutilators
2. Dinofiends
3. Helchicken
4. Helbrutes
5. New Raptors

Not really a fan of the newer chaos models - GW managed to completely kill my enthusiasm for chaos marines with awful models and a bland codex [again] :(



Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 21:29:03


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


This is my new favorite horse to beat

Spoiler:


It's just so silly!
It pretty much encapsulates everything wrong about the Space Wolves aesthetic.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 21:33:04


Post by: tyrannosaurus


Strange, I absolutely love that model, best thing GW have done in ages and one of the few things I would consider buying just because; but so much hate for it...


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 21:34:44


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


Then buy it.
I find it absolutely silly, even by SW standards, but I do admit it is kind of endearing. Like a puppy that still hasn't quite gotten the hang of walking yet.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 21:37:28


Post by: Psienesis


It's because it's stupid.

It has jets... and yet is pulled by sled-dogs? Also, it floats, so it's an anti-grav vehicle.

One or the other, Logan. Either have dogs pull your sleigh, or fly it like the anti-grav vehicle it is. You could even free one hand for shooting.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 21:40:24


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Psienesis wrote:
It's because it's stupid.

It has jets... and yet is pulled by sled-dogs? Also, it floats, so it's an anti-grav vehicle.

One or the other, Logan. Either have dogs pull your sleigh, or fly it like the anti-grav vehicle it is. You could even free one hand for shooting.


I think the problem is that's not silly enough.
The dogs should be under the sled, and they should have jetpacks and goggles.
Logan should have an electric guitar and be throwing up the horns, with lightning bolts around him. Because lightning is a viking thing, right?

You'd think the best model company in the world would know how to go all out silly and stupidly awesome.
Instead we get half-silly and stupid.

On a more serious note, does anyone else think that the sled just looks too small? I mean, shouldn't it be bigger? Logan absolutely dwarfs it, making it look even more awkward.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 21:44:44


Post by: Arbitrator


Thunder Wolf Cavalry.
Stormwolves.
Stormrider (notice a trend?)
Centurions.
Catachans.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 21:54:31


Post by: vipoid


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

It...does?
I mean, I wouldn't call a dreadnought nor a sentinel sophisticated. I mean, they have exhaust pipes jutting out of them.
The only other race that uses exhaust pipes are Orks.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Imperial Aesthetic. It has a nice baroque-gothic-industrial thing going for it. It's certainly ugly, but it's an cool sort of ugly


But, in that case, isn't SM armour a bit too... smooth? If you see what I mean.

It just seems an odd contrast when we have unsophisticated-looking dreadnoughts, and cybernetics that are almost Orky... yet SM armour is perfectly rounded and smooth.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 21:59:49


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 vipoid wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

It...does?
I mean, I wouldn't call a dreadnought nor a sentinel sophisticated. I mean, they have exhaust pipes jutting out of them.
The only other race that uses exhaust pipes are Orks.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Imperial Aesthetic. It has a nice baroque-gothic-industrial thing going for it. It's certainly ugly, but it's an cool sort of ugly


But, in that case, isn't SM armour a bit too... smooth? If you see what I mean.

It just seems an odd contrast when we have unsophisticated-looking dreadnoughts, and cybernetics that are almost Orky... yet SM armour is perfectly rounded and smooth.


That's because SM armor comes from a time when engineers knew how to make rounded edges
Pre-heresy stuff tends to look smoother. It looks aethestically different to me, anyway.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 21:59:52


Post by: SkavenLord


In no order:

- ALL the non-FW flyers except maybe the Ork ones. They either look a little out of place for me (Eldar, Tau, Dark Eldar) or just look silly (The Imperium's flying shoeboxes, Necron green burnt croissants, and the mix of tyranid pelican- I mean Harpies and Hellturkeys.

- I wouldn't mind the Grimnar sled if it were more Radaghast-ish and less floating blue fruit bowl with wolves.

- Grey Knight baby carriages.

- Bloodthirster. I actually like the non-FW daemon models, (especially daemon princes) but this one just doesn't look threatening at all. It looks like it's going to whine at the enemy.

- Lord of Skulls. I DO like the idea of a centaur-ish mech, but this looks like the khornate cousin of that robot from The Jetsons.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 22:00:44


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


The scythes aren't that silly. Unless you count the exposed cockpit.
Seriously, what the feth?


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 22:03:33


Post by: SkavenLord


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The scythes aren't that silly. Unless you count the exposed cockpit.
Seriously, what the feth?


Yeah. Good point. I suppose they give off a sort of slick feel to them.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 22:09:23


Post by: vipoid


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

That's because SM armor comes from a time when engineers knew how to make rounded edges
Pre-heresy stuff tends to look smoother. It looks aethestically different to me, anyway.


Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining that.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 22:23:05


Post by: Lynata


CthuluIsSpy wrote:That's because SM armor comes from a time when engineers knew how to make rounded edges
Pre-heresy stuff tends to look smoother. It looks aethestically different to me, anyway.
A-... are you sure?

Spoiler:



Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 22:24:47


Post by: vipoid


 Lynata wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:That's because SM armor comes from a time when engineers knew how to make rounded edges
Pre-heresy stuff tends to look smoother. It looks aethestically different to me, anyway.
A-... are you sure?

Spoiler:



I'll be seeing those 3 in my nightmares tonight...


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 22:25:53


Post by: Lynata


vipoid wrote:I'll be seeing those 3 in my nightmares tonight...
You're welcome!


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 22:32:14


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Lynata wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:That's because SM armor comes from a time when engineers knew how to make rounded edges
Pre-heresy stuff tends to look smoother. It looks aethestically different to me, anyway.
A-... are you sure?

Spoiler:



Compared to the metal tracked boxes, metal walking box with guns and metal flying boxes, yes, yes I am sure.
Also, those models are old. The FW versions are a fairer example





Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 22:34:39


Post by: vipoid


 Lynata wrote:
A-... are you sure?

Spoiler:



The first time I saw this, I missed the two at the bottom.

That blue guy should really have a guitar.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 22:39:30


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 vipoid wrote:
 Lynata wrote:
A-... are you sure?

Spoiler:



The first time I saw this, I missed the two at the bottom.

That blue guy should really have a guitar.


Heh, funny you should mention that...



This is an old noise marine. The true form of noise marine.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 23:12:58


Post by: Lynata


CthuluIsSpy wrote:Also, those models are old. The FW versions are a fairer example
They may be old (2009, and still in the online store), but they're GW's take on them, same as GW also designed Elysians in a different way to FW.
Besides, even the FW minis on that photo look more boxy and edgy (heh) than, say, MK VII armour.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:This is an old noise marine. The true form of noise marine.
I still like that one more than the current incarnation.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/17 23:54:59


Post by: Dshrike




Needs Drummer Marines.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/18 00:03:40


Post by: Veteran Sergeant


CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Pre-heresy stuff tends to look smoother. It looks aethestically different to me, anyway.
Except for Mk II-IV armor, which looks like how you'd build power armor if you didn't have the technology to actually build power armor, lol.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/18 00:18:51


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 vipoid wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

It...does?
I mean, I wouldn't call a dreadnought nor a sentinel sophisticated. I mean, they have exhaust pipes jutting out of them.
The only other race that uses exhaust pipes are Orks.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Imperial Aesthetic. It has a nice baroque-gothic-industrial thing going for it. It's certainly ugly, but it's an cool sort of ugly


But, in that case, isn't SM armour a bit too... smooth? If you see what I mean.

It just seems an odd contrast when we have unsophisticated-looking dreadnoughts, and cybernetics that are almost Orky... yet SM armour is perfectly rounded and smooth.


The only thing I see smooth on Marines are the shoulder pads. The joints look like a post-industrial chainmail, and the rest of the armor looks like a post-industrial plate armor.

Also, if everything else in the imperium is clunky and mechanical, then maybe the problem is the Marines, rather than the everything else.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/18 16:45:22


Post by: Bakedbeans


I went back through the posts and tallied them by army.

Squats 1 General
Dark Angels 3 Vehicles and Robes
Blood Angels 3 Sanguine Guard, Mesto, and Naming conventions
Orks 6 General and Junk theme
Sisters 8 General
Necrons 8 General, Drivers
Eldar 8 Helmets, Wraithknight
Dark Eldar 9 General
Chaos M. 9 Too much Detail, Dino-machines general
Tau 15 Crisis Suits, General
Grey Knights 18 Dreadknight, General
Nids 18 Ranged Weapons, General
Demons 19 General, Lord of Skulls
Space M. 22 Centurions Scale, Too much Detail
IG 29 Taurox, Lack of Females, Catachan
Space W. 28 Logan, Wolves, Flyer
Other 51 Skulls, Lack of Females, Scale, Imperial Flyers, New Models in General



Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/19 01:16:10


Post by: OgreChubbs


This is kind of a funny thread . Tell me I am not the only one who noticed how fickle you folk are.

Page 1 I hate A and B and C but love 1 and 2 and 3

Page 2 I hate 1 and 2 and 3 But love A and B and C

Followed by both sides saying who would buy these crap models

So looks like gamesworkshop knows how to sell models to everyone after all.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/19 03:33:39


Post by: MajorStoffer


1) Skulls. They're freaking insane on GW product. the buildings are covered in them, the trenches are covered in them, the armour is covered in them. Are we sure the Imperium isn't actually Khornate?

FW seems to understand insignia; skulls are rare (Death Korps Grenadier facemasks, some insignia on 40k Marines, but nowhere near GW equivalents) and the 30k ones have very nice tasteful insignia, such as Unifcation Wars honours embellished on a chestpiece here, a lightning bolt there, a legion specific marking on a gauntlet or helmet, nothing insane like, say, Sternguard.

2) Space Wolves. I've been following 40k since grade school (would have been 2nd edition I think, my memory is fuzzy and I don't have the books from then), and once upon a time Space Wolves were okay. They were space vikings, and the worst thing you could really say was their amount of facial hair wouldn't work in a helmet. Big whoop, artistic license.

Now we've got wolves riding wolves with wolf escorts lead by Wolf Wolfborn backed up by Murderfang's murderclaws and murderlust from the world of murdercide.

feth spacewolves. They're everything wrong with 40k faction design by GeeDubs.

3) Model scale. Vehicles are 1/56, infantry are sort-of 1/48 with heads at 1/35 and guns at, hell, 1/2. Tiny tanks with massive gun barrels and infantry with normal bodies and bobbleheads, and helmetless guys having heads as large as their comrades' helmets bother me. Some factions are better than others on that front, and newer infantry models are certainly better on scale; the Dark Eldar range has pretty solid scaling, and marines, provided their all helmeted are alright as well, though too short to match their fluff descriptions, but look at a Catachan, Cadian or Eldar Failcast models and it's awful at anything more than 2-3 feet away. The vehicle thing isn't unique to GW, so I'm willing to be slightly more forgiving, but somewhat ironically, whereas the infantry kits have been getting better over time for scale, the vehicles are actually getting worse. the Taurox is an abomination of shapes and scales, while the Hammerhead and Piranha, despite being a decade old, actually seem to match Tau infantry scale. I don't get it.

I'll stick to my sexy Death Korps with human proportions, or my Victoria Miniatures' Not Praetorians for heroic scale done right.

4) Naming conventions. I think this is the most evident bleedover from fantasy, but nothing in 40k makes any sense from a naming standpoint. Why is it every Imperial subfaction has their own missile type with their chief adjective in front of it? Blood missiles, Psy-Shock Missiles, Frost Missiles, alongside Blood Claws and Blood Talons and Frost Claws and Frost Axes and Nemesis Force ____. I recall the older vehicle kits having thigns like "Mk. XXVII Basilisk" and things like that on it, a little bit of recognition we're actually in a Sci-Fi setting where the powers that be, at least for humans (and Tau, as it were) like alpha-numeric designations for ease of recognition alongside flavourful nicknames.

It's a little thing, but I'd like to see more recognition of things like the a Bolter not just being a "Bolter," but a Godwyn Pattern .998 Boltgun, or the Cadian lasgun being the Mk. XI Accatran Lasgun or whatever. A veneer of realism, or connection to reality or established elements of sci-fi, even in fluff text only, can go a long way, even if applied only sparingly. And the codexes and rulebook have been hacking that back more and more in favour of fanciful, unimaginative fantasy names for things. To this day, if I hear someone wanting to play Guard, I hand them the 4th edition codex; that will make you interested in the Guard, their myriad of regiments, variations of wargear and approaches to warfare, not this bland, boring, hollow 6th edition codex.

5) Not purely aesthetic, but related to it; the fundamental divorce between fluff and the game. 40k succeeds in spite of its bad ruleset and horrendously incompetent and spiteful company because of the setting. Space Marines are awesome, the Imperial Guard is awesome, Orks are mind-blowingly awesome, the universe is rich, huge, complicated, messy and full of stories to uncover and create for yourself. Maybe its time the game actually reflect that; people want their Chaos Legions, people want their Chapters (their the only ones to get any kind of satisfaction, and I fething love that my Minotaurs are actually Minotaurs with the rules to represent them), people want their Imperial Guard Reimgents, Craftworlds, Kabals, Klans, Hive Fleets, Septs. They want Space Marine "armies" of a dozen dudes fighting off many times their number, an endless horde of Tyranids coating the battlefield in a tide of chitinous horror, of twisted champions of the Dark Gods tearing apart all who stand before them. This can be done, with effort and dedicated you could very well balance it (video games have been doing it for ages) . Playing 40k rarely feels anything like the fluff, and that is, to me, the biggest thematic weakness in 40k.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/19 09:58:31


Post by: vipoid


One thing that really irritates me is that models are supposed to be WISIWIG... yet GW makes this as difficult as possible.

For example, what if I want my IG CCS to have 3 plasmaguns and a vox caster. Well, I can't, because the pack only comes with one plasmagun. Likewise, one meltagun, one sniper rifle, one flamer, one Heavy Flamer.

Worse still, the IG infantry packs don't contain a single plasmagun or meltagun. And, bear in mind that these are also supposed to be the models for Veterans - who can take 3 special weapons per squad.

Why am I being charged premium prices (almost £2 per model for guardsmen) for boxes that don't even include all the available weapons - let alone sufficient quantities of them?

Also, while I'm complaining, why is the Power Fist on the right arm when all other melee weapons are on the left? It seems to be there purely to screw over anyone who might want a power fist and a pistol.

 MajorStoffer wrote:

5) Not purely aesthetic, but related to it; the fundamental divorce between fluff and the game. 40k succeeds in spite of its bad ruleset and horrendously incompetent and spiteful company because of the setting. Space Marines are awesome, the Imperial Guard is awesome, Orks are mind-blowingly awesome, the universe is rich, huge, complicated, messy and full of stories to uncover and create for yourself. Maybe its time the game actually reflect that; people want their Chaos Legions, people want their Chapters (their the only ones to get any kind of satisfaction, and I fething love that my Minotaurs are actually Minotaurs with the rules to represent them), people want their Imperial Guard Reimgents, Craftworlds, Kabals, Klans, Hive Fleets, Septs. They want Space Marine "armies" of a dozen dudes fighting off many times their number, an endless horde of Tyranids coating the battlefield in a tide of chitinous horror, of twisted champions of the Dark Gods tearing apart all who stand before them. This can be done, with effort and dedicated you could very well balance it (video games have been doing it for ages) . Playing 40k rarely feels anything like the fluff, and that is, to me, the biggest thematic weakness in 40k.


Agreed.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/19 12:05:59


Post by: Lynata


MajorStoffer wrote:a Godwyn Pattern .998 Boltgun
Nitpick: Those are actually two distinct models. I've seen a lot of people assume the latter is a calibre. It's not. The original source says "model 998 boltgun", and it has the same standardised .75 cal as every other boltgun.

Also, don't we already have different bolter and lasgun patterns in the fluff? Just from GW's own books and off the top of my head, I remember names like Godwyn, Godwyn-De'az, Mars, Necromunda, Triplex, ... what exactly are you asking for here?

MajorStoffer wrote:40k succeeds in spite of its bad ruleset and horrendously incompetent and spiteful company because of the setting. Space Marines are awesome, the Imperial Guard is awesome, Orks are mind-blowingly awesome, the universe is rich, huge, complicated, messy and full of stories to uncover and create for yourself. Maybe its time the game actually reflect that; people want their Chaos Legions, people want their Chapters (their the only ones to get any kind of satisfaction, and I fething love that my Minotaurs are actually Minotaurs with the rules to represent them), people want their Imperial Guard Reimgents, Craftworlds, Kabals, Klans, Hive Fleets, Septs. They want Space Marine "armies" of a dozen dudes fighting off many times their number, an endless horde of Tyranids coating the battlefield in a tide of chitinous horror, of twisted champions of the Dark Gods tearing apart all who stand before them. This can be done, with effort and dedicated you could very well balance it (video games have been doing it for ages) . Playing 40k rarely feels anything like the fluff, and that is, to me, the biggest thematic weakness in 40k.
Well, if you just want big battles, I'd recommend trying to get into Epic40k. This is really where the setting shines. Traditional 40k TT is just skirmishes, Epic is about the battles! GW having stopped to support this game really sucks, but I suppose the skirmishes were just more popular because the player feels closer to the action with the bigger models.

If, on the other hand, you're asking for the exaggerated Movie Marine rules where your 12 models faceroll through an entire army, I'm pretty sure this is only fun for the one playing them. You can't have everyone win here, and I'm pretty sure that this "awesome" Imperial Guard regiment or Ork tribe stops feeling so awesome if they get pwned by a couple dudes with Black Library-style plot armour. Not to mention that this would homogenise the armies even more. Who would actually invest thousands of dollars into that "tide of chitinous horror" just to get to the same points cost as your one Marine squad, whose faction already benefits from constant exposure? Is a 50% "market share" not enough?


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/19 13:46:00


Post by: MWHistorian


 Lynata wrote:
MajorStoffer wrote:a Godwyn Pattern .998 Boltgun
Nitpick: Those are actually two distinct models. I've seen a lot of people assume the latter is a calibre. It's not. The original source says "model 998 boltgun", and it has the same standardised .75 cal as every other boltgun.

Also, don't we already have different bolter and lasgun patterns in the fluff? Just from GW's own books and off the top of my head, I remember names like Godwyn, Godwyn-De'az, Mars, Necromunda, Triplex, ... what exactly are you asking for here?

MajorStoffer wrote:40k succeeds in spite of its bad ruleset and horrendously incompetent and spiteful company because of the setting. Space Marines are awesome, the Imperial Guard is awesome, Orks are mind-blowingly awesome, the universe is rich, huge, complicated, messy and full of stories to uncover and create for yourself. Maybe its time the game actually reflect that; people want their Chaos Legions, people want their Chapters (their the only ones to get any kind of satisfaction, and I fething love that my Minotaurs are actually Minotaurs with the rules to represent them), people want their Imperial Guard Reimgents, Craftworlds, Kabals, Klans, Hive Fleets, Septs. They want Space Marine "armies" of a dozen dudes fighting off many times their number, an endless horde of Tyranids coating the battlefield in a tide of chitinous horror, of twisted champions of the Dark Gods tearing apart all who stand before them. This can be done, with effort and dedicated you could very well balance it (video games have been doing it for ages) . Playing 40k rarely feels anything like the fluff, and that is, to me, the biggest thematic weakness in 40k.
Well, if you just want big battles, I'd recommend trying to get into Epic40k. This is really where the setting shines. Traditional 40k TT is just skirmishes, Epic is about the battles! GW having stopped to support this game really sucks, but I suppose the skirmishes were just more popular because the player feels closer to the action with the bigger models.

If, on the other hand, you're asking for the exaggerated Movie Marine rules where your 12 models faceroll through an entire army, I'm pretty sure this is only fun for the one playing them. You can't have everyone win here, and I'm pretty sure that this "awesome" Imperial Guard regiment or Ork tribe stops feeling so awesome if they get pwned by a couple dudes with Black Library-style plot armour. Not to mention that this would homogenise the armies even more. Who would actually invest thousands of dollars into that "tide of chitinous horror" just to get to the same points cost as your one Marine squad, whose faction already benefits from constant exposure? Is a 50% "market share" not enough?

I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about winning every time. In fact, most battles are supposed to seem desperate and come down to the line. They're saying that Marines don't feel like marines from the fluff. In the game they're kind of useless and can't do much but be expensive objective holders. They'd rather spend more points for fewer but tougher marines that make the player feel like they're in the game. As it is, it just doesn't feel like that at all. No one said anything about steam rolling their opponent.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/19 14:49:46


Post by: Lynata


MWHistorian wrote:I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about winning every time. In fact, most battles are supposed to seem desperate and come down to the line. They're saying that Marines don't feel like marines from the fluff. In the game they're kind of useless and can't do much but be expensive objective holders. They'd rather spend more points for fewer but tougher marines that make the player feel like they're in the game. As it is, it just doesn't feel like that at all. No one said anything about steam rolling their opponent.
How exactly would you realise that, though, whilst still avoiding the issues I listed?

Plus, the fluff provides many different interpretations of Marine toughness - are we talking GW Marines, Black Library Marines, FFG Marines, etc ...

The problem is that everyone wants to feel awesome. And in a game like this, everyone deserves to feel awesome, because feeling awesome is fun. However, that is obviously an issue all by itself - as the saying goes, "if everyone is special, no one is". To make one party feel more awesome would automatically include making the opposing party less awesome. I'm sure it would be possible for some armies in the game, but even those would require a re-work of their fluff to give greater emphasis on how much all their troops suck and that they only have a chance because of numbers. Even the Imperial Guard isn't presented that way. Everyone has at least one elite/special/veteran/whatever unit that goes against such stigma!


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/19 18:03:20


Post by: MajorStoffer


There are a number of hurdles GW would have to surmount to actually make the game represent the fluff. The business model makes asymmetrical balance more challenging; in a video game having a couple tough marines against a horde of orks is easy enough to do because no one is paying a price per model in real world money to do so, but who's to say GW couldn't rejigger their prices to fit that model? Their cost of production is virtually nil (back in the day, GW employees paid for models by their weight, they cost so little to produce).

Balancing fluffier armies just wouldn't be difficult from a gameplay standpoint if your points system works, it'd require more testing and effort than I think GW could do, but is by no means the biggest hurdle. If they designed the game so that a 1500 point army cost X dollars no matter the faction, you could do whatever you wanted balance wise, and still make money, and not encourage one army over another for financial reasons as occurs now. GW already does this within model ranges; Terminators, Sternguard, Warriors, Crisis Suits; these require no more plastic nor cost to produce than Cadians or Tactical Marines, but their greater game impact and player need for less of them means higher prices.

GW couldn't just swap the ruleset to make more powerful marines (they don't need to fit one author's interpretation 100%, but they're just expensive cannon fodder under the current rules, which is a massive immersion breaker. The abominable Dawn of War books are the only place they're as disposable as the tabletop), swarm tyranids which are actually attractive vs big stompy bugs and diversity within a codex like they had in the 4th and 3.5 books, that's just part of what would need to be done for my "ideal" 40k to work. They'd need re-done pricing and/or box contents (say, every troop kit is $40, but should represent similar points values, so 10 tac marines, 30 Guardsmen, 20 Guardians, etc) alongside the rules changes.

It'll never happen under the current GW business approach, but I can dream can't I? I don't think anyone really wants more bland codexes divorced from the setting with fodder marines and Guard toting around more firepower than Terminators and Tyranid armies completely devoid of Termagants and Hormagaunts if they can avoid it, to say nothing of Codex Heldrake and Cultists.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/19 18:05:22


Post by: MWHistorian


 Lynata wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about winning every time. In fact, most battles are supposed to seem desperate and come down to the line. They're saying that Marines don't feel like marines from the fluff. In the game they're kind of useless and can't do much but be expensive objective holders. They'd rather spend more points for fewer but tougher marines that make the player feel like they're in the game. As it is, it just doesn't feel like that at all. No one said anything about steam rolling their opponent.
How exactly would you realise that, though, whilst still avoiding the issues I listed?

Plus, the fluff provides many different interpretations of Marine toughness - are we talking GW Marines, Black Library Marines, FFG Marines, etc ...

The problem is that everyone wants to feel awesome. And in a game like this, everyone deserves to feel awesome, because feeling awesome is fun. However, that is obviously an issue all by itself - as the saying goes, "if everyone is special, no one is". To make one party feel more awesome would automatically include making the opposing party less awesome. I'm sure it would be possible for some armies in the game, but even those would require a re-work of their fluff to give greater emphasis on how much all their troops suck and that they only have a chance because of numbers. Even the Imperial Guard isn't presented that way. Everyone has at least one elite/special/veteran/whatever unit that goes against such stigma!

Make marines fewer in number but tougher? I don't know. I was just trying to say what I thought the other guy was talking about because I felt that you had misunderstood.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/19 18:32:26


Post by: Veteran Sergeant


Yeah, it's not hard. You make a version of the rules that doesn't render the Space Marines less resilient and capable.

I mean, the term "GW Marines" is fairly irrelevant if we're talking about game stats. The toughness of Space Marines on the tabletop has fluctuated as the rules have changed. They get tougher, then costlier in points, then weaker, then cheaper. In 2nd Edition they were the only troops that could rapid fire. Then everyone could rapid fire. Their armor save was fairly impressive at one time, then it was largely negated by most elites and heavies.

The reason why Space Marines aren't good on the tabletop is simply one of economics, lol. If you only needed 20 of them, you would only buy 20-30 of them. And Space Marines keep this whole thing afloat. On the flip side, who would buy 200 Tyranids or IGuard or Orks when the other guy buys the Strike Force box and is done?

We'll never see an "accurate" depiction of Space Marines (or any other faction) on the tabletop because that would spell doom for Games Workshop.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/19 18:36:45


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


What they could do is make the marines themselves stronger, but make them rely on non-marine elements that you have to buy (like, you need 3 non-marine infantry units for every marine unit or some nonsense like that)

Something like Astartes Auxilia (something I made up, not in current fluff, obviously)- Chapter Serfs that help out the Space Marines in combat.

Sort of like the IG, except these guys would be closer to the chapter and as such get slightly better gear and training.

Gameplay wise, they could be like stormtroopers with boltguns.

This may require retcons though.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/19 18:44:44


Post by: Lynata


MWHistorian wrote:Make marines fewer in number but tougher? I don't know. I was just trying to say what I thought the other guy was talking about because I felt that you had misunderstood.
Sure, that's the intention, but it doesn't address the consequences. How would it affect other players' enjoyment of the game to see their units get outmatched so badly? I don't believe it's possible to portray both sides in a conflict as equally awesome unless you actually do portray them as being in close proximity.

There could also be an appeal in playing an obvious underdog who just zergs their enemy to death, but for that they'd have to change the fluff of said armies, as currently I don't think any existing official faction in 40k could fill this role. With the sole exception of a Valhallan pure infantry force, I suppose. Maybe Death Korps, too? But even Orks and 'nids would need a "nerf" to their organisation to get rid of the more powerful units.

MajorStoffer wrote:If they designed the game so that a 1500 point army cost X dollars no matter the faction, you could do whatever you wanted balance wise, and still make money, and not encourage one army over another for financial reasons as occurs now. GW already does this within model ranges; Terminators, Sternguard, Warriors, Crisis Suits; these require no more plastic nor cost to produce than Cadians or Tactical Marines, but their greater game impact and player need for less of them means higher prices.
This is true. Though I could see an appeal in fewer models also requiring less time (and tools) to paint, as well as upsized armies being more difficult to transport, which could also have an effect on purchases.

MajorStoffer wrote:every troop kit is $40, but should represent similar points values, so 10 tac marines, 30 Guardsmen, 20 Guardians, etc
That sounds very reasonable, actually, at least as far as my interpretation (shaped from GW's codex fluff) is concerned. I must apologise for the kneejerk-reaction - when people demand tougher Marines I'm used to debates about alleged small arms immunity and Movie Marines rules. Unfortunately I too can't see the company going for such a pricing model.

I still wish they'd bring back Epic 40k, though ...

Spoiler:






Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/19 18:48:33


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


Oh yeh, Epic looks like fun.
It has the scale of apocalypse, but without the logistical problems of needing an oversized table and 6 cases.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/20 09:15:41


Post by: Cowboy_Jerry


Well, both tyranids' and eldar guns look like sex toys. What a shame.
Agree, daemonettes became weird and unpleasant. And so are sisters' faces. Also, a herald or a greater daemon of Nurgle(don't remember for sure) looks like a shapeless piece of god-knows-what, most likely $#|T.
I personally don't like the set of gretchins. They are a lot worse than new gunz crew.
Tankbusta are too old-fashioned, they definitely must be redone.
That's for my opinion.



Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/20 09:28:50


Post by: Kelly502


Chaos Space Marines Terminators, and regular Marines. I don't like them because they are after all Space Marines, the detail in the Space Marines and Terminator armor on the plastic kits is amazing!! The Chaos Marines however... I wish they would update the kits!


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/20 10:24:08


Post by: Furyou Miko


Cowboy_Jerry wrote:
Well, both tyranids' and eldar guns look like sex toys.


All of a sudden I find myself gripped by terrified, morbid curiosity about your kinks if you think squirming, pulsing beetles covered in eyes and teeth look like sex toys.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/20 13:10:36


Post by: Blackhair Duckshape


5. Sobs of Battle: they really should take a page out of these power armoured ladies' books.

4. Dreadknights/Centurions for obvious reasons.

3. Eldar and their bulbous armour and garish/incoherent colour schemes.

2. Tyranid weapons.

1. DKOK and their everything.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/20 13:34:43


Post by: MeanGreenStompa






The hell is wrong with you... ?


Both the aesthetics of Sisters and the D men are entirely and perfectly suited to the 40k universe.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/20 14:35:22


Post by: Furyou Miko




... my boobs hurt just from watching that transformation sequence. No.

Just... no.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/20 14:51:30


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Furyou Miko wrote:


... my boobs hurt just from watching that transformation sequence. No.

Just... no.


Oh, you know you want it


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/20 14:58:11


Post by: Ratius


5. Sobs of Battle: they really should take a page out of these power armoured ladies' books.


You're kidding right


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/20 15:11:59


Post by: Lynata


Kill la Kill is pretty awesome, though.


But no. In 40k, that would be more appropriate for Chaos. Especially if you treat the kamui as a sort of daemonic armour.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/20 16:22:25


Post by: Veteran Sergeant


 Blackhair Duckshape wrote:
5. Sobs of Battle: they really should take a page out of these power armoured ladies' books.
What the hell did I just watch? I had to break the link just to ensure I'd have no part in redsitributing that nonsense.

You anime kiddos are weird.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/20 16:24:22


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
 Blackhair Duckshape wrote:
5. Sobs of Battle: they really should take a page out of these power armoured ladies' books.
What the hell did I just watch? I had to break the link just to ensure I'd have no part in redsitributing that nonsense.

You anime kiddos are weird.


You just watched a bit of a show that delves into the theme of how clothing can shape an identity. This show also has gratuitous amounts of fan service, for both men and women.
No really, that's what Kill La Kill is about. Look it up.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/20 16:26:31


Post by: Agent_Tremolo


 Furyou Miko wrote:


... my boobs hurt just from watching that transformation sequence. No.

Just... no.


My boobs hurt as well.

And I don't even have boobs :-/


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/20 16:32:43


Post by: Veteran Sergeant


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
 Blackhair Duckshape wrote:
5. Sobs of Battle: they really should take a page out of these power armoured ladies' books.
What the hell did I just watch? I had to break the link just to ensure I'd have no part in redsitributing that nonsense.

You anime kiddos are weird.


You just watched a bit of a show that delves into the theme of how clothing can shape an identity. This show also has gratuitous amounts of fan service, for both men and women.
No really, that's what Kill La Kill is about. Look it up.
Yeah, no. I'll take your word for it. I'm sure it might be more rewarding to try to discern patterns on my ceiling.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/20 16:39:26


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


It's actually a pretty fun show. It does follow it's own sort of logic though, like most anime shows.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
 Furyou Miko wrote:


... my boobs hurt just from watching that transformation sequence. No.

Just... no.


My boobs hurt as well.

And I don't even have boobs :-/


Nevermind the boobs...that poor crotch.
If she were a man she'd be instantly incapacitated...and it should already be quite uncomfortable.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/21 00:13:17


Post by: Furyou Miko


 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
 Blackhair Duckshape wrote:
5. Sobs of Battle: they really should take a page out of these power armoured ladies' books.
What the hell did I just watch? I had to break the link just to ensure I'd have no part in redsitributing that nonsense.

You anime kiddos are weird.


Don't lump me in with them...


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/21 08:20:17


Post by: Plumbumbarum


1. People saying Tyranids in this very thread.
2. Everything Eldar
3. Newcrons riding robots
4. Tau and Kroot except the new broadside and firewarriors
5. Single models like helldrake taurox GK walker etc

Btw people saying tyranids, my advice would be not to look at ones painted by GW as they have an incredible talent to ruin anything through a paintjob and their nids look very bad, I'd never have started them if it didn't see some guys nids in the shop.

Tydil wrote:
Also, I won't even get into the "StarCraft Zerg are better" because I know that will cause a huge argument...But I do think GW and Blizzard conspired to make this debate of who came first just to hide the fact that they are both ripping off Heinlein's Starship Troopers.


Well the debate is easy to settle - you can find every piece of zerg in 2nd edition tyranid codex or on other 40k models ie chaos snake, for 3rd edition GW just returned the favor ripping some unifided elements back except that, unlike crapy looking Americanish comicbooky zerg, they improved on the look.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/21 08:31:46


Post by: pax_imperialis


1. How does the Valkyrie hover? it has two very small jets at the wing tips, that in no way could boost the whole thing up. At least the stormtalon, ugly as it is, seems to have engines on pivots.

2. Centurions. Just.....Centurions

3. The general tendency for GW to make the treads on tanks follow the "over the hull" design like ww1 tanks.It's stupid and impractical.

4. The Taurox. Weapons that shoot the occupants as they disembark, and treads that have an impossibly vertical incline.

5. The generally disproportional gun barrel sizes. The Leman Russ is the worst example.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/21 10:18:59


Post by: Furyou Miko


The Valkyrie, I believe, is actually a vectored thrust aircraft like the Harrier. When entering hover mode, the entire output of those two massive engines on the top is redirected to the four wingtip fans. The narrow aperture on the wingtips increases the effective downthrust relative to the engine output.

It's still a stupid way to run a transport plane though. There's a reason the Osprey has props.

Seconding the disgust at the White Dwarf painting scheme, and I don't know where their photographer trained, but gods, man, I take better photos than you do and I was just the note-taker!


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/21 15:41:04


Post by: Lynata


Furyou Miko wrote: Don't lump me in with them...
Ah, come on. By current societal standards, we're all weird just based on this hobby alone.

pax_imperialis wrote:The general tendency for GW to make the treads on tanks follow the "over the hull" design like ww1 tanks.It's stupid and impractical.
I dunno, in a setting that has several armies whose main method of anti-tank warfare consists of climbing on top of them, I could see treads as being a somewhat effective countermeasure.
Not that I believe they actually considered such pros and cons when they were designing those IG tanks, though.

Furyou Miko wrote:It's still a stupid way to run a transport plane though. There's a reason the Osprey has props.
Isn't that just a question of technological innovation? The reason this was cancelled was just because the engines were considered too heavy for the lift they generated, making it a bad choice for a transport plane. Technology moves on, though, and lightweight materials, miniaturisation, and improved lift may easily render such engines a better choice in the future. The NASA approved of the Do 31, after all, and I figure they know their stuff.
We still use metal bullets propelled by gunpowder because right now there is no proper alternative, but already we can see how this will be replaced by lasers and railguns which are already on the horizon and whose basic principles are arguably sound.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/21 15:52:26


Post by: Furyou Miko


I suppose so, but there's also the fact that in terms of fuel efficiency, a straight-up VTOL is never going to be superior to a V/STOVL. The Valkyrie would be a much more reasonable aircraft (if you assume, as I do, that the wings on the 'real thing' have aerofoils), if it had wheels instead of skids.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/21 16:35:04


Post by: Atoragon


In no particular order...

5) Dreadknights, for the obvious, already stated, reasons. If they're going to keep with that, then at least give it a rule where I can shoot the f**k that's driving and hijack it after a he's dead.

4) The complete re-writing of the Necrons fluff.

3) The Rhino STC. I like fluff-wise ideology, but I think that GW just got lazy when designing models. I mean, come on, up until the Stalker/Hunter (which aren't that far off...) all SM tanks (except Land Raiders, of course) looked exactly the f***ing same save a turret. Hell, all the models are just Rhino models with an extra sprue.

2) Over-emphasis on Imperium, specially Space Marines. I like Marines, I play Marines, but goddamn, there's too much of them. How about some Xenos love, GW? Or are all of them there just so Space Marines can kill them in the fluff?

1) The Taurox. Absolutely hideous and an engineering blunder. Were the Techmarines/whomever on Mars that designed that thing high? Or were they too distracted by Toaster Sex Tuesday? The IG/AM player in my gaming group has one, and he's so horrified by it that he never uses it and is planning to take a hack saw, cut off those stupid tracks and glue the wheels from an Ork Trukk kit to it.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/21 18:38:52


Post by: Vigilant


Dreadknights...they look ridiculous. Like an action figure. They just don't fit with the other models. Another thing I kind of see wierd is Space Marine to Imperial Guard size. I feel as if the SM need to be larger. Terminators should be even larger too, in relation to regular IG humans.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/21 18:42:05


Post by: Furyou Miko


The Guardsmen models have long been criticised as being too large.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/21 18:44:46


Post by: vipoid


 Furyou Miko wrote:
The Guardsmen models have long been criticised as being too large.


Also, to judge by their faces, they're a race of angry potatoes.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/21 19:35:43


Post by: MajorStoffer


 vipoid wrote:
 Furyou Miko wrote:
The Guardsmen models have long been criticised as being too large.


Also, to judge by their faces, they're a race of angry potatoes.


Who will destroy you, for the glory of the Sontaran Empire.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/21 19:37:08


Post by: BrianDavion


Terminator Helmets.

they just look kinda stupid. when I put together some CSM termies I replaced all their helmets with standard power armor ones, they looked WAAAAY better


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/21 22:32:55


Post by: Da Mediokre Painta


The general proportions of Terminators and the ridiculously thin thighs that marines must have in order to fit in them. Regular power armour isn't that great but Terminator armour just looks horrible to me which is why I could only ever buy Tartaros or Cataphractii termies.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/21 23:36:02


Post by: flamingkillamajig


 Furyou Miko wrote:
 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
 Blackhair Duckshape wrote:
5. Sobs of Battle: they really should take a page out of these power armoured ladies' books.
What the hell did I just watch? I had to break the link just to ensure I'd have no part in redsitributing that nonsense.

You anime kiddos are weird.


Don't lump me in with them...


I have to agree about that hurting the women's crotches. Dear lord that must feel like the biggest wedgie of all time. I can only imagine how much it might dig into their erm crotch area and fall in O_O.

I also agree about otakus being the biggest closet perverts in the world. I mean i'm a huge pervert but i'm into regular stuff and not the weird BDSM or super closet pervert stuff of otakus. You guys make me blush and out-perv me and that's a f**king accomplishment right there.

--------------

Mostly aesthetically stupid things of 40k hmm. Well in more normal senses the centurion of course. I would say the assault centurion is pretty dumb but chest guns sound dumb even if boob guns are absolutely hilarious as well as stuff like 'c**k' rockets.

It makes sense but aesthetically i think rhinos look like shoe boxes mounted on treads.

Just gonna go out and say most of the space marines (and all the space marine factions including grey knights, chaos marines and all the sub-factions but not sisters because they're not marines and they haven't seen a release in forever because they're dead as an army and we all know it ;P and take that lynata and furyou miko) toys in general suck with the exception of maybe some of the older stuff.

The new tau stuff in general looks stupid (though their battlesuits were always too clunky to me) with the exception of the railgun broadside which looks interesting with the 8 bit guitar design of the railgun.

Some of the necron stuff from their older codex was also dumb (the ward dex). I liked the arks but the rest i dunno.

----------------

For me i just find what i like tends to be imperial guard, sisters of battle, any elf aesthetic (but not their attitude or mindset which is horrible and annoying respectively) so eldar and dark eldar, orks as well as the fantasy versions (or at least the goblin half) and the storm trooper army. For whatever reason GW are really, really good at making elves which would probably have given Tolkien the biggest fan b*ner ever.

One reason why i prefer warhammer fantasy is with the exception of some of the weird nagash models fantasy has a better production quality for their models. Models are either ok or great whereas with 40k they're horrible or great.

----------

@lynata: How do you hate the taurox or at least aesthetically? Granted the new stormtrooper army took some getting used to (if you can consider 3 different types of models an army) but i think both the stormtroopers and the taurox were absolutely fantastic looking. It wasn't love at first sight but eventually i liked it just like the storm talons for space marines (still a bit iffy how they have wings, a helicopter shape and then jets as it just looks a little weird but it's also cool surprisingly).


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 01:33:28


Post by: Lynata


flamingkillamajig wrote:@lynata: How do you hate the taurox or at least aesthetically? Granted the new stormtrooper army took some getting used to (if you can consider 3 different types of models an army) but i think both the stormtroopers and the taurox were absolutely fantastic looking. It wasn't love at first sight but eventually i liked it just like the storm talons for space marines (still a bit iffy how they have wings, a helicopter shape and then jets as it just looks a little weird but it's also cool surprisingly).
Well, if you'd like to hear my opinion, I don't "hate" it (that'd be a very strong emotion to have about it) - but I do think it looks bad. There are some cool ideas in this vehicle, but they are completely negated by the silly decision to give it those ridiculous "mini-tracks". It might have actually looked better if they had given those tracks a triangle shape (like with those snow-mobiles) or just made them longer, but the way they look now they ruin the whole design, as far as I'm concerned.

Better approach:
Spoiler:

This wheeled conversion doesn't look bad either:
Spoiler:

It's a shame, really, for as I said there is a cool idea behind it all (I'm biased towards the boxy Sundy-like look ), it was just dreadfully executed. Although it is in line with the recent releases (Dreadknights, DEldar, Space Wolf Santa...), which only makes me even more sceptical of a potential rework of the SoB than I was before.
Thankfully, GW apparently doesn't touch SoB with a 10 foot pole, so the original look remains preserved.

As for the Storm Troopers, I do not like them either. Although here it is just the change (meaning, the old ones just look better; the new ones are an obvious technological step back), and my opinion that their uberheavy and rigid kit doesn't suit their task (there's a reason WW1 Storm Troopers threw off their armour when they were storming a trench). The design by itself looks great! I just wish they'd have them as a normal IG regiment from some steampunk planet instead, because that's how they look like to me. A bit like with the DKoK, just a little more serious, so to say.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 01:44:06


Post by: Pyeatt


1. The fans.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 01:57:27


Post by: flamingkillamajig


@lynata: Well it turns out i read who said they hated tauroxes and being you when it wasn't. That said i think you dislike them and stormtroopers anyway. As i said it wasn't love at first sight but i grew to like them esp. given different colors. I also love the 'death camp' feel of the taurox. Very nice looking stuff indeed.

I wouldn't mind seeing bullgryns mounted in tauroxes myself.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 02:25:40


Post by: Lynata


flamingkillamajig wrote:@lynata: Well it turns out i read who said they hated tauroxes and being you when it wasn't.
Oh yeah, I actually haven't posted "my" list here yet. But if you insist:

1. Goddamn heels everywhere. More of a problem with artists in various licensed products (see FFG's RPG) ... except for GW's Mr. Blanche, who puts heels on everything.
2. Lack of female or even non-white male Imperials, especially in the Guard. The former is an issue of lack of minis, but I'd like to see some more variety amongst the men in the artworks, too. The Imperium is huge and varied in the fluff, it should be reflected in the minis and images.
3. Retroactive strengthening of formerly subtle themes in various armies, or even "stealing" assets from other armies in the course of this evolution. Example: The Dark Angels actually look more religious than the SoB now, and the Space Wolves have crossed the threshold between "tasteful" and "silly".
4. Dreadknight. Just ... no.
5. Taurox. There. I did it.

flamingkillamajig wrote:I also love the 'death camp' feel of the taurox. Very nice looking stuff indeed.
Absolutely. It's really just the mini-tracks that ruin it for me. As I said, it reminds me of the Terran Republic Sunderer, and I really love its boxy, rugged looks.

Spoiler:

Reminds me of the German Army's Dingo, too.

flamingkillamajig wrote:I wouldn't mind seeing bullgryns mounted in tauroxes myself.
Every time I read that newly made-up name I keep thinking "bull grins".


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 02:39:32


Post by: OldSkoolGoff


ImAGeek wrote:

- MkVII power armour, since the FW earlier mark armour came out I realised how much I don't like the plastic power armour kits.




The day they release MkVI plastic kits is the day I start a space marines army.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 03:56:31


Post by: flamingkillamajig


@lynata: Really? I just imagine bullgryns are more roided up versions of Bane from 'Dark Knight Rises'.

I'm still surprised you're a dude lynata considering some of the complaints you have. Some of your opinions or complaints seem very female in origin. You know like the 'high heels' for instance. Yeah it makes no sense but it just sounds like something a guy wouldn't complain over. Guess not all guys are as pervy as me .

Also i don't get some people actually thought 40k is too sexual with women. If anything 40k is one of the most sexually toned down universes i've seen with the exception of slaanesh and he's the prince of pleasure and excess and of all things they have noise marines instead of fap marines. Seriously they're more like obnoxious kids that have their music up too loud rather than people at rave parties.

More on topic i still don't get why people hate the taurox. Sure it wasn't love at first sight for me but i grew to love it. A death camp vehicle makes sense for the imperium esp. with storm troopers. Now if only storm troopers would get power mauls and combat shields or give them arbites with those things.

------------

I still say most of the bad models originate from the space marine armies, possibly tau, maybe necrons and maybe nids. Guard, eldar of all types and orks are fantastic looking. Nids and necrons have some decent models but i've never been into the bugs too much as it's just not my style. Seriously find a terrible looking elf model from GW. It'll be hard to find as they really do elves well of all things.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 11:22:54


Post by: Frozen Ocean


@flamingkillamajig Because clearly the only reasons someone would want female characters is because they are themselves female or because they want to "perv" over something? Part of equality is being, you know, equal. I'm a white male, but I very much desire 40k to expand its character base to include more than just white males. As for sexual, were the high heels and boob armour not good enough clues? I'd also like to mention that Slaanesh is not the "God of Sex", despite how hard people wish that it was. Slaanesh is about getting what you want, and being beautiful while you get it.

So yes, men can be feminists too. This is a good thing.

1 - Games Workshop often forgetting that there are more types of people than "white male". This extends beyond the Imperium, unless there is some particular reason why all of the Xenos have to be white (Eldar) and male (Eldar, Tau, Necrons) whenever applicable. The completely needless line that women aren't allowed to pilot Imperial Knights. Seriously, GW, just look at the Relic games. Look at them. They are full of female characters (including but not limited to Farseers, Autarchs and Exarchs, an Imperial Guard commander, and my favourite Inquisitor ever) who are actually interesting, and black people (a Librarian and an Inquisitor) whose blackness is not due to being mutants! It's almost as if it isn't actually difficult to create such characters! The only good female character created by GW that I know of is Lady Malys, who will most likely cease to exist very soon (Lelith, unfortunately, does not count).

2 - "Heroic scale". I hate it with a burning passion. I can bypass it with my Tyranids and modified Space Marines, but it is seriously hampering my desire to expand my Eldar and Tau collections.

3 - "Orky" spelling, because it often goes much, much too far. Especially with all the totally unnecessary uses of the letter K in place of C. At least call them "Bombas" rather than "Bommerz"!

4 - Purity seals. Removing them is the second most tedious part of the hobby, the first being cleaning mold lines. Also, pointless skulls. So many skulls. Just when you think you've found all the skulls on a model, sometimes you find more. They're not even skull-like skulls, which is what particularly annoys me about them. They're the kind of skull you might see on the back of a cartoon spider, shaped more like a weird mushroom than an actual skull. It's like GW designers are afraid of smooth surfaces, so they throw skulls and purity seals (and to a lesser extent, rivets, but those don't bother me) on them until they go away.

5 - Little things about engineering that make no sense. The lack of Dreadnought knees and lift-generating surfaces on aircraft, even ones that have wings (this isn't just Imperial, as Tau and Eldar suffer from it too)! The exposed pistons and joints of bionics. The small belts of ammunition that dangle loosely from where the magazine should be on Chaos Space Marine bolters. The Chaos Space Marine box in general, which is ancient and is not really a good representation of how they should look. The Taurox tracks, of course.
Note:This point covers the Dreadknight baby carrier as well, but it doesn't deserve a number of its own because I love everything else about the Dreadknight.

Bonus 6 - Necrons being Tomb Kings. What's with all the tiaras?

Bonus 7 (last one!) - The obsession with putting silly faces on Chaos things. Look at the Chaos Titans, the Decimator, and random Chaos Marine bits. What, are those particular knees supposed to be extra daemonic or something? I wouldn't mind so much with the Decimator if its legs at least matched, but the Titan ones can not be described as anything other than silly faces.

EDIT: First result on a Google Image search for "silly face angry". Looks an awful lot like our knee-fiends there.

EDIT2: Knaemons?


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 12:23:48


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Lynata wrote:
flamingkillamajig wrote:@lynata: Well it turns out i read who said they hated tauroxes and being you when it wasn't.
Oh yeah, I actually haven't posted "my" list here yet. But if you insist:

1. Goddamn heels everywhere. More of a problem with artists in various licensed products (see FFG's RPG) ... except for GW's Mr. Blanche, who puts heels on everything.


Where are these heels, exactly? Because I'm pretty sure the SoB don't have them.
Unless you are specifically referring to Blance and these 3rd party licensed products, but that's hardly "everywhere"


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 12:24:28


Post by: Sim-Life


1. Most of the daemon range. Exceptions being most Tzeentch things (except the LoC) and most of the Nurgle stuff (except the GUO). Slaanesh and Khorne need a big overhaul (except for steeds of slaanesh and the chariot, they're okay), daemonettes more so than anything else.

2. Misc. Tyranids. Honestly, they need a bit more variation in posing and details. The MCs all have basically varying sizes of carnifex bodies. No cool poses, just a bunch of ribs and chitin plates standing going "rar i guess".

3. IG cadians. DEM PROPORTIONS.

4. Necron characters and elite infantry. Whats with the silly crowns?

5. Helmetless anything.

I actually don't like the overall aesthetic of armies in 40k in general. The world aesthetic is massivly varied and really cool, but I don't feel that carries over to the models.

40k squads feel like a chore to paint because their so heavily militirised and samey. Fantasy models feel a lot more characterful to me and seem to have a lot more little details to them, whereas 40k models are almost all the same.

Which is weird because really it should be the other way around. Fantasy models are clumped together, so the details get lost, 40k models SHOULD stand out on their own.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 12:30:14


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


Yeh, the crowns aren't...flattering. They don't even look like crowns, they look like this:



They look worse with GW paint jobs too, because the artist makes them stand out.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 12:56:59


Post by: Lynata


@flamingkillamajig: I wouldn't describe me as "not pervy" - it's just that I also like consistency and a certain minimum amount of realism in a setting when I'm supposed to take it serious. This includes warriors not handicapping themselves with silly clothing whose design is arguably based primarily on pandering.

There's a time and place for everything, including sexy stuff. For example, in Battletech the female MechWarriors sit in their cockpits wearing nothing but panties, combat boots, a shirt and a cooling vest. Nobody bats an eyelash because the setting explains that those cockpits get very hot, and because it's the same for the male pilots. Issue avoided!

I don't even have a particular problem with chainmail bikinis or boob plates, if they'd remain exceptions from the rule (with an appropriate cop-out such as "it's a tradition thing" or "we need mobility more than protection") rather than the rule itself. I've even defended SoB armour because it actually has an in-universe excuse.

The problem is that way too often it's just obvious fanservice, and I believe that takes away from the seriousness of a setting. If 40k wants to be grimdark, it ought to stop to take such a juvenile approach to certain topics.

But yes, I'm also terribly idealistic when it comes to society. I wish for a world where everyone is judged as an individual rather than based on a category they've been thrown into due to bias and stigmatisation. It's a naive thing to wish for, but one can dream. I haven't always felt like that and lived in blissful ignorance of these social issues for the greater part of my life, but I suppose something I've seen must have tipped the scales. Maybe because I've worked closely with many people of different genders, ethnicities and nationalities in all of the professions I've worked in so far, including the military (the unit I deployed with was 50/50 male-female, and some of the things people claim about female soldiers do make me angry as I perceive them as incredibly unfair, based on my own experiences).

Enough of that, tho.

In regards to the Taurox, are you sure that it's the shape that people dislike? Or not just the tracks as well?
Also, whilst I like the general idea of the vehicle, I too think it doesn't suit the Storm Troopers, based simply on how they used to deploy in the past 20 years of this IP. Valkyries. Dropship goes down, Storm Troopers jump out and shoot gak up, then board again. What exactly is the Taurox for in this regard? That's actually a step back in mobility. If you're limiting yourself to movement on the ground you may as well just call in the regular Guard.

Frozen Ocean wrote:I'd also like to mention that Slaanesh is not the "God of Sex", despite how hard people wish that it was. Slaanesh is about getting what you want, and being beautiful while you get it.
Although it should be said that the sex aspect shouldn't be entirely avoided either. Too often I see people act as if it wouldn't exist, thus basically swinging into the other extreme. Sex is by far not the only aspect/domain of Slaanesh - although I can easily believe it to be the strongest one, for at least when it comes to humans it's the one they are, on average, most vulnerable against. And this is represented in the looks of Slaaneshi daemons.
It certainly is a tricky balance to strike. Ultimately, none of the aspects should be left out and forgotten.

Also, isn't it rather the "God of Excess"? Beauty is just one aspect either - it's not how you look, it's what you feel.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Where are these heels, exactly? Because I'm pretty sure the SoB don't have them.
Unless you are specifically referring to Blance and these 3rd party licensed products, but that's hardly "everywhere"
SoB indeed do not have them (which is funny, because of how often they are brought up in this connection by people who mistakenly assume they do), although there is that one 2E cover artwork from Blanche...

Look at the Assassins here, though. I'm still kind of okay with it as I am desperately trying to justify that the Assassins may just be trained to kill with those shoes. Still tricky. However, the vast majority of GW's minis and artworks has been surprisingly heels-free, for what little there was in terms of human females. See also the Necromunda Escher line.

Hence my specific mention of third party products. The "everywhere" was hyperbole, of course, but I regard it as problematic because that stuff nowadays is more popular and widespread than Games Workshop's own books, which leads me to believe it has a greater chance of forming people's opinion/interpretation of the setting. I swear, 90% of all SoB fan art has them in high heels, which is just telling if you consider their lack in GW's own material.

This is a fairly recent pet peeve of mine, actually. Possibly because I consider this to be on the rise. I really think it didn't used to be that bad, but perhaps this is connected to the rise of 3rd party products over the past years, meaning that I've just never seen it so often as I do nowadays because a decade ago there was not as much licensed stuff to go around to begin with.

Spoiler:

This is ... dangerously close.


This is bad.


This too.


[edit]
Frozen Ocean wrote:The completely needless line that women aren't allowed to pilot Imperial Knights.
Did they ... explain that a little more? Or was it just "no girls allowed lol"?


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 13:05:52


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


Fair enough.
I tend not to count fan made stuff as part of the setting.
Because...well, let's say there is some questionable material out there.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 13:08:42


Post by: Lynata


CthuluIsSpy wrote:I tend not to count fan made stuff as part of the setting.
Because...well, let's say there is some questionable material out there.
Absolutely. Me neither - that part of my criticism is directed at 95% licensees, and only 5% GW (Blanche ).


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 13:11:55


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


I'm quite found of Blanches style, actually...except for that 2nd ed Sister. That's just silly, even by 40k standards.
Those shoes shouldn't even fit on the foot >.<



Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 13:43:08


Post by: Lynata


CthuluIsSpy wrote:I'm quite found of Blanches style, actually...except for that 2nd ed Sister.
Yeah, same here. His art is very distinctive and helped shape the setting, giving it a unique vibe. It's why I can even forgive him the Assassins with their killer heels, using the aforementioned cop-out.

Just ... that Sister ... /cringe
Made worse by the background and the pose actually being very awesome, meaning it could have been so much better if not for a few glaring details (crazy shoes, limbs too thin, weird hair).


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 13:46:44


Post by: Sim-Life


On the subject of heels, it could be reasoned that its for intimidation.

In the case of a commisar or rogue trader captain, people are going to be more intimidated by someone of equal or greater hight than someone a foot shorter than them.

Just a thought.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 13:47:36


Post by: MWHistorian


Sim-Life wrote:
On the subject of heels, it could be reasoned that its for intimidation.

In the case of a commisar or rogue trader captain, people are going to be more intimidated by someone of equal or greater hight than someone a foot shorter than them.

Just a thought.

No one's going to be intimidated by someone tripping and breaking their ankle during battle.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 13:49:31


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 MWHistorian wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
On the subject of heels, it could be reasoned that its for intimidation.

In the case of a commisar or rogue trader captain, people are going to be more intimidated by someone of equal or greater hight than someone a foot shorter than them.

Just a thought.

No one's going to be intimidated by someone tripping and breaking their ankle during battle.


If you trip and break an ankle during a battle, then intimidation is the least of your concerns.
In fact, those who survive combat in heels would be even more worthy of respect


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 13:50:53


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


Doesn't power armour have motors in it that assists the wearer in maintaining balance?


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 13:57:35


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Doesn't power armour have motors in it that assists the wearer in maintaining balance?


That too. Also, getting kicked in the face with a power heel would be very very painful.
Stilletto heels can dent hard wood floors just be walking on them irl, you know.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 14:10:03


Post by: Lynata


AllSeeingSkink wrote:Doesn't power armour have motors in it that assists the wearer in maintaining balance?
Wouldn't that require the armour to have its own sense of balance? And how would the armour know how the wearer wants to move?

Seraphim: "I wanna tip over forward to jump down this building, Ghost in the Shell-style."
Power Armour: "No you don't."
Seraphim: "FFS, this is why nobody likes the Mechanicus!"

In Battletech, this is why combat pilots require a neural connection with their walker:

"However, gyroscopic orientation-sensing and accelerometer feedback is insufficient to maintain control of the 'Mech. Accelerometers and gyroscopes can not distinguish between intentional and hazardous changes in acceleration or direction, for instance the jerk felt when accelerating from standing to running or the sudden change of mass due to a lost limb, respectively. To distinguish between intent and peril, the MechWarrior's own equilibrium is monitored by a Neurohelmet connected to the gyro's computer. If both the MechWarrior's equilibrium and the balance-sensing mechanisms of the BattleMech agree, the gyro attempts to stabilize the machine."
-- http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Gyro#Balance

Still the best SoBoot, imo:
Spoiler:


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 14:10:49


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


Don't let anyone tell them they can have blades in their boots without having to wear heels (I think it was Ragnar Blackmane who had blades concealed in his boots?)


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 14:12:11


Post by: Mr Morden


Interesting that in that picture she only actually has one high heel?

The other is not?

I think its an awesome pic


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 14:12:20


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


Wouldn't it just be a simple mechanism that stops the wearing from falling over, unless pushed over by an external force?

Power armor doesn't appear to be something you want to fall over in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mr Morden wrote:
Interesting that in that picture she only actually has one high heel?

The other is not?

I think its an awesome pic


I think the other heel is buried by rubble.

I like it too, but I think the Sister in the foreground could be better.
Skull nipples and impossible shoes ahoy!


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 14:17:11


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Lynata wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Doesn't power armour have motors in it that assists the wearer in maintaining balance?
Wouldn't that require the armour to have its own sense of balance? And how would the armour know how the wearer wants to move?
Maybe it's only SM armour then? I remember reading it in one of the Space Wolf novels, while walking down a steep slippery slope the SM could hear the motors in his suit whirring to help keep balance or some such.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 14:17:56


Post by: Lynata


Mr Morden wrote:Interesting that in that picture she only actually has one high heel?
The other is not?
I think that's just the fire covering a part of the boot - the tip still goes down to the same level.

Would be funny if the heels were extendable tho. Switchheels. Like switchblades, just for your shoes!

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Wouldn't it just be a simple mechanism that stops the wearing from falling over, unless pushed over by an external force?
How would it know the wearer doesn't want to "fall over", though? In order to actually stop the fall, the armour would have to intervene at a rather early moment which would also prevent a lot of other movement. The armour cannot predict your move, so it won't know whether it's intentional (you about to counterbalance it with your own limbs, or even just firing your jump-pack) or not.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Maybe it's only SM armour then? I remember reading it in one of the Space Wolf novels, while walking down a steep slippery slope the SM could hear the motors in his suit whirring to help keep balance or some such.
Maybe - although of course you'd still get the same sound anyways when the wearer moves normally. If the wearer balances him- or herself out, the armour will help with that, as it helps with any move you make.

Come to think of it, the armour shouldn't have its own sense of balance even in the case of Space Marines, because there the armour and the wearer simply "become one", and the armour essentially uses the Marine's sense of balance, as if its electrical motors were part of his flesh.
In Battletech on the other hand, the 'Mech does have its own sense of balance, but the neural connection allows the MechWarrior to override it in order to move.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 14:18:29


Post by: the shrouded lord


BrianDavion wrote:
Terminator Helmets.

they just look kinda stupid. when I put together some CSM termies I replaced all their helmets with standard power armor ones, they looked WAAAAY better

no. terminators are amazing.
dreadknights suck.
centurions suck, their legs are bricks.
dark eldar are toothpicks.
and i stabbed myself on a metal one once....


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 14:23:48


Post by: Happyjew


I only have 1 displeasing aesthetic of 40K.
This thing:
Spoiler:


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 14:24:43


Post by: Mr Morden


Not sure if it is fire covering it or not............it def looks more solid than her other boot?

Nikita and Alex fight (fought) in high heels all the time - please no one tell me its not a realistic show!


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 15:11:03


Post by: Lord Castellan


This will always be the best Witch Hunters/Inquisition pic:



Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 15:27:49


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Lynata wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Maybe it's only SM armour then? I remember reading it in one of the Space Wolf novels, while walking down a steep slippery slope the SM could hear the motors in his suit whirring to help keep balance or some such.
Maybe - although of course you'd still get the same sound anyways when the wearer moves normally. If the wearer balances him- or herself out, the armour will help with that, as it helps with any move you make.

Come to think of it, the armour shouldn't have its own sense of balance even in the case of Space Marines, because there the armour and the wearer simply "become one", and the armour essentially uses the Marine's sense of balance, as if its electrical motors were part of his flesh.
In Battletech on the other hand, the 'Mech does have its own sense of balance, but the neural connection allows the MechWarrior to override it in order to move.
If could be doing something more subtle though. The suit could just be sensing when the load path is not aligned through the foot at an angle that will keep the person from failing over and make minor adjustments so the wearer can better maintain grip. Wouldn't stop a person falling over and it wouldn't be able to stand by itself, but if you started to fall and went to save yourself or were sliding down a steep embankment trying not to fall over, it would assist you in that.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 15:31:10


Post by: Unyielding Hunger


5. Certain terrible vehicle exit locations. As wonderful as the models are in general, I would love to see conversions that would remove those issues of friendly fire.
4. Lack of bodily protection. Gentlemen (and occasionally Ladies), you are among the finest tacticians your respective faction can produce, be it T'au, Adeptas Astartes, Eldar, or even Ork (Especially Ork.). Bring appropriate full body armor and helmet to prevent quick and immediate death upon the battlefield.

For the following 3 responses, I apologize to all the veteran SoB players, especially SisterSydney and Furyou Miku. I surrender myself to your flamers for summary execution for heresy.

3. Exorcists. I would perfer a far better pun than a couple ladies who can play some pretty explosive solos.
2. Sisters of Battle haircuts. I'm sorry ladies, but that style is not a mandate of the God Emperor of Mankind. Feel free to show some minor individuality as long as you punish yourself appropriately for it later.
1. Adepta Sororitas armor. Oh how I wish there was a more modern version without the boobplate and heels. I can understand the flair they were going for in the 80s, but that armor just does not look like it can be rated at 4+ save, let alone 3+. Heck, I picked up some Sisters just recently, and I think I see rivets on the cloak.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 15:35:38


Post by: MWHistorian


 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
5. Certain terrible vehicle exit locations. As wonderful as the models are in general, I would love to see conversions that would remove those issues of friendly fire.
4. Lack of bodily protection. Gentlemen (and occasionally Ladies), you are among the finest tacticians your respective faction can produce, be it T'au, Adeptas Astartes, Eldar, or even Ork (Especially Ork.). Bring appropriate full body armor and helmet to prevent quick and immediate death upon the battlefield.

For the following 3 responses, I apologize to all the veteran SoB players, especially SisterSydney and Furyou Miku. I surrender myself to your flamers for summary execution for heresy.

3. Exorcists. I would perfer a far better pun than a couple ladies who can play some pretty explosive solos.
2. Sisters of Battle haircuts. I'm sorry ladies, but that style is not a mandate of the God Emperor of Mankind. Feel free to show some minor individuality as long as you punish yourself appropriately for it later.
1. Adepta Sororitas armor. Oh how I wish there was a more modern version without the boobplate and heels. I can understand the flair they were going for in the 80s, but that armor just does not look like it can be rated at 4+ save, let alone 3+. Heck, I picked up some Sisters just recently, and I think I see rivets on the cloak.

As a former SOB player, I agree on the exo's. Mine were always Whirlwinds with frescos painted on them and extra bling.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 15:48:36


Post by: Lynata


AllSeeingSkink wrote:If could be doing something more subtle though. The suit could just be sensing when the load path is not aligned through the foot at an angle that will keep the person from failing over and make minor adjustments so the wearer can better maintain grip. Wouldn't stop a person falling over and it wouldn't be able to stand by itself, but if you started to fall and went to save yourself or were sliding down a steep embankment trying not to fall over, it would assist you in that.
I dunno, I still see a big risk of handicapping the wearer's movement - even if it just slows it down "for safety". The Seraphim for example are using martial arts in melee; they'd have to move quick and have full control over their bodies.
It seems like a huge risk to take just to wear high heels. I mean ... it's 40k, but still ...

That's just my interpretation of how the systems would work, tho!


Unyielding Hunger wrote:I'm sorry ladies, but that style is not a mandate of the God Emperor of Mankind.
Filthy, heretical lies!

Unyielding Hunger wrote:Oh how I wish there was a more modern version without the boobplate and heels.
None of the minis has high heels, actually. For some reason people just assume they do. I blame the fan art and that 2E cover that was posted above.

As for the boob plate - funny thing, but against lasers and armour-piercing rounds it actually protects better than a flat surface, whilst deflected blows will either be caught by a reinforced area (sternum, "corset" dust-cover), or the plate gorget around their necks, or harmlessly slide off into the air, having expended much of their kinetic energy on the first impact.

Plus, the design was commissioned by Vandire, who was a perv. Plus, it serves to reinforce the image of "angelic servants" and that the Ecclesiarchy's standing army does not break the Decree Passive (no men under arms).

Yes, I do not believe GW actually considered any of this when they were designing them - but still you can find multiple in-universe explanations that render it sensible. The real reason was probably a mixture of what you said about the 80s, and/or that otherwise it might be hard to actually identify them as female, given the small size of the minis.

Unyielding Hunger wrote:Heck, I picked up some Sisters just recently, and I think I see rivets on the cloak.
Those are buttons, actually. You can see holes for them on the other side. I guess it's supposed to close like a normal robe when not wearing armour, but it opens up for better manoeuverability in the battlefield.

Spoiler:

See how the sleeves would normally extend below the elbows, for example? That part is unbuttoned, however, allowing the arm to bend properly and letting the cloth to part and flow over on either side. Meanwhile, the "apron" has holes on either side so that it can be closed with the buttons from the "cloak", as all the cloth you see here is actually a single robe.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 16:40:08


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


Lord Castellan wrote:
This will always be the best Witch Hunters/Inquisition pic:



I miss the days when Codex cover art looked like a heavy metal album :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Happyjew wrote:
I only have 1 displeasing aesthetic of 40K.
This thing:
Spoiler:


Oh hey, my profile pic.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 16:52:03


Post by: Lynata


CthuluIsSpy wrote:I miss the days when Codex cover art looked like a heavy metal album :(
Including the font.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 16:54:14


Post by: Mr Morden


That is a very very col pic

and a fun model


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 18:33:57


Post by: Unyielding Hunger


MWHistorian wrote:As a former SOB player, I agree on the exo's. Mine were always Whirlwinds with frescos painted on them and extra bling.

Nice idea. I might have to do some combining when it comes to having to build a few of those. Whirlwinds with the Exorcist's iconography panels would be pretty sweet.

Lynata wrote:Filthy, heretical lies!

Show me where every sister has to have that same god ugly haircut.

Lynata wrote:None of the minis has high heels, actually. For some reason people just assume they do. I blame the fan art and that 2E cover that was posted above.

As for the boob plate - funny thing, but against lasers and armour-piercing rounds it actually protects better than a flat surface, whilst deflected blows will either be caught by a reinforced area (sternum, "corset" dust-cover), or the plate gorget around their necks, or harmlessly slide off into the air, having expended much of their kinetic energy on the first impact.

Plus, the design was commissioned by Vandire, who was a perv. Plus, it serves to reinforce the image of "angelic servants" and that the Ecclesiarchy's standing army does not break the Decree Passive (no men under arms).

Yes, I do not believe GW actually considered any of this when they were designing them - but still you can find multiple in-universe explanations that render it sensible. The real reason was probably a mixture of what you said about the 80s, and/or that otherwise it might be hard to actually identify them as female, given the small size of the minis.

Those are buttons, actually. You can see holes for them on the other side. I guess it's supposed to close like a normal robe when not wearing armour, but it opens up for better manoeuverability in the battlefield.
Spoiler:

See how the sleeves would normally extend below the elbows, for example? That part is unbuttoned, however, allowing the arm to bend properly and letting the cloth to part and flow over on either side. Meanwhile, the "apron" has holes on either side so that it can be closed with the buttons from the "cloak", as all the cloth you see here is actually a single robe.


Fair enough on the heels. Most art does have them in heels, but now that I get home, I can see I was wrong. Vandire was probably the greatest perverted dictator that ever lived (in the wrong way) But even then, I don't get a sense of "Angelic Servant" out of that armor. It's more of a "Oversexed fiercely celibate woman who spends far too much maintaining a poor image that will inevitably lead to lustful male drama, when she should be spending more time worshiping the Emperor, burning heretics, or practicing her heavy bolter aim on heretics running away down range." I am a fan of practicality and I fully plan on putting my girls in marine armor as I just can't get past the leather corset look, suitably emblazoned with SoB iconography of course, though I need to come up with an enlarged Sabbat helm because these old pewter ones are a bit small for some press mold cosmetics. As for the button thing, I didn't even think of that. Excellent point, and it does help drive home the point of robed nuns when they aren't out in the warzone.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/22 21:38:50


Post by: flamingkillamajig


@FrozenOcean: Yeah but 40k doesn't have super big boobs on all the females. If anything i feel GW is about as family friendly as they can get since they started trying to be (after the dark eldar slave girls period ;P).

I was always of the idea that tallarn desert raiders were more middle eastern than white. Also while we're at it we know tau are basically space asians and they have blue skin and erm a weird nose crevice, bird like mercenary buddies (kroot), battlesuits and bug buddies (vespid). If anything i would've loved to see more auxiliary races in an supplement or something. Too bad it'll be years before that's a possibility again.

I never specifically think of slaanesh as the 'god of sex'. It's just more fun thinking that and much sillier. I mean i know he's the prince of excess but loud music just seems a little silly. Also i think rave parties are the perfect example of slaanesh besides crazy cult followings. I mean loud music, drugs, sex and lots of glow sticks. I'm pretty sure that's what slaanesh is about.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 01:33:49


Post by: Furyou Miko


Lynata and Frozen Ocean are men. My universe is shattered. Noooo. [/deadpan sarcasm]

Unyielding Hunger wrote:5. Certain terrible vehicle exit locations. As wonderful as the models are in general, I would love to see conversions that would remove those issues of friendly fire.
4. Lack of bodily protection. Gentlemen (and occasionally Ladies), you are among the finest tacticians your respective faction can produce, be it T'au, Adeptas Astartes, Eldar, or even Ork (Especially Ork.). Bring appropriate full body armor and helmet to prevent quick and immediate death upon the battlefield.


Oh, sir, honestly, I wish I could[i] rock up to my games in full power armour. Really, I do.

For the following 3 responses, I apologize to all the veteran SoB players, especially SisterSydney and Furyou Miku. I surrender myself to your flamers for summary execution for heresy.

3. Exorcists. I would perfer a far better pun than a couple ladies who can play some pretty explosive solos.
2. Sisters of Battle haircuts. I'm sorry ladies, but that style is not a mandate of the God Emperor of Mankind. Feel free to show some minor individuality as long as you punish yourself appropriately for it later.
1. Adepta Sororitas armor. Oh how I wish there was a more modern version without the boobplate and heels. I can understand the flair they were going for in the 80s, but that armor just does not look like it can be rated at 4+ save, let alone 3+. Heck, I picked up some Sisters just recently, and I think I see rivets on the cloak.


On point #2: white hair. Look, people. Ephrael Stern had white hair because she was the Daemonifuge. White dye jobs are [i]not
standard issue amongst the Adepta Sororitas! Sadly, since the original codex, it seems that the studio painting team have decided to go with white hair as well, which just reinforces this silly idea. Sisters do NOT have to have white hair!


On the armour: I think part of the reason people think it would struggle to provide a 4+ save is because of the over-sized heads. Remember, the Sisters models are the same size as the Space Marine models of their time, even though the Sisters themselves are smaller. Sororitas Power Armour is not skin tight. It is thick, armoured plate with mechanical support. Godwyn De'az bolters are not miniature. They are actually longer than Astartes bolters in some cases. If you look at bolters contemporary to when the Sisters were released, the Marines' bolters look like SMGs in comparison.

It is due to these reasons that I reckon that a fully armoured Battle Sister is roughly the same size as a fully armoured Space Marine - because the armour itself is not skin tight to the wearer, but built around them... That's why you can have Sisters novices in power armour, even though their youth makes them smaller than full Battle Sisters - the difference in size is made up by a support frame inside the armour.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 01:53:35


Post by: flamingkillamajig


 Furyou Miko wrote:
Lynata and Frozen Ocean are men. My universe is shattered. Noooo. [/deadpan sarcasm]



Was watching 'Nicolas Cage Losing His Sh*t' on youtube. I imagine that as one of our realizations. Try not to go crazy and eat poop .

Besides you're british so sarcasm is like second nature to you.

---------------

I suppose if i should add something to aesthetics i don't like is everything needs a mother f**king skull on it. You count like 5 freaking skulls on a guardsmen alone (gun insignia, belt, helmet, shoulder pad and possibly more) and i don't even think that's the most. Don't get me wrong grim dark and all that but now we have fantasy with those mortarches and crap that are filled with skulls. They look like a freaking skull gum-ball machine.

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Arkhan-the-Black

I'm also unsure whether to laugh at the 'khorne lord of skulls' or feel bad over it. On one hand it's so over the top and on the other it just seems so dumb.

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Chaos-Space-Marines-Khorne-Lord-of-Skulls

Banners on some soldiers. I feel like banners mounted on a soldier are just stupid. How do they get through buildings as large as they are? It's kind of cool but impractical. Not to mention what if the banner actually obscures their vision by going over their face in the wind or something. I also imagine it's like a freaking sail-boat whenever a strong wind is blowing. They probably struggle to balance themselves and prevent being blown away.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 02:03:05


Post by: Bronzefists42


The whole "Only White Male" thing is supposed to be really disturbing. That and other WWII Germany esque imagery is used to intentionally invoke the sense that there is something seriously wrong with the Imperium if these are the only people we ever really see.

The imperium is still a totalitarian militaristic space theocracy, not the good guys.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 02:10:06


Post by: flamingkillamajig


 Bronzefists42 wrote:
The whole "Only White Male" thing is supposed to be really disturbing. That and other WWII Germany esque imagery is used to intentionally invoke the sense that there is something seriously wrong with the Imperium if these are the only people we ever really see.

The imperium is still a totalitarian militaristic space theocracy, not the good guys.


Warhammer in general rips off other IP's and takes things out of history and such because they don't have the greatest imagination (in many cases). I think it's less them trying to throw out that image and more them following historical pictures so much they accidentally throw out that feeling.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 02:57:05


Post by: Unyielding Hunger


 Furyou Miko wrote:
Oh, sir, honestly, I wish I could rock up to my games in full power armour. Really, I do.


I can't tell, is that sarcasm or are you actually agreeing with me? Anyhow, for a little extra clarity, I mostly was just picking on the Orks with the armor remark. Guardsmen get flak armor, which is pitiful for what it is, but at least it is a full uniform. I don't really know how they justify Orks getting the basic 6+ for standard clothing or even no clothing at all.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
On point #2: white hair. Look, people. Ephrael Stern had white hair because she was the Daemonifuge. White dye jobs are not standard issue amongst the Adepta Sororitas! Sadly, since the original codex, it seems that the studio painting team have decided to go with white hair as well, which just reinforces this silly idea. Sisters do NOT have to have white hair!

On the armour: I think part of the reason people think it would struggle to provide a 4+ save is because of the over-sized heads. Remember, the Sisters models are the same size as the Space Marine models of their time, even though the Sisters themselves are smaller. Sororitas Power Armour is not skin tight. It is thick, armoured plate with mechanical support. Godwyn De'az bolters are not miniature. They are actually longer than Astartes bolters in some cases. If you look at bolters contemporary to when the Sisters were released, the Marines' bolters look like SMGs in comparison.

It is due to these reasons that I reckon that a fully armoured Battle Sister is roughly the same size as a fully armoured Space Marine - because the armour itself is not skin tight to the wearer, but built around them... That's why you can have Sisters novices in power armour, even though their youth makes them smaller than full Battle Sisters - the difference in size is made up by a support frame inside the armour.



I'm sorry, it's just that you see so many white haired SoB images...it gets ingrained that for some odd reason that they must be white. I do agree that they aren't standard, but I just wish there was a bit more variety amongst the models on that haircut, you know? And looking over these SoB models...I do agree they are tiny. Looking at it, the heads themselves appear to be half the size of a standard current marine helmet.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 07:14:42


Post by: Furyou Miko


The plastic Sisters heads off the Immolator sprue are the same size as each other AND the standard tactical marine helmet AND the standard bare space marine baldy head.

If you use the front half-torso out of the Immolator kit to build a model, you have to use Guardian legs and a fantasy Elf head or it it looks like they're a bobblehead in flare trousers.

As for the armour, half joking, half serious, because honestly, walking around in a badass suit of power armour (with internal cooling or heating system!) would be awesome. But also patently ridiculous.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 08:01:32


Post by: fox-light713


 Furyou Miko wrote:


On point #2: white hair. Look, people. Ephrael Stern had white hair because she was the Daemonifuge. White dye jobs are not standard issue amongst the Adepta Sororitas! Sadly, since the original codex, it seems that the studio painting team have decided to go with white hair as well, which just reinforces this silly idea. Sisters do NOT have to have white hair!

On the armour: I think part of the reason people think it would struggle to provide a 4+ save is because of the over-sized heads. Remember, the Sisters models are the same size as the Space Marine models of their time, even though the Sisters themselves are smaller. Sororitas Power Armour is not skin tight. It is thick, armoured plate with mechanical support. Godwyn De'az bolters are not miniature. They are actually longer than Astartes bolters in some cases. If you look at bolters contemporary to when the Sisters were released, the Marines' bolters look like SMGs in comparison.

It is due to these reasons that I reckon that a fully armoured Battle Sister is roughly the same size as a fully armoured Space Marine - because the armour itself is not skin tight to the wearer, but built around them... That's why you can have Sisters novices in power armour, even though their youth makes them smaller than full Battle Sisters - the difference in size is made up by a support frame inside the armour.


As for the white hair IRC The Order of the Martyred Lady is the only order that dose the white hair and has become the postergirl order for the SoB.

For the armor I believe that these 2 images are probably one of the best one's for showcasing the SoB power armor.

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110404052917/warhammer40k/images/b/b8/840914-sister_of_battle_color_large.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5XSpb9HujcU/URJjRsQJyaI/AAAAAAAAADA/XTkgBWcucQY/s1600/sisters-barge.jpg


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 09:03:36


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Bronzefists42 wrote:
The whole "Only White Male" thing is supposed to be really disturbing. That and other WWII Germany esque imagery is used to intentionally invoke the sense that there is something seriously wrong with the Imperium if these are the only people we ever really see.

The imperium is still a totalitarian militaristic space theocracy, not the good guys.


Actually, there isn't an "only white male" thing; the studio has released black guardsmen before.
In fact, in the 4th edition rule book, there's a Mister T conversion.

I suspect it has more to do with logistics than with race; the painting team has to meet a deadline, and varying the skin tones all the time would take too long.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
 Furyou Miko wrote:
Oh, sir, honestly, I wish I could rock up to my games in full power armour. Really, I do.


I can't tell, is that sarcasm or are you actually agreeing with me? Anyhow, for a little extra clarity, I mostly was just picking on the Orks with the armor remark. Guardsmen get flak armor, which is pitiful for what it is, but at least it is a full uniform. I don't really know how they justify Orks getting the basic 6+ for standard clothing or even no clothing at all.

.


Same reason why Catachans get 5+ saves from tank tops; true grit.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 09:14:14


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Lynata wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:If could be doing something more subtle though. The suit could just be sensing when the load path is not aligned through the foot at an angle that will keep the person from failing over and make minor adjustments so the wearer can better maintain grip. Wouldn't stop a person falling over and it wouldn't be able to stand by itself, but if you started to fall and went to save yourself or were sliding down a steep embankment trying not to fall over, it would assist you in that.
I dunno, I still see a big risk of handicapping the wearer's movement - even if it just slows it down "for safety". The Seraphim for example are using martial arts in melee; they'd have to move quick and have full control over their bodies.
It seems like a huge risk to take just to wear high heels. I mean ... it's 40k, but still ...

That's just my interpretation of how the systems would work, tho!
Nah, what I'm describing wouldn't stop you doing anything unless that thing was losing traction and slipping over. Regardless of what sort of acrobatics you're doing, the force should be going through your foot at an angle no greater than friction will allow, the magical system smart enough to figure out what that angle is would stop you going beyond it, thus let you move as fast and agile as you possibly can.

It wouldn't stop you falling over, it'd just widen the band on the limit of falling over and let you dance closer to that limit. If you're an idiot you'd still fall over


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 12:00:23


Post by: Unyielding Hunger


 Furyou Miko wrote:
As for the armour, half joking, half serious, because honestly, walking around in a badass suit of power armour (with internal cooling or heating system!) would be awesome. But also patently ridiculous.

Kinda like this?


Which brings up a point. Models like this are nice. When GW changes an appearance drastically, it makes it harder to conform older models to the new aesthetic.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 12:10:50


Post by: vipoid


That model clearly doesn't have enough bling to be a proper space marine.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 12:19:41


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Unyielding Hunger wrote:
 Furyou Miko wrote:
As for the armour, half joking, half serious, because honestly, walking around in a badass suit of power armour (with internal cooling or heating system!) would be awesome. But also patently ridiculous.

Kinda like this?


Which brings up a point. Models like this are nice. When GW changes an appearance drastically, it makes it harder to conform older models to the new aesthetic.


I swear if I ever go CSM, I'm going to buy as many of those guys as I can find


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 12:20:32


Post by: Lynata


Personally, I'm a fan of Andrea Uderzo's SoB artworks:

Spoiler:






I especially love the little laser pointers (built into and replacing the ironsights, which by themselves would be too big to be of any help when aiming) and guncams on the bolters. Awesome detail.

As for the hair, personally I am of the opinion that a uniform haircut and hair colour are strengthening the perception of strict discipline and a rigidly reglemented lifestyle. The most dominant hair colour only seems to be white because the Order of Our Martyred Lady gets featured so often (when the majority of the Major Orders has black hair). I recall people claiming it is a reference to Saint Dominica's hair supposedly having turned white from her conversation with the Emperor, but I've never actually seen that in the fluff myself, so maybe that is just hearsay. It is kind of a cool idea, though.

An interesting detail is that they originally had black hair before they switched over to the current colour scheme (in-character, not a retcon). The studio reason was probably just the painters being convinced that white hair would make a good contrast.

I see no problem with Minor Orders diverging from that pattern, though - even if I like to imagine such relaxed regulations would be considered "decadent" by the more hardcore/conservative members of the two Primary Convents (you know, the gals who also argued against using the Repressor ).

Unyielding HungerMade in us wrote:Most art does have them in heels
Fan- and licensee art, yeah. GW themselves has actually been fairly consistently with the no-heels thing - with the sole exception of the aforementioned 2E cover.

Here's a collection of all artworks from the 2E and 3E codices (again, excepting the 2E cover):
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img801/3700/ofc0.jpg
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img28/7473/90nj.jpg


Regarding Orks and Catachans, it's also important to keep in mind that the abstraction built into the system may skewer perception. A hit is not always a headshot. Someone who is "killed" does not actually have to be dead. And someone who succeeds on their Toughness save does not have to be uninjured. As CthuluIsSpy said: True Grit.

It's the same with the Sisters' 6++ invul save - making it doesn't have to mean they miraculously survived that tank cannon round. Maybe it just means it exploded close enough to her that by all rights she should be dead, but her willpower keeps her on her toes, fighting on ... and simply dying from blood loss a little bit later.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 12:30:27


Post by: morgoth


1. Imperial buildings: they look like gak.
2. Space Wolves: they've got marines riding big wolves, and santa's sleigh tuned by vikings. WTF.
3. Moar Skulls. Cause we're the good guys. Or the bad guys. Skulls for everyone.
4. Imperial Knight: for such an expensive killing machine, it's just ugly
5. Nemesis Dreadknight: that thing is awful and slowed by design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mythra wrote:
The skulls on everything gets silly. Chaos I can see but why does the imperium have a skull fetish?

Skull F.. fetish ?
I wonder...


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 12:40:26


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Lynata wrote:
Personally, I'm a fan of Andrea Uderzo's SoB artworks:

Spoiler:






I especially love the little laser pointers (built into and replacing the ironsights, which by themselves would be too big to be of any help when aiming) and guncams on the bolters. Awesome detail.


Ooh those are nice.
I would like her to design the next Codex cover...if it ever happens :/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mythra wrote:
Tau chicken feet battle suits. Big and top hvy and itty bitty funny feet.

The DK baby carrier has to annoy everyone. I bought this one as soon as I saw it.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/469402-.html

The skulls on everything gets silly. Chaos I can see but why does the imperium have a skull fetish?



Couple of reasons -

The Imperium of Man is all about humanity, and when you strip away the flesh all human skulls look pretty much the same.
Ergo, the ideal symbol for them would be a skull, as that represents all of humanity.

The Imperium of Man also takes heavy influence from the Catholic Church, which tends to use some morbid imagery

Case in point, the Sedlec Ossuary of Prague :





Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 16:14:33


Post by: Unyielding Hunger


That is strangely hypnotic and beautiful. Do people really hate the skulls that much? Some places are a little odd, but the Wall of Martyrs is built on the sanctified bones of dead heroes of the Imperium, and I see the skulls build into some buildings as just being particularly venerated staff.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 16:26:09


Post by: squidhills




That is the most fething metal church I've ever seen. You just know the priest has a smoke machine behind the altar and the church organ is accompanied by wailing electric guitars.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 17:16:26


Post by: Psienesis


The imperium is still a totalitarian militaristic space theocracy, not the good guys


This is why the setting is "GrimDark". When Nazi-wannabes are the good guys, you know gak is fethed up.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 17:23:53


Post by: Veteran Sergeant


CthuluIsSpy wrote:I swear if I ever go CSM, I'm going to buy as many of those guys as I can find
Ouch. Good luck. I had one years ago and he has been lost to the sands of time. I wanted one for nostalgia, but the price they go for on EBay is typically ridiculous.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 17:47:18


Post by: MWHistorian


 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
CthuluIsSpy wrote:I swear if I ever go CSM, I'm going to buy as many of those guys as I can find
Ouch. Good luck. I had one years ago and he has been lost to the sands of time. I wanted one for nostalgia, but the price they go for on EBay is typically ridiculous.

I had two that I sold to Spiky Bits. They might still have them for sale.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 18:52:30


Post by: soomemafia


 Psienesis wrote:
The imperium is still a totalitarian militaristic space theocracy, not the good guys

This is why the setting is "GrimDark". When Nazi-wannabes are the good guys, you know gak is fethed up.

I hereby nominate this to be the post of the day.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 18:59:17


Post by: Desubot


1) Guns on nids (the kind they hold like humes)
2) Crisis suits. (especially the commander one with the ugly 45degree angle arm joint)
3) new daemonettes
4) Imperial vehicles
5) Imperial building kits.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 19:11:02


Post by: Boneville


The thing i dont like is that the daemonettes and slaneesh all look to female for me when its described as being both.

i just dont see it.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 19:41:58


Post by: Desubot


Boneville wrote:

i just dont see it.


Its under the loincloth


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 19:54:44


Post by: Robbert Ambrose


Oh how I wish GW will finally get it's act together and take the Imperial vehicle design into a better direction, innovative but not being silly (so no taurox). I had hope forgeworld would design some more "modern" vehichles for the imperial army/solar auxillia, seeing as that would fit with the time, but sadly we got yet another WW1 style tank.

How about something like the M-29 Grizzly from Mass Effect:

Kinda retro sci-fi, but still interesting aesthetically.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 20:03:47


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Robbert Ambrose wrote:
Oh how I wish GW will finally get it's act together and take the Imperial vehicle design into a better direction, innovative but not being silly (so no taurox). I had hope forgeworld would design some more "modern" vehichles for the imperial army/solar auxillia, seeing as that would fit with the time, but sadly we got yet another WW1 style tank.

How about something like the M-29 Grizzly from Mass Effect:

Kinda retro sci-fi, but still interesting aesthetically.


You are aware that the Imperial Guard is meant to be a combination of armies throughout the 20th (or 19th in the case of Praetorian and Mordians) centuries? The tanks are meant to look like WW1-WW2 vehicles; that's the point. It fits with the ugly and industrialized feel of the IoM as well.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 20:19:53


Post by: Robbert Ambrose


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


You are aware that the Imperial Guard is meant to be a combination of armies throughout the 20th (or 19th in the case of Praetorian and Mordians) centuries? The tanks are meant to look like WW1-WW2 vehicles; that's the point. It fits with the ugly and industrialized feel of the IoM as well.


No, certain regiments' aesthetics and general tactics are based upon historicial armies, the guard as whole are not, lasguns, for example, are extremly diverse, just Compare DKoK lasgun to elysian lasguns. Yet in contrast vehicles are awfully standarizes and nearly all make use of obsolete wrap around tracks that are too narrow to be usable.

Then there are things like the valkyrie, which do not fit the WW1 aeshetic at all.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 20:36:49


Post by: Alcibiades


The Guard in general are based upon WWI and WWII armies, that's just obvious.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 20:49:29


Post by: Psienesis


 Robbert Ambrose wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:


You are aware that the Imperial Guard is meant to be a combination of armies throughout the 20th (or 19th in the case of Praetorian and Mordians) centuries? The tanks are meant to look like WW1-WW2 vehicles; that's the point. It fits with the ugly and industrialized feel of the IoM as well.


No, certain regiments' aesthetics and general tactics are based upon historicial armies, the guard as whole are not, lasguns, for example, are extremly diverse, just Compare DKoK lasgun to elysian lasguns. Yet in contrast vehicles are awfully standarizes and nearly all make use of obsolete wrap around tracks that are too narrow to be usable.

Then there are things like the valkyrie, which do not fit the WW1 aeshetic at all.


The lasgun, despite firing a laser, is meant to be any basic infantryman's rifle from the last 200 years, despite the fact (or perhaps because of the fact) that there are thousands and thousands of lasgun Patterns across the galaxy. Also, excepting a very few choice Patterns, a lasgun is a lasgun is a lasgun.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 21:10:52


Post by: The Dwarf Wolf


- Post 5th edition: Newcrons, dreadknight, taurox, most of the empire flyers... Honorbale exceptions: Tau, Eldar and Dark Eldar.
- Tyranids and their weapons, and the general design. They could be amazing, they are to cartoon. As someone said: zergs did it better.
- Daemons. They could be amazing, they are stupid. I normally think "xeno creatures" when i see the models, not "7th dimension things who my brain cannot process properly" (i sincerely think that 2.5d paper models could do it better).

I actually like the gothic look, and the armors who look like ancient stuff with tech bits added (new IG storm troopers made me wish an IG army).



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Robbert Ambrose wrote:
Oh how I wish GW will finally get it's act together and take the Imperial vehicle design into a better direction, innovative but not being silly (so no taurox). I had hope forgeworld would design some more "modern" vehichles for the imperial army/solar auxillia, seeing as that would fit with the time, but sadly we got yet another WW1 style tank.

How about something like the M-29 Grizzly from Mass Effect:

Kinda retro sci-fi, but still interesting aesthetically.


You are aware that the Imperial Guard is meant to be a combination of armies throughout the 20th (or 19th in the case of Praetorian and Mordians) centuries? The tanks are meant to look like WW1-WW2 vehicles; that's the point. It fits with the ugly and industrialized feel of the IoM as well.


This would not look 40k, it would not look "IoM". Want hightech futuristic design? That is Tau ground...


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 21:14:20


Post by: Robbert Ambrose


Alcibiades wrote:
The Guard in general are based upon WWI and WWII armies, that's just obvious.


To you perhaps, I personally prefer to avoid the hasty generalisation that because some of the more prominent IG regiment are based of historical armies it must mean that IG as whole represent a WW1 or WW2 fighting force. Especially when the two most heavily featured regiments (Cadians + Catachans) have almost nothin aesthetically in common with a WW1 or WW2 fighting force.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 21:16:20


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


Tyranids always had "guns", btw





It's something of a tradition.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 21:20:59


Post by: Robbert Ambrose


 The Dwarf Wolf wrote:


This would not look 40k, it would not look "IoM". Want hightech futuristic design? That is Tau ground...


The Imperium of man is very diverse, aesthatically, just looking at the various IG regiments proves this point, indeed some look more technologically advanced than others, compare the bulky and archaic gas mask from the DKoK to the slick and modern looking respirator that are used by the Cadians and Elysians

I'm not talking about directly copying vehichles from other sources, just more interesting and innovatie desings, not all of the Imperium is inspired by WWI and as such not all the vehicles should look like they orginated from that era.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 21:26:35


Post by: Desubot


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

It's something of a tradition.


Tradition or not, i think it looks fuggly as sin


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 21:39:25


Post by: flamingkillamajig


Agreed on zerg doing it better than tyranids. Tyranid guns and swords just look too human. Zerg have acid spit, claws and needles they shoot out of themselves (hydralisks).

Also as much as imperial guard have a monopoly on heavy armor and explosions i would have liked to see an assault helicopter similar to the space marine storm talon for use in the imperial guard. Too bad the guard is too heavily influenced on WWI and WWII to use anything resembling a helicopter.

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Space-Marine-Stormtalon-Gunship

I also hate the over abundance of skulls. Seriously you guys can stop when you make a model look like a gum-ball machine. Here's the model i'm talking about.

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Conclave-of-Death

Also tau models are mostly just stupid looking. The riptide's head is way too tiny. The large battlesuits (crisis size and beyond with the exception of the xv-9 from forgeworld though it has weird kneejoints) just tend to look stupid and super clunky unlike the high tech nature of the faction. Still unhappy the kroot and esp. the vespid or other auxiliary alien factions didn't get some love in a tau supplement. Seriously vespid commandos that fly and see in multiple spectrums allowing them to see through stealthed units would've been cool (then again i don't play 40k anymore so it's moot).


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 21:42:57


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


Actually, the Guard can use a high-tech looking helicopter, as air vehicles are the domain of the Imperial Navy, not the guard.

That Valkyrie you have in the guard codex, for example, is actually on loan from the Navy; it is not a "Guard" unit

That also explains the aesthetic difference. Different organisation, different look.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 21:43:05


Post by: Co'tor Shas


With the crisis suits, if you look aat some of he concept art, it looks like they started out good, but were transformed due model restrictions. Although I think the new commander is a step in the right directions (less blocky, but it could be better).


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 22:24:14


Post by: vipoid


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Tyranids always had "guns", btw





It's something of a tradition.


They also had rather silly models. Shame both are still true.

Saying that, I really like the colours on those warriors' guns. Anyone know what those colours are?


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 22:25:17


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


I don't know, I kind of like the old Hive Tyrant's design compared to the new one. Looks gnarly.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 22:33:23


Post by: Furyou Miko


I love the original hive tyrant.

Those colours are no longer available, I believe.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 23:02:32


Post by: Lynata


Desubot wrote:Its under the loincloth
Zing!

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:That is Tau ground...
As much as I love both Mass Effect and the IG, the word "Tau" was the first thing that came to my mind when trying to envision that tank in the 40k setting.
The Imperium is incredibly diverse, but in my opinion, there are stylistic limits to what does and does not fit the wider theme - which, for better or worse, does include technological recession and a devolution into steampunk feudalism.

Given that the Tau make use of human auxiliaries and annex human colonies, however, why not create a Gue'vesa army list with such vehicles? The Imperium's aesthetics are preserved, and the player still gets humans with a more modern style. Everybody wins!
Alternatively, the 5E Guard codex did mention how Guard vehicles are standardised (for obvious reasons), yet the various PDF often have their own unique and locally limited designs...


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/23 23:14:01


Post by: BlaxicanX


 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Agreed on zerg doing it better than tyranids. Tyranid guns and swords just look too human. Zerg have acid spit, claws and needles they shoot out of themselves (hydralisks).
Zerg are basically just Tyranids +1, aesthetically.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/24 05:21:42


Post by: morgoth


 Robbert Ambrose wrote:
Oh how I wish GW will finally get it's act together and take the Imperial vehicle design into a better direction, innovative but not being silly (so no taurox). I had hope forgeworld would design some more "modern" vehichles for the imperial army/solar auxillia, seeing as that would fit with the time, but sadly we got yet another WW1 style tank.

How about something like the M-29 Grizzly from Mass Effect:
Kinda retro sci-fi, but still interesting aesthetically.

Now that's ugly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BlaxicanX wrote:
 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Agreed on zerg doing it better than tyranids. Tyranid guns and swords just look too human. Zerg have acid spit, claws and needles they shoot out of themselves (hydralisks).
Zerg are basically just Tyranids +1, aesthetically.

I'd say +9001


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/24 16:29:02


Post by: Plumbumbarum


I'd say - billion of trillions

Zerg look like crap from marvel comic book, just check that hydralisk stupid, super overdone grin. Starcraft to 40k is like Warcraft to fantasy, a niceish butchered of character colorful ripoff. Its closer to smurfs and gummy bears though when it comes to mood. I love gummy bears btw just noone pretends they can rival 40k designs on its own turf of cosmic horror.

Also Tyranids at least are something, a cosmic dragon like aliens wearing bugs armour. Zert are just random elements slapped left and right. To be more directionless than tyranids, quite an achievement.

 The Dwarf Wolf wrote:

- Tyranids and their weapons, and the general design. They could be amazing, they are to cartoon. As someone said: zergs did it better.


So I assume that Tyranids are cartoonish but zerg are not? Ok.

Or you mean gw studio paintjobs? Because that's the only way I see such statement making sense.

Btw cartoonish? https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7249/6855799648_14a0caf489_z.jpg



Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/24 21:15:31


Post by: Furyou Miko


403 Forbidden, Plum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
403 Forbidden, Plum.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/24 21:18:12


Post by: Desubot


Plumbumbarum wrote:

Zerg look like crap




Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/24 21:21:30


Post by: Mr Morden


Must admit that Mass Effect vehicle slooks pretty poor - IMO.



Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/24 21:52:32


Post by: Plumbumbarum


 Furyou Miko wrote:
403 Forbidden, Plum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
403 Forbidden, Plum.


Ach crap, I can view it but Im posting from a phone, will fix as soon as I'm close to some PC.

Meanwhile you have to believe me that it is a glorious pic of a tyrranofex that will lift my subjective point to objectivity and make all the resident zerg fanboys apologise for being so wrong



Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/24 22:38:50


Post by: BlaxicanX


Plumbumbarum wrote:
Zert are just random elements slapped left and right.


Right, because giant reptiles with hooves and hands that physically hold separately grown guns for some reason are not random.

Calm down. Saying that the Zerg aesthetic lacks direction is like saying that the Xenomorph aesthetic lacks direction.

By the way, what silly grin are you referring to?

Do you mean this silly grin?


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/24 23:42:57


Post by: Plumbumbarum


Are you comparing the vicious menacing and most importantly making sense anatomy wise grin of hive tyrant with that ridiculous alice in wonderland esque just ate the crowbar smile something of hydralisk? Can't tell if serious.

Xenomorph is a dick on legs, thats clearly a direction. Zerg is what? Bug here snake there on cow with some octopus on top. Im asking for real though maybe I just dont see it.

Cant be calm, brain damage. Tyranids ftw heh.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/25 00:54:14


Post by: Bronzefists42


I prefer pseudo fascist WWI tanks to ugly pseudo sci fi scrapheaps.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/25 15:29:25


Post by: Colpicklejar


1. Catachan infantry. I think they could look really cool if done in a more realistic, grim fashion. Right now they look like GI Joes.

2. Biovores. They look like some kind of Pokémon.

3. Helbrutes, Soul Grinders, Defilers, and anything else from the Chaos dexes that look like something out of a cheap 80's horror movie.

4. Eldar warwalkers.

5. Space marines with missile launchers.


I actually think Centurions and Dreadknights look awesome.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/25 15:54:49


Post by: vipoid


 Colpicklejar wrote:

2. Biovores. They look like some kind of Pokémon.


One that was censored.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/25 16:12:43


Post by: morgoth


 vipoid wrote:
 Colpicklejar wrote:

2. Biovores. They look like some kind of Pokémon.


One that was censored.


Now that you say it it looks more like a hentai monster.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/25 16:32:16


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 vipoid wrote:
 Colpicklejar wrote:

2. Biovores. They look like some kind of Pokémon.


One that was censored.


phallysschu, I choose you!


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/25 17:28:16


Post by: 03mark87


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Lynata wrote:
Personally, I'm a fan of Andrea Uderzo's SoB artworks:

Spoiler:






I especially love the little laser pointers (built into and replacing the ironsights, which by themselves would be too big to be of any help when aiming) and guncams on the bolters. Awesome detail.


Ooh those are nice.
I would like her to design the next Codex cover...if it ever happens :/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mythra wrote:
Tau chicken feet battle suits. Big and top hvy and itty bitty funny feet.

The DK baby carrier has to annoy everyone. I bought this one as soon as I saw it.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/469402-.html

The skulls on everything gets silly. Chaos I can see but why does the imperium have a skull fetish?



Couple of reasons -

The Imperium of Man is all about humanity, and when you strip away the flesh all human skulls look pretty much the same.
Ergo, the ideal symbol for them would be a skull, as that represents all of humanity.

The Imperium of Man also takes heavy influence from the Catholic Church, which tends to use some morbid imagery

Case in point, the Sedlec Ossuary of Prague :





That's actually in Kutna Hora.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
1. The whole Baroque/Gothic bs they stick on everything now. Ruined the Tempestus Scions. Absolutely disgusting.
2.Space Marine model scale. Silly.
3. The "Add more tiny, tedious details to everything" trend. It doesn't make the models look better, IMO. Save it for the special characters.
4. Ork boys/trucks. Dated and silly looking compared to the rest of the line.
5. That ill definable cartoon "chunkiness" that comes with the new Computer-modeled kits. They don't have the feel of many past models.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/25 18:07:06


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 03mark87 wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Lynata wrote:
Personally, I'm a fan of Andrea Uderzo's SoB artworks:

Spoiler:






I especially love the little laser pointers (built into and replacing the ironsights, which by themselves would be too big to be of any help when aiming) and guncams on the bolters. Awesome detail.


Ooh those are nice.
I would like her to design the next Codex cover...if it ever happens :/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Mythra wrote:
Tau chicken feet battle suits. Big and top hvy and itty bitty funny feet.

The DK baby carrier has to annoy everyone. I bought this one as soon as I saw it.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/469402-.html

The skulls on everything gets silly. Chaos I can see but why does the imperium have a skull fetish?



Couple of reasons -

The Imperium of Man is all about humanity, and when you strip away the flesh all human skulls look pretty much the same.
Ergo, the ideal symbol for them would be a skull, as that represents all of humanity.

The Imperium of Man also takes heavy influence from the Catholic Church, which tends to use some morbid imagery

Case in point, the Sedlec Ossuary of Prague :





That's actually in Kutna Hora.



Ah, my mistake. Yes, it is indeed in Kutna Hora.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/25 19:53:22


Post by: Lynata


Well, it is pretty close at least.

Here's some more: http://www.bootsnall.com/articles/09-05/bone-churches-europe.html

Glory to the God-Emperor of Mankind!

[edit] check out that Austrian one. looks positively black-templar'ish to me!


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/25 20:57:24


Post by: Plumbumbarum


Yes the pics also prove, imnho, that when you go for "realistic" pallette and the right amount of ooze, they get just as serious and menacing as for example aliens. GW does them extreme disservice with the clean cartoony way of painting.

Pics are from Tale of Painters blog btw, forgot the name of the artist and the page wont load for me grrr. Anyway I want to cry tears of awe when I see those.




Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/25 23:01:14


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Lynata wrote:
Well, it is pretty close at least.

Here's some more: http://www.bootsnall.com/articles/09-05/bone-churches-europe.html

Glory to the God-Emperor of Mankind!

[edit] check out that Austrian one. looks positively black-templar'ish to me!


Haha, yes, that is what a Templar would do

This one from Milan is just beautiful



Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/25 23:23:15


Post by: Bronzefists42


I agree that ooze can make tyranids more menacing. One cool guy at my FLGS sculpted a bunch of stuff for his Tyranid army. He made an all green stuff old one eye model the size of a knight and a half.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/26 01:46:50


Post by: Jayden63


I am one of those people with whom Nids hold zero appeal. I don't dislike them in anyway, but their fluff and models do absolutely nothing to excite me in any possible way either. I't just completely indifferent to them.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/26 16:50:02


Post by: Alcibiades


It's not the Catholic Church using morbid imagery there. It's Europe after the Black Death.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/26 17:06:43


Post by: Co'tor Shas


A bit like the Parisian catacombs, it has particular significance, it's just that there were more bodies than they knew how to deal with. Most of the bodies were burnt (that's where we get "ashes, ashes, we all fall down!").


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/26 17:22:20


Post by: Lynata


Alcibiades wrote:It's not the Catholic Church using morbid imagery there. It's Europe after the Black Death.
Isn't that similar to the chicken and the egg? What affects the general populace is bound to affect its religion and clergy, and vice versa.


Your top 5 most displeasing aesthetic aspectsof the 40k setting? @ 2014/09/26 17:57:40


Post by: Quickjager


 Lynata wrote:
Alcibiades wrote:It's not the Catholic Church using morbid imagery there. It's Europe after the Black Death.
Isn't that similar to the chicken and the egg? What affects the general populace is bound to affect its religion and clergy, and vice versa.


You lost me.