Really hope it's limited in scope. New models look very hard to kitbash. But easy to paint. Like the extra wide shoot me here necks on primaris marines. Are they going to continue to have easy to paint cartoons for kids or models that you can kitbash/ repose /convert.
I liked the art style in 5th 6th 7th. This new direction easy to paint cartoons with low model counts on the table isn't really what 40k is about. At least not for me.
40k isn't for kids. Stop Infantilising 40k . We don't want pokemon/yugio 40k
not really, the death guard are a little less dirty then we useally see em but thats cause they wanna show off the detail without covering it in grime.
compare a modern picture of ultramarines to old school ultramarines and you'll quickly feel there's less to worry about.
BrianDavion wrote: not really, the death guard are a little less dirty then we useally see em but thats cause they wanna show off the detail without covering it in grime.
compare a modern picture of ultramarines to old school ultramarines and you'll quickly feel there's less to worry about.
I suppose what I'm getting at is all the modeling is done for you. Or seems to be. Don't get me wrong people will still do sick conversions make them look cool.
Just look at the different ways you could change up a tactical squad with limited kit bashing. I like the idea of Epic details but I want to make it epic. Not just choose the color.
Cartoony? I don't know if you have noticed, but GW hasn't been rocking anything other than grimdark since the mid 90's for their miniatures. Models, paint jobs, art style etc. Have all been more SRS BSNS and GRIMDARK in replacing older models.
I guess what I'm saying is that I can understand the direction GG models took, but appreciate the early models and their quirks. As for your post, this stood out:
ForceChoke wrote: I liked the art style in 5th 6th 7th. This new direction easy to paint cartoons with low model counts on the table isn't really what 40k is about.
The art style I won't comment on (last edition I played was 3rd) but calling the new sculpts cartoons is a bit naughty, as is your comment that Warhammer isn't about low model counts. You play the game the way you want to. Want to run a horde? Fine. Want a small strike force of elite troops? Go right ahead. Want to paint your marines a garish colour for reasons? Knock yourself out.
Warhammer let's you play anyway you want to. Telling others it's not Warhammer because of aesthetic choices or models on the board is silly. In your argument, a Mark 6 golf isn't a proper golf because it's a slightly different shape and colour to a Mark 2 golf.
I suppose it is a matter of taste, but I'm not too fond of the Death Guard models. But I've never been keen of overly detailed models unless it represents a specific individual in the army. So these sculpts would still be okay if there were only one of each if I were to build such an army.
For the same reason, even though I like very much the ork trukk and battle wagon models, they each look like they should be unique, so seeing multiples of unique looking machines is off-putting to me. So if I were to build these Death Guard models I would have to work a bit harder to make them look different which would be especially difficult as they are mono-pose figures.
Freddy Kruger wrote: Cartoony? I don't know if you have noticed, but GW hasn't been rocking anything other than grimdark since the mid 90's for their miniatures. Models, paint jobs, art style etc. Have all been more SRS BSNS and GRIMDARK in replacing older models.
I guess what I'm saying is that I can understand the direction GG models took, but appreciate the early models and their quirks. As for your post, this stood out:
ForceChoke wrote: I liked the art style in 5th 6th 7th. This new direction easy to paint cartoons with low model counts on the table isn't really what 40k is about.
The art style I won't comment on (last edition I played was 3rd) but calling the new sculpts cartoons is a bit naughty, as is your comment that Warhammer isn't about low model counts. You play the game the way you want to. Want to run a horde? Fine. Want a small strike force of elite troops? Go right ahead. Want to paint your marines a garish colour for reasons? Knock yourself out.
Warhammer let's you play anyway you want to. Telling others it's not Warhammer because of aesthetic choices or models on the board is silly. In your argument, a Mark 6 golf isn't a proper golf because it's a slightly different shape and colour to a Mark 2 golf.
I did say my opinion was subjective. An opinion is little different from an argument. I started playing around 3rd 4th and 5th. Sweeping changes bother people. Others agree like my roommates. To us they look like cartoons.
Saying 40k is not for kids is insane. 40k is written with 13 yr olds in mind. The fluff is ridiculous and unrealistic and over the top EXACTLY like an anime aimed at the same age group. You ever pick up a codex and read a curse word in it?
Jaxler wrote: The new models are hard to convert because it's the starter box. It's supposed to be snap fit. The actual unit boxes will be convertible.
Come on guys, it's not like dark vengeance was easy to kit bash.
40k is a game where you play with little, plastic, toy soldiers; of course it's for kids. As far the new models having a cartoony look, that's largely due to the way they were painted, the models themselves don't look cartoony at all. All miniatures end up looking cartoony when you airbrush them, which I'm guessing they did to show off a quicker-to-paint scheme for such heavily detailed miniatures. If you don't want them to look cartoony, you don't have to paint them that way. As far as customizability goes, the models are all from the 8th edition started box set, so of course they're gonna be less customizable in order to keep the cost down. Every starter box for every edition has been made up of easy-to-build mono pose models (Assault on Black Reach, Dark Vengeance, etc.); when they release squad boxes for Primaris Marines and Death Guard, I'm willing to bet they'll be just as customizable as all the other kits.
Lance845 wrote: Saying 40k is not for kids is insane. 40k is written with 13 yr olds in mind. The fluff is ridiculous and unrealistic and over the top EXACTLY like an anime aimed at the same age group. You ever pick up a codex and read a curse word in it?
I disagree 40k is for adults who used to be kids. And for kids that are lucky enough to have parents that either played 40k or d&d or modeled cars and miniature trains. This game is old.
A crappy turn of events began to push 40k to impulsive buyers and soccer moms with a crap-ton of expendable income.
Around 6th. Tale end of 5th.
Slaanesh and deamonettes are a good example of this.
Row boat gillsman is another sign of this. The super superer nu marines another.
As someone who has spent a lot of time extensively kitbashing Dark Vengeance, I can tell you that it takes no small effort to customize the models from ANY of the starter sets. In my case a green stuff was required on nearly every model, and all I was trying to do was replace the bikers from the torso up. They did not design Dark Vengeance with any alternate poses or loadouts in mind at all. Seeing that the Primaris Marine squads can't even take different load outs, I'd say they're just fine. They're just troop selections anyway. If you want to put some thought into them freehand the chapter and squad markings, that should keep you busy.
Lance845 wrote: Saying 40k is not for kids is insane. 40k is written with 13 yr olds in mind. The fluff is ridiculous and unrealistic and over the top EXACTLY like an anime aimed at the same age group. You ever pick up a codex and read a curse word in it?
I disagree 40k is for adults who used to be kids. And for kids that are lucky enough to have parents that either played 40k or d&d or modeled cars and miniature trains. This game is old.
Transformers is 30 years old. Does that mean Transofrmers is for adults or kids who are lucky enough to have parents that enjoyed transformers?
Sesame Street began airing in 1969. The Muppets debuted in 1955. Are those shows only for adults or kids who are lucky enough to have been born to adults who were fans of them?
How old something is has no bearing what-so-ever on the target demographic. 40k very well may be old. But it continues to be produced for it's target demographic. Which I imagine to be T for Teen and above. The ultra violence does not lend itself for children who are younger, while the lack of flat out rape (There are some implications. But find me a quote in any book that talks about the eternal rape fest that occur and I will concede on this point.) in any Chaos codex while talking about Slanesh, the Demon God of Rape Fests, would tell me that they want to leave it open for kids.
Again, insane to think it's not for kids. Again, exactly like an anime.
Jaxler wrote: The new models are hard to convert because it's the starter box. It's supposed to be snap fit. The actual unit boxes will be convertible.
Come on guys, it's not like dark vengeance was easy to kit bash.
Love it. But will they still be cartoons?
Hopefully as comical as ever.
Keep in mind we've a demon price who rides a bike and does whealies, and slaanesh marines used to kill people with the power of rock'n'roll.
How about we accept it's always been jokey and cartoony in places. Primaris marines are probably the most least cartoony thing I've seen in a while, in fact they look like what a marine should be when in scale with a guardsman.
Jaxler wrote: The new models are hard to convert because it's the starter box. It's supposed to be snap fit. The actual unit boxes will be convertible.
Come on guys, it's not like dark vengeance was easy to kit bash.
Love it. But will they still be cartoons?
Hopefully as comical as ever.
Keep in mind we've a demon price who rides a bike and does whealies, and slaanesh marines used to kill people with the power of rock'n'roll.
How about we accept it's always been jokey and cartoony in places. Primaris marines are probably the most least cartoony thing I've seen in a while, in fact they look like what a marine should be when in scale with a guardsman.
Let us never forget the losses we have endured as Noise Marines.. The loss of our Leopard Skin Guitar Wielding marines!
Really hope it's limited in scope. New models look very hard to kitbash. But easy to paint. Like the extra wide shoot me here necks on primaris marines. Are they going to continue to have easy to paint cartoons for kids or models that you can kitbash/ repose /convert.
I liked the art style in 5th 6th 7th. This new direction easy to paint cartoons with low model counts on the table isn't really what 40k is about. At least not for me.
40k isn't for kids. Stop Infantilising 40k . We don't want pokemon/yugio 40k
Who gives a gak about kitbashing? It's plastic, people who want to kitbash can do literally anything based on that fact alone. And the designers said they have all that blank open space because A) people complain models are too busy and B) it leaves room for painted detail.
Low model counts? Only if you take lots of tanks dude, infantey went down pretty much across the board. SoB can blob up like orkz now.
I'm so sick of hearing about the friggin art. It's inherently subjective and also not in any way uniform, the leaked art from the 8th book has several wildly different styles in it, some very clean, some just as gritty as 5th. The only thing it doesn't have is the 2nd-4th 'I watched a VHS where someone recorded over Debbie Does Dallas with The Thing and have never recovered' style.
And finally, 40k is for everybody. Children, adults, teenagers, even people who don't read anything about the background and never see the art. Because that's how fun works.
Really hope it's limited in scope. New models look very hard to kitbash. But easy to paint. Like the extra wide shoot me here necks on primaris marines. Are they going to continue to have easy to paint cartoons for kids or models that you can kitbash/ repose /convert.
I liked the art style in 5th 6th 7th. This new direction easy to paint cartoons with low model counts on the table isn't really what 40k is about. At least not for me.
40k isn't for kids. Stop Infantilising 40k . We don't want pokemon/yugio 40k
Who gives a gak about kitbashing? It's plastic, people who want to kitbash can do literally anything based on that fact alone. And the designers said they have all that blank open space because A) people complain models are too busy and B) it leaves room for painted detail.
Low model counts? Only if you take lots of tanks dude, infantry went down pretty much across the board. SoB can blob up like orkz now.
I'm so sick of hearing about the friggin art. It's inherently subjective and also not in any way uniform, the leaked art from the 8th book has several wildly different styles in it, some very clean, some just as gritty as 5th. The only thing it doesn't have is the 2nd-4th 'I watched a VHS where someone recorded over Debbie Does Dallas with The Thing and have never recovered' style.
And finally, 40k is for everybody. Children, adults, teenagers, even people who don't read anything about the background and never see the art. Because that's how fun works.
Alot of people care about it. All my friends that play got into the hobby because of customization and a love for modeling. My whole army is kitbashed. I have blood angel parts highly converted , space wolves, choas bits, and more all in one army.
The styling is definitely AoS-inspired, and not in a good way. However, you are complaining about mono-pose starter kit models. You might as well be complaining about the Dark Vengeance kit models, etc.
The genuine multi-part plastic kits have only gotten more variable/in depth as of late - I don't know if we'll see that decline.
A game for adults who used to be kids, still kind of applies to modern day kids, if it made people who used to be kids want to buy it though?
GW isn't purely catering to hardcore fans, otherwise they won't be making any money. They want to make it approachable by new players who might not have the luxury of an awesome mum or dad who played the game in their youth.
So of course it's aimed at kids, just as much as it's aimed at us older people who did have cool parents or were kids once and liked it then.
I'm unsure why it should be kept as a niche for nostalgic parents and their kids. You dont want GW to continue getting enough money to support the game? You don't want GW to bring new people into the hobby to become more popular? It was invented by kids in the first place, riffing off crazy 80's stuff.
I thought this thread would be about the new artwork when reading the title
But concerning the minis: GW puts out increasingly disgusting (in a positive way) nurgle miniatures in the last years. The plague bearers, blightkings and now the new PMs. The problem is, they always paint them in a terrible clean style. The minis show blood and gore all over the place but they aren't painted properly - because of the young target audience is my guess.
This game is for both, kids who actually like ridiculous supersoldiers and adults, who like the caricature of over the top supersoldiers.
The only thing I've noticed is that the primaries marines are suspiciously generic sci-fi supersoldier ish. They look just a little too real.
Marines had a very distinct look that just wasn't quite like anything else. I feel like they're loosing that touch with primaris.
I'm not quite sure what it is, but yea. Not seeing the cartoonishness mind you.
mrhappyface wrote: On topic: I'm not actually buying the starter set because I don't like the new DG models, I especially don't like the new Nurgle psyker,
he has a horrible case of baby face and the rest of the model doesn't make up for that.
Not to mention he's holding a giant spoon so will forever be seen as a baby in power armour tossing porridge at someone.
mrhappyface wrote: On topic: I'm not actually buying the starter set because I don't like the new DG models, I especially don't like the new Nurgle psyker,
he has a horrible case of baby face and the rest of the model doesn't make up for that.
Not to mention he's holding a giant spoon so will forever be seen as a baby in power armour tossing porridge at someone.
Warhammer is for kids. If we want the game to survive it need to appeal to kids.
This entitlement of "this games is for me and only for me and he should catter to my tastes!" is like saying that Lego should look to catter to the 30 years old now that 20 years ago played with them. No, times changes, and many times is not problem of the product, is that you have grow older and don't find it appealing. That doesn't mean that it is a bad product or should catter to you.
I think this is a whole lot of complaining about what's basically a really minor thing that shouldn't really even impact your day, I mean you've already gotten most of your minis painted already don't you?
Melissia wrote: I think this is a whole lot of complaining about what's basically a really minor thing that shouldn't really even impact your day, I mean you've already gotten most of your minis painted already don't you?
Melissia wrote: I think this is a whole lot of complaining about what's basically a really minor thing that shouldn't really even impact your day, I mean you've already gotten most of your minis painted already don't you?
Not the point.
Melissia wrote:The point is that I don't think your point has much of a point.
Melissia is correct.
It is the point. GW needs to make money. Outside of a few books you are no longer a major source of income for them. New players are. Why the hell should GW cater to your tastes?
Lance845 wrote: Saying 40k is not for kids is insane. 40k is written with 13 yr olds in mind. The fluff is ridiculous and unrealistic and over the top EXACTLY like an anime aimed at the same age group. You ever pick up a codex and read a curse word in it?
It's not (primarily) for kids. This game is ridiculous, it's over the top and it makes almost no sense.
Melissia wrote: I think this is a whole lot of complaining about what's basically a really minor thing that shouldn't really even impact your day, I mean you've already gotten most of your minis painted already don't you?
Not the point.
Melissia wrote:The point is that I don't think your point has much of a point.
Melissia is correct.
It is the point. GW needs to make money. Outside of a few books you are no longer a major source of income for them. New players are. Why the hell should GW cater to your tastes?
And that's upsetting to some long term fans. Because they used to. Lots of people disliked AOS. I suppose you're afraid of different opinions? Feed back can cripple a company's IP. Mass Effect andromeda comes to mind. Loads of fans hated 7th. Why is this offensive to you that others have a disgust for the aesthetic? I see no difference than people being annoyed at 7th rules and Myself and friends disliking the new aesthetic.
Melissia wrote: The point is that I don't think your point has much of a point.
That some fans don't like the new direction ?
And I'm allowed to think your dislike is pointless and baseless-- which it is. There's nothing stopping you from looking up painting methods that you feel aren't "cartoony". There's millions of them out there on the interwebs. GW providing one that's a little more "cartoony" (to use your phrase, I disagree with it) doesn't really impact much of anything outside of there now existing a more colorful painting guide. Which harms no one.
ForceChoke wrote: I disagree 40k is for adults who used to be kids. And for kids that are lucky enough to have parents that either played 40k or d&d or modeled cars and miniature trains. This game is old.
lmao
Christ, if the old guys who play Napoleonics heard you say that some of them might literally die from laughing so hard.
Jaxler wrote: Come on guys, it's not like dark vengeance was easy to kit bash.
Oh no, it totally was, because someone glued a new helmet and a tabard on this one snap-fit Tactical Marine sergeant, see?
GW dumbing everything down now, I swear to god! Next thing you know the models will assemble themselves...
I guess you couldn't call Dark Vengeance "cartoony/anime" since originally it didn't even have fething box art...
Also ForceChoke, the picture you used for those Iron Hands is not a "kit bash", it's a metal/Finecast upgrade kit GW sells for the Tactical Squad box. The most "converting" you'll have to do might be cutting off one of the Marine's legs and gluing the metal limb on instead. Likewise I don't see what, if any, real work went into the Marines in the other pictures you shared, though admittedly that might just be because all Marines kinda blur together and look the same to me. Maybe I'm just being pedantic but when I think of kit-bashing I think of taking unrelated kits that weren't necessarily designed to be combined together and making something new out of it. "Converting" a model I feel also means doing more than gluing a different arm or leg on than the "standard" one.
Look at some of the crap John Blanche does with his models for an example of what I think of when I hear customization. I'm not the biggest fan of his art but man is he creative when it comes to gluing gak together.
Talamare wrote: I don't think this game is for little kids, but I definitely think their target audience is around 14~16.
Which is still technically a kid, in my 30-year-old eyes.
Talamare wrote: The gluing together aspect of the game wouldn't work for anyone under 12.
I was ruining model kits at a far younger age than that...with parental supervision, of course, but still.
Tiberius501 wrote: GW isn't purely catering to hardcore fans, otherwise they won't be making any money. They want to make it approachable by new players who might not have the luxury of an awesome mum or dad who played the game in their youth.
Not to mention time. Time is a big issue for people nowadays.
I've seen a lot of people who are looking at getting into 8th edition now because of the "dumbed down" ruleset. They were intimidated by 40k before because they thought it was too complicated or bloated (and it was) and didn't think they could learn how to play or didn't have the time to try and learn, who now feel like maybe they can, with fewer pages of rules and the promise of much faster games. So it sounds like they are indeed succeeding at making the game more accessible...now if only they could address their insane prices while they were at it.
Tiberius501 wrote: I'm unsure why it should be kept as a niche for nostalgic parents and their kids. You dont want GW to continue getting enough money to support the game? You don't want GW to bring new people into the hobby to become more popular? It was invented by kids in the first place, riffing off crazy 80's stuff.
No, of course not. GW should cater to me and only me. They should make what I want. The business will learn to subsist on my custom alone and if it can't then it's just because they're incompetent and deserve to fail.
ForceChoke wrote: Alot of people care about it. All my friends that play got into the hobby because of customisation and a love for modeling. My whole army is kitbashed. I have blood angel parts highly converted , space wolves, choas bits, and more all in one army.
And literally nothing is stopping you from doing that. If anything the release of more plastic kits just means more options to customize with.
I don't really get what your hang-up is, just sounds to me like you're looking for an excuse to have a good whine.
Melissia wrote: The point is that I don't think your point has much of a point.
That some fans don't like the new direction ?
And I'm allowed to think your dislike is pointless and baseless-- which it is. There's nothing stopping you from looking up painting methods that you feel aren't "cartoony". There's millions of them out there on the interwebs. GW providing one that's a little more "cartoony" (to use your phrase, I disagree with it) doesn't really impact much of anything outside of there now existing a more colorful painting guide. Which harms no one.
How is a subjective opinion baseless?
I don't like Fish. My friends do like fish. It's like saying your opinion of disliking fish that doesn't agree with your pallet is baseless.
40k is already so Cartoonish and Anime :O Its more Anime than the anime i watch.
I Think you should go back and ask exactly what you mean, Clarity of your message.
Being highly detailed doesn't really make them easier to paint than normal space marines, with the models you present not really looking particularly easy over other things in the line.
With Cartoons and anime being such huge genres its not really a great way to scale the message you want.
Apple fox wrote: 40k is already so Cartoonish and Anime :O Its more Anime than the anime i watch.
I Think you should go back and ask exactly what you mean, Clarity of your message.
Being highly detailed doesn't really make them easier to paint than normal space marines, with the models you present not really looking particularly easy over other things in the line.
With Cartoons and anime being such huge genres its not really a great way to scale the message you want.
Honestly, that 's the most succinct adjective I could use. Cartoonish. It looks Cartoonish. Why is this critique so offensive?
How is mine and others personal opinion of it looking like a fusion anime cartoon wrong? Clearly, it's a subjective opinion.
I can see a pattern here "We Don't Like What he said. It doesn't align with our ideas, quick get the pointy hats and rope"
Okay you're right My subjective opinion is wrong whatever ...
Apple fox wrote: 40k is already so Cartoonish and Anime :O Its more Anime than the anime i watch.
I Think you should go back and ask exactly what you mean, Clarity of your message.
Being highly detailed doesn't really make them easier to paint than normal space marines, with the models you present not really looking particularly easy over other things in the line.
With Cartoons and anime being such huge genres its not really a great way to scale the message you want.
Honestly, that 's the most succinct adjective I could use. Cartoonish. It looks Cartoonish. Why is this critique so offensive?
How is mine and others personal opinion of it looking like a fusion anime cartoon wrong? Clearly, it's a subjective opinion.
I can see a pattern here "We Don't Like What he said. It doesn't align with our ideas, quick get the pointy hats and rope"
Okay you're right My subjective opinion is wrong whatever ...
not wrong at all, But trying to enplane something so loosely is bound to attract Criticism. Anime and cartoons are very broad, and your OP seems to be talking about a bunch of different things.
If you are referring to US Cartoons i just do not see it, some Anime maybe but no more than other 40k things from long before 8th was a thing.
And again, whats with the easy to paint With small model counts on the board, its a bit baseless since you do not have any examples otherwise.
But if you post on this forum you do have to know that people will respond.
"40k isn't for kids. Stop Infantilising 40k . We don't want pokemon/yugio 40k "
This is where you sorta jump of the ladder, 40k is so far from the aesthetics, design and tone of both those shows. Its just throwing out some words with no thought to there meaning.
They are different from each other also, particularly with the visual design.
ForceChoke wrote: I disagree 40k is for adults who used to be kids. And for kids that are lucky enough to have parents that either played 40k or d&d or modeled cars and miniature trains. This game is old.
lmao
Christ, if the old guys who play Napoleonics heard you say that some of them might literally die from laughing so hard.
Jaxler wrote: Come on guys, it's not like dark vengeance was easy to kit bash.
Oh no, it totally was, because someone glued a new helmet and a tabard on this one snap-fit Tactical Marine sergeant, see?
GW dumbing everything down now, I swear to god! Next thing you know the models will assemble themselves...
I guess you couldn't call Dark Vengeance "cartoony/anime" since originally it didn't even have fething box art...
Also ForceChoke, the picture you used for those Iron Hands is not a "kit bash", it's a metal/Finecast upgrade kit GW sells for the Tactical Squad box. The most "converting" you'll have to do might be cutting off one of the Marine's legs and gluing the metal limb on instead. Likewise I don't see what, if any, real work went into the Marines in the other pictures you shared, though admittedly that might just be because all Marines kinda blur together and look the same to me. Maybe I'm just being pedantic but when I think of kit-bashing I think of taking unrelated kits that weren't necessarily designed to be combined together and making something new out of it. "Converting" a model I feel also means doing more than gluing a different arm or leg on than the "standard" one.
Look at some of the crap John Blanche does with his models for an example of what I think of when I hear customization. I'm not the biggest fan of his art but man is he creative when it comes to gluing gak together.
Talamare wrote: I don't think this game is for little kids, but I definitely think their target audience is around 14~16.
Which is still technically a kid, in my 30-year-old eyes.
Talamare wrote: The gluing together aspect of the game wouldn't work for anyone under 12.
I was ruining model kits at a far younger age than that...with parental supervision, of course, but still.
Tiberius501 wrote: GW isn't purely catering to hardcore fans, otherwise they won't be making any money. They want to make it approachable by new players who might not have the luxury of an awesome mum or dad who played the game in their youth.
Not to mention time. Time is a big issue for people nowadays.
I've seen a lot of people who are looking at getting into 8th edition now because of the "dumbed down" ruleset. They were intimidated by 40k before because they thought it was too complicated or bloated (and it was) and didn't think they could learn how to play or didn't have the time to try and learn, who now feel like maybe they can, with fewer pages of rules and the promise of much faster games. So it sounds like they are indeed succeeding at making the game more accessible...now if only they could address their insane prices while they were at it.
Tiberius501 wrote: I'm unsure why it should be kept as a niche for nostalgic parents and their kids. You dont want GW to continue getting enough money to support the game? You don't want GW to bring new people into the hobby to become more popular? It was invented by kids in the first place, riffing off crazy 80's stuff.
No, of course not. GW should cater to me and only me. They should make what I want. The business will learn to subsist on my custom alone and if it can't then it's just because they're incompetent and deserve to fail.
ForceChoke wrote: Alot of people care about it. All my friends that play got into the hobby because of customization and a love for modeling. My whole army is kitbashed. I have blood angel parts highly converted , space wolves, choas bits, and more all in one army.
And literally, nothing is stopping you from doing that. If anything the release of more plastic kits just means more options to customize with.
I don't really get what your hang-up is, just sounds to me like you're looking for an excuse to have a good whine.
Thanks, I consider it a compliment because over 6 different types of space marine parts and kits were used. It took a lot of work getting them to look like vanilla marines. Lovely community personal attacka character assassination attempts. Nice ....
The guy right in front of the banner is a blood angle, Thunder Hammer is also a blood angle. Other Marines I have are using choas heavy bolters. Others have space wolves parts. Some parts were ordered online like the bionic arm holding a chain sword. That's called kit bashing.
And that's upsetting to some long term fans. Because they used to. Lots of people disliked AOS. I suppose you're afraid of different opinions? Feed back can cripple a company's IP. Mass Effect andromeda comes to mind. Loads of fans hated 7th. Why is this offensive to you that others have a disgust for the aesthetic? I see no difference than people being annoyed at 7th rules and Myself and friends disliking the new aesthetic.
A small minority were upset about AoS which by all accounts started reinvigorating the setting and making a bunch of money once they introduced points and fixed a lot of the issues with the initial launch. By all accounts AoS is currently a success and profitable.
You can dislike the aesthetic all you want. Hate the way models look. Biovore model looks super derpy. Exocrines look like dumpy turtles. Some models are just bad. But don't pretend like your dislike is even a blip on the radar or that your opinion carry any kind of weight. I full blown hate the way the current official exocrine model looks. So I kit bashed my own. No problems.
ME Andromeda is a product that need to be purchased by all their fans that directly translates into whether or not every customer will purchase the next product. Your like or dislike of these models has no bearing on your like or dislike of the next models released. Especially because you were unlikely to buy any of these or the next models anyway. As you said, you have all your armies built and you didn't use the official models to build them. You kit bashed and modified. What you are talking about is NOTHING like Biowares situation with Mass Effect.
I am not "afraid" of different opinions. I am all for it! But to support your opinions you made a claim that 40k was not for children. You made comparisons about the product being turned into something for young teenagers and "anime". I refuted your claim and your comparisons because they are wrong. Read the Gathering Storm fluff. It's a anime. Read the Horus Heresy. It's a Anime.
You act like the fact that you have an opinion means it entitles you to.... anything. It doesn't. You have one. Enjoy it. Sit with those who share it and talk about all the things you like and dislike. But the fact is GW is making money and you are not buying. So why should they even spare a single moment for your opinion? To quote you from another thread...
ForceChoke wrote: I'm not going to play 8th. No templates dumb downed rules. No Firing arcs No thanks. F GW this was the last straw.
GW's visuals have, for the last several years, trended more and more towards a videogame-y look, increasingly imitating stuff like League of Legends and WoW in terms of art design. Part of this, I'm guessing, is trying to keep "hip" with certain crowds, but part is also due to GW's decision to go all plastic.
Plastic has advantages. It scales much better in terms of marginal cost for production capacity, and allows for very lightweight but very large models. Hence why we've seen the profusion of things like Knights, Riptides, Baneblades, etc. The problem with plastic is that it also has limitations on what one can do with it in terms of detail, undercuts, curves, etc. This lends plastic kits to certain visual styles. This has been going on for several years, and is why the game increasingly looks the way it does. The coupling of official art to strictly render exactly what the plastic kits look like (while older art was generally inspirational and not directly representative of the kits) further pushes that style.
Jaxler wrote: The new models are hard to convert because it's the starter box. It's supposed to be snap fit. The actual unit boxes will be convertible.
Come on guys, it's not like dark vengeance was easy to kit bash.
Love it. But will they still be cartoons?
Ok, how do they look like cartoons.
Because those look 3d to me, if i remember, cartoons are 2d
Vaktathi wrote: GW's visuals have, for the last several years, trended more and more towards a videogame-y look, increasingly imitating stuff like League of Legends and WoW in terms of art design. Part of this, I'm guessing, is trying to keep "hip" with certain crowds, but part is also due to GW's decision to go all plastic.
Plastic has advantages. It scales much better in terms of marginal cost for production capacity, and allows for very lightweight but very large models. Hence why we've seen the profusion of things like Knights, Riptides, Baneblades, etc. The problem with plastic is that it also has limitations on what one can do with it in terms of detail, undercuts, curves, etc. This lends plastic kits to certain visual styles. This has been going on for several years, and is why the game increasingly looks the way it does. The coupling of official art to strictly render exactly what the plastic kits look like (while older art was generally inspirational and not directly representative of the kits) further pushes that style.
Okay, so your opinion is 40k models are "too cartoony" and that the game is made for adults, not kids.
Your opinion may indeed be subjective, but I think it needs more to back it up than what you've provided, which may be one of the reasons people are taking issues with your thread and not seeing the point of it. 40k from its inception was very much aimed at kids and teens, and the background, art, models and general "feel" of 40k backed it up. Everything looked kinda goofy and cartoonish even back in Rogue Trader days, and the fluff didn't pretend to be deathly serious, either...it had an obvious slant of humor and satire baked into it. The models have always had bright and sometimes garish paint jobs, hell, it was worse back then, if anything. Do you remember the Rainbow Warriors Chapter? Someone already posted an example of a Slaaneshi Marine earlier, I think that speaks for itself. Somewhere around 3rd or 4th edition GW kinda lost the plot a bit and started taking themselves a little too seriously, and started edging more towards the "dark" and "gritty" we all know, but even that I would argue is an attempt to appeal to kids/teens because once kids get to a certain age they start desperately wanting to be treated like adults, and try to prove that they're "mature" by becoming more interested in media with more violence, sex, drugs, etc.
Like today with video games, you'll find that games like Call of Duty, which were meant to appeal more to older gamers, are mostly played by children and teens. And not only that but they're also far ruder and more obscene than most adults are, because they think every other fething word being a swear makes them more "adult" and cussing people out over the mic in a game makes them little badasses. At the same time, Pokemon still has a sizable adult fanbase who collect things and still play the games, and when Pokemon GO came out last year, I saw far, far more adults playing the game than little kids...in fact I remember the few kids/teens I saw at the parks around that time giving people dirty looks or saying things under their breath. We're talking kids who couldn't be older than 13-14 thinking they were too old or too good for it...like I said, because they have something to prove, whereas adults mostly don't give a gak and do what they want because it's fun.
I don't really see what the big deal is. I get the feeling a lot of it is just denial, like people don't want 40k to be a "kids game" because they're insecure and don't want to admit they're still interested in something that was originally intended to be sold to a younger audience...but at the same time, it isn't necessarily something that an older audience can't also enjoy and there's really no shame in being a 40k fan either way. It's probably better than saying to someone "I still like Pokemon", anyway. Building and painting models can be a hobby unto itself and it isn't something that's limited to a certain age group.
ForceChoke wrote: Honestly, that 's the most succinct adjective I could use. Cartoonish. It looks Cartoonish. Why is this critique so offensive?
Because you act like this is a new development when it's always looked cartoonish! Yeah, 40k's had some "edgy" artwork at times, but the models have always had exaggerated, "heroic" proportions and look more like comic-book style miniatures than an attempt at making realistic-looking, well-proportioned soldiers. A lot of GW vehicle kits look like straight-up toys on top of that, and in some cases even include actual toy-like gimmicks (like the Tau sun shark bomber with it's pop-up missile bay with giant plastic hinge that looks like the kinda thing you'd see in the Wal-Mart toy aisle).
If anything I'd argue the Primaris Marines could actually be an attempt by GW to kinda get away from that. They're taller and more well-proportioned compared to regular Space Marines, they have longer weapons, their new vehicle seems to be going for a more "realistic" look, especially with the turret covered in crap...yeah, they're painted in bright colors, but uh, Marines kinda always have been, so...
Apple fox wrote: With Cartoons and anime being such huge genres its not really a great way to scale the message you want.
Yeah, in particular "anime" isn't a very good way to describe anything. Anime doesn't really describe any particular genre, it's just animation produced in Japan, and from what I understand covers a pretty wide range of genres just like animation or film produced in any other country.
Pretty sure if you really look into it you'll find anime that's darker and scarier than any of the crap you'll see in a 40k rulebook.
ForceChoke wrote: Thanks, I consider it a compliment because over 6 different types of space marine parts and kits were used. It took a lot of work getting them to look like vanilla marines. Lovely community personal attacka character assassination attempts. Nice ....
I don't like Space Marines much. I'm not kidding when I say they all kinda blend together. Even if I really tried I would struggle to identify where all the parts came from, and I don't doubt that you used parts from 6 different kits, either.
Not really "character assassination", I don't think...
Jaxler wrote: The new models are hard to convert because it's the starter box. It's supposed to be snap fit. The actual unit boxes will be convertible.
Come on guys, it's not like dark vengeance was easy to kit bash.
Love it. But will they still be cartoons?
Ok, how do they look like cartoons.
Because those look 3d to me, if i remember, cartoons are 2d
This is cartoonish to me.. That's hardly a stretch of the imagination. Again it's subjective.
Well I guess marines are finally getting the reverse ork treatment., huh. Seriously look at old orks and nids and compare them to current ones and tell me with a straight face that its more cartoony.
Goddam zoats I tell ya.
Its like I keep telling people. You aren't going to like every model. There are people that despise the new repulsor tank, and those that love it. Who is right? Who is wrong? Nobody. To think that every model GW makes should adhere to your preferences is arrogant and childish. Buy and paint the models you like, its not that hard. GW also paints things really flat and bland to show off their product. Brightly lit pictures aren't very grimdark but they look good in a catalogue.
It's actually impressive that GW makes enough variety to get so many people interested in its universe. The same can't really be said about other games.
Don Savik wrote: Well I guess marines are finally getting the reverse ork treatment., huh. Seriously look at old orks and nids and compare them to current ones and tell me with a straight face that its more cartoony.
Goddam zoats I tell ya.
Its like I keep telling people. You aren't going to like every model. There are people that despise the new repulsor tank, and those that love it. Who is right? Who is wrong? Nobody. To think that every model GW makes should adhere to your preferences is arrogant and childish. Buy and paint the models you like, its not that hard. GW also paints things really flat and bland to show off their product. Brightly lit pictures aren't very grimdark but they look good in a catalogue.
It's actually impressive that GW makes enough variety to get so many people interested in its universe. The same can't really be said about other games.
I agree. With the addition that It's in bad taste to try to belittle people that don't like everything you like.
Don Savik wrote: Well I guess marines are finally getting the reverse ork treatment., huh. Seriously look at old orks and nids and compare them to current ones and tell me with a straight face that its more cartoony.
Goddam zoats I tell ya.
Its like I keep telling people. You aren't going to like every model. There are people that despise the new repulsor tank, and those that love it. Who is right? Who is wrong? Nobody. To think that every model GW makes should adhere to your preferences is arrogant and childish. Buy and paint the models you like, its not that hard. GW also paints things really flat and bland to show off their product. Brightly lit pictures aren't very grimdark but they look good in a catalogue.
It's actually impressive that GW makes enough variety to get so many people interested in its universe. The same can't really be said about other games.
I actually think GW has a massive lack of variety in there 40k range They have a good deal of factions, But are only now really getting good distinct models within them.
Jaxler wrote: The new models are hard to convert because it's the starter box. It's supposed to be snap fit. The actual unit boxes will be convertible.
Come on guys, it's not like dark vengeance was easy to kit bash.
Love it. But will they still be cartoons?
Ok, how do they look like cartoons.
Because those look 3d to me, if i remember, cartoons are 2d
This is cartoonish to me.. That's hardly a stretch of the imagination. Again it's subjective.
You need to elaborate, Cartoonish ? How exactly.
To colorful maybe ? Personally i Do think so.
Its not simple, It would cost a lot of animate, with the unit so distinct.
It has a lot on it, But i do not think its to much for what its trying to represent.
Hard to kitbash for sure, But not being a marine player for most of my 40k life, it has not really been a issue and i welcome the design that has gone into these.
Jaxler wrote: The new models are hard to convert because it's the starter box. It's supposed to be snap fit. The actual unit boxes will be convertible.
Come on guys, it's not like dark vengeance was easy to kit bash.
Love it. But will they still be cartoons?
Ok, how do they look like cartoons.
Because those look 3d to me, if i remember, cartoons are 2d
This is cartoonish to me.. That's hardly a stretch of the imagination. Again it's subjective.
The worst thing about that is probably the face of the helmet...or lack thereof. The giant cartoony teeth with a giant tongue or tentacle coming out is sort of cartoonish, but the one on the belly doesn't bother me as much as the face.
But, if you fancy yourself a converter/kit basher, it should be easy to fix. A simple head swap would do it, or finding out another way to fix the face.
As for the issue of whether 40k is for kids or not, what does it matter :
“When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty, I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.” -CS Lewis
Sidstyler wrote: I don't really get what your hang-up is, just sounds to me like you're looking for an excuse to have a good whine.
That, and "nobody's allowed to like this unless they like it the same way I do".
Only you guys are saying that.
There's nothing about this that should make you stop enjoying the game any more than I should stop enjoying the game because of how dull and uninteresting chaos space marines are, or how GW keeps trying to force 30k bullgak in to 40k, or how gw keeps trying to make new marines that are marinier than your marines and the mariniest marines that ever marined your marine in the marine with their marines. Or how every damned new thing is so damned marine-focused.
Melissia wrote: There's nothing about this that should make you stop enjoying the game any more than I should stop enjoying the game because of how dull and uninteresting chaos space marines are, or how GW keeps trying to force 30k bullgak in to 40k, or how gw keeps trying to make new marines that are marinier than your marines and the mariniest marines that ever marined your marine in the marine with their marines. Or how every damned new thing is so damned marine-focused.
My disdain for spiky marines, which GW often depicts as one-note villains who revel in villainy, is quite open. As is my disdain for the primarchs being force-fed in to 40k, alongside my disdain for the very concept of "primaris" marines. And I'm hardly alone in disliking how so many other things are ignored so that they can just say "spess muhreenz" a bunch.
You're free to try to claim that me liking these ridiculous things means I must hate all things space marine, if you really want. Says more about you than about me though, that you think that these particular things define Space Marines.
Melissia wrote: My disdain for spiky marines, which GW often depicts as one-note villains who revel in villainy, is quite open. As is my disdain for the primarchs being force-fed in to 40k, alongside my disdain for the very concept of "primaris" marines. And I'm hardly alone in disliking how so many other things are ignored so that they can just say "spess muhreenz" a bunch.
You're free to try to claim that me liking these ridiculous things means I must hate all things space marine, if you really want. Says more about you than about me though, that you think that these particular things define Space Marines.
Also? She.
My apologies.
However, my comment was mearly commenting on your over use of the word marines in your comment suggesting that you have some kind of disliking towards marines rather than the face value commenting on GW overuse of marines although if your comments over use of marines was clever parody of GWs over use of Marines then your comment is shows tremendous intelligence for having several layers of commentary in a comment but if neither of these comments apply to your comment then this comment serves no purpose as a comment. What is you comment on that?
My comment about "the mariniest marines that ever marined your marines in the marines with their marines" was about Primaris Marines. Which are advertised as being to Space Marines what Space Marines are to humans, thus, Marines^Marines.
I remember the days when Dreadknights wer marine^marine. I also remember when Centurions were marine^marine.
Maybe it's a thing GW needs to do to push marines each edition: here's a marine in big marime armour that kind of looks like a baby carrier, here's a marine wearing another set of armour over his power armour and here's a marine that is a bit taller (btw I checked the Primaris models and the only reason they are taller is because they are wearing heels. I wish I was joking).
At least they're getting more subtle with each marine^marine.
Problem with the new DG is they aren't disturbing enough. Not enough guts, maggots, gore, pus bubbles etc. The tentacles and spikes/horns everywhere is just cartoony and its too much on some of these models. I was a kid when I got into 40k. But I loved it so much because of how gritty and disturbing some of it was. By removing that they are in a sense tripping out older fans. I'm only 24 years old but I can definitely see a change in the tone/art of 40k. Especially when I got into it with the second iteration of chaos marines in 3rd ed, and later in 4th.
I still haven't totally forgiven GW for what they did to the Daemonettes and Slaanesh as a whole, then they butchered the Necrons fluff entirely. They have had some serious missteps along the way.
Thargrim wrote: Problem with the new DG is they aren't disturbing enough. Not enough guts, maggots, gore, pus bubbles etc. The tentacles and spikes/horns everywhere is just cartoony and its too much on some of these models. I was a kid when I got into 40k. But I loved it so much because of how gritty and disturbing some of it was. By removing that they are in a sense tripping out older fans. I'm only 24 years old but I can definitely see a change in the tone/art of 40k. Especially when I got into it with the second iteration of chaos marines in 3rd ed, and later in 4th.
I still haven't totally forgiven GW for what they did to the Daemonettes and Slaanesh as a whole, then they butchered the Necrons fluff entirely. They have had some serious missteps along the way.
Back when things were edgy.... *Remembers leopard print Noise marines*
Thargrim wrote: Problem with the new DG is they aren't disturbing enough. Not enough guts, maggots, gore, pus bubbles etc. The tentacles and spikes/horns everywhere is just cartoony and its too much on some of these models. I was a kid when I got into 40k. But I loved it so much because of how gritty and disturbing some of it was. By removing that they are in a sense tripping out older fans. I'm only 24 years old but I can definitely see a change in the tone/art of 40k. Especially when I got into it with the second iteration of chaos marines in 3rd ed, and later in 4th.
I still haven't totally forgiven GW for what they did to the Daemonettes and Slaanesh as a whole, then they butchered the Necrons fluff entirely. They have had some serious missteps along the way.
Then by all means, model them how you wish. Feel free to embellish your models with the viscera that you miss so much, but don't rain on the parades of the kids that you may play against in flgs because their headcanon for 40k doesn't match yours. If you want to, use Fantasy Catapults in place of artillery. Paint tits on your daemonettes. Paint your AM to look like Nazi SS penal platoons. Just restrain yourself from pointing out the genesis of your ideas.
And if an older player sees your conversions when playing you and says, "DUDE!" Grin, then go for a pint with him\her afterwards. . . regardless of who wins.
Have you ever watched 'Watchmen' with kids before? Do you point out to them that Dr. Manhattan's junk is swinging in the breeze the entire movie? Or do you let them enjoy the movie because that particular tidbit is unlikely to be noticed by them until it is pointed out (as it was for me)?
Thargrim wrote: Problem with the new DG is they aren't disturbing enough. Not enough guts, maggots, gore, pus bubbles etc. The tentacles and spikes/horns everywhere is just cartoony and its too much on some of these models. I was a kid when I got into 40k. But I loved it so much because of how gritty and disturbing some of it was. By removing that they are in a sense tripping out older fans. I'm only 24 years old but I can definitely see a change in the tone/art of 40k. Especially when I got into it with the second iteration of chaos marines in 3rd ed, and later in 4th.
I still haven't totally forgiven GW for what they did to the Daemonettes and Slaanesh as a whole, then they butchered the Necrons fluff entirely. They have had some serious missteps along the way.
Back when things were edgy.... *Remembers leopard print Noise marines*
Anytime people say the old models were all pretty disturbing and gritty I just tend to point to the old Carnifex.
More than anything, I think the highlights on every edge of the models makes the GW paint jobs look terribad and lend to the cartoony effect. Especially on the marines (and Chaos marines), it's too stark.
As for 40K's age rating, I got into the game when I was still a 'kid' myself, back in Rogue Trader days. It's never been quite an adult's game, more aimed for a 15-20 year old demographic, though 40K's overall demographic has been aging.
If you want proof, look at the pictures at the beginning of the new rules book, and the age of the folks pictured playing (with the joker-like grins stitched to their face...). GW is expecting the people who pick up the book to be in that age demographic.
The aim is kids who are just old enough to get their first part-time/casual job, kids who will buy what their parents wouldn't buy for them just because their parents wouldn't buy it for them.
Look at the grimdark themes, pseudo horror mixed with humour and tropes, it's like a reflection of the internet.
Thargrim wrote: Problem with the new DG is they aren't disturbing enough. Not enough guts, maggots, gore, pus bubbles etc. The tentacles and spikes/horns everywhere is just cartoony and its too much on some of these models. I was a kid when I got into 40k. But I loved it so much because of how gritty and disturbing some of it was. By removing that they are in a sense tripping out older fans. I'm only 24 years old but I can definitely see a change in the tone/art of 40k. Especially when I got into it with the second iteration of chaos marines in 3rd ed, and later in 4th.
I still haven't totally forgiven GW for what they did to the Daemonettes and Slaanesh as a whole, then they butchered the Necrons fluff entirely. They have had some serious missteps along the way.
This ia exactly what I'm talking about. Where are the entrails and fear engines? Choas should look like canible Corpse album. Not a Disney cartoon.
Yes, its easy enough to paint things a bit darker to you themes.
My own personal opinion i think that mini above is just kind of bland with its paint job.
Really hope it's limited in scope. New models look very hard to kitbash. But easy to paint. Like the extra wide shoot me here necks on primaris marines. Are they going to continue to have easy to paint cartoons for kids or models that you can kitbash/ repose /convert.
I liked the art style in 5th 6th 7th. This new direction easy to paint cartoons with low model counts on the table isn't really what 40k is about. At least not for me.
40k isn't for kids. Stop Infantilising 40k . We don't want pokemon/yugio 40k
Are we really having a thread about the lack of posing options in the starter box? Really? There has never been options for the box, it came with whatever sas in it and that was it. Now when the actual multi-part kits come out, if they follow the starter's lack of options, then we have a valid complaint, but frankly this is a silly complaint at the moment. I mean go look at the last box with Dark Angels and Crimson Slaughter. No options, no posing outside of what already existed and generally painted cleaner than most people actually paint CSM.
Galas wrote: Warhammer is for kids. If we want the game to survive it need to appeal to kids.
This entitlement of "this games is for me and only for me and he should catter to my tastes!" is like saying that Lego should look to catter to the 30 years old now that 20 years ago played with them. No, times changes, and many times is not problem of the product, is that you have grow older and don't find it appealing. That doesn't mean that it is a bad product or should catter to you.
Kids who have jobs and disposable income. My grandfather always said that "growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional"
And have you seen some of the stuff Lego is coming out with? They are catering some to the older demographic of customers. Heck, the kits are so expensive as to make Warhammer look like an inexpensive hobby.
ClockworkZion wrote: Are we really having a thread about the lack of posing options in the starter box?
wait. . . is that what this thread was about? Then yes, the OP is being unreasonable. It is a reason to pay a premium for models not in starter sets; you can pose them as you wish. If your entire collection is made of models from starters, then you get what you paid for.
Thargrim wrote: Problem with the new DG is they aren't disturbing enough. Not enough guts, maggots, gore, pus bubbles etc. The tentacles and spikes/horns everywhere is just cartoony and its too much on some of these models. I was a kid when I got into 40k. But I loved it so much because of how gritty and disturbing some of it was. By removing that they are in a sense tripping out older fans. I'm only 24 years old but I can definitely see a change in the tone/art of 40k. Especially when I got into it with the second iteration of chaos marines in 3rd ed, and later in 4th.
I still haven't totally forgiven GW for what they did to the Daemonettes and Slaanesh as a whole, then they butchered the Necrons fluff entirely. They have had some serious missteps along the way.
This ia exactly what I'm talking about. Where are the entrails and fear engines? Choas should look like canible Corpse album. Not a Disney cartoon.
Vs above picture
Said picture is a conversion using a Fantasy model. 40k Nurgle has traditionally been less "gutsy" outside of Daemons and FW:
don,t get me wrong, I have converted DG of my own with ropey GS entrails hanging out and the like, but let's not pretent that the offical DG ever really went this route.
ClockworkZion wrote: Are we really having a thread about the lack of posing options in the starter box?
wait. . . is that what this thread was about? Then yes, the OP is being unreasonable. It is a reason to pay a premium for models not in starter sets; you can pose them as you wish. If your entire collection is made of models from starters, then you get what you paid for.
He was complaining about a lack of posing options on the kits, so yeah, it looked like it to me.
ClockworkZion wrote: Are we really having a thread about the lack of posing options in the starter box?
wait. . . is that what this thread was about? Then yes, the OP is being unreasonable. It is a reason to pay a premium for models, not in starter sets; you can pose them as you wish. If your entire collection is made of models from starters, then you get what you paid for.
I was INFORMED EARLIER IN THE THREAD THAT THEY ARE SNAP FIT. So we addressed that. . It seems you're really trying to MANIPULATE the words I typed to mean something they do not. Taking the entire point out of context.
However, it seems to be that some fanboys are doing that thing they do when you have a personal subjective opinion that they don't agree with. They start a lynch mob. Which is honestly immature. NO ONE IS ATTACKING THE GAME. I SUPPORT GW STILL. Christ.
Honestly, the amount of NO YOUR WRONG I'M GONNA TELL MY MOMMY. is getting out of hand. I don't honestly care about who's subjective opinion differs from mine. No one is wrong. You think they don't look cartoonish. I do. Other do as well. No one is right or wrong. The LOT of you need to grow the up.
There are fans that feel that it looks cartoonish. There are fans who do not.
The argument that war game is for children does not hold a lot of water with some older fans. None of the older fans want the game to be An MOBA. Or an Overwatch Game. Or whatever multiplayer the kids are playing today.
"Your Opinion is wrong because It's not exactly like mine" Is all I'm hearing. I might as well be facing down a lynch mob of KKK saying "HE'S NOT THE RIGHT COLOR" Threads done. WHO KNEW A SUBJECTIVE VIEWPOINT COULD BE INCORRECT... It's Art. ART IS SUBJECTIVE... It's like trying to talk to Trump Supporters or Social Justice Warriors. YOU DO ALL UNDERSTAND THE WORD SUBJECTIVE RIGHT? DId you all miss that or forget how to READ??
This shows us that GW will never please everyone lol.
Chaos player: We need new models.
GW: How about these cool new demons?
Chaos player: No we meant Marines.
GW: okay, what about these very detailed plague guys?
Chaos player: No looks to silly.
GW: ... sigh... Blight drone?
Chaos player: No no one wants that.
GW: Screw it I'm making a sweet looking Repulser Tank.
Space Marine Player: Ew we need more fluffy models.
Sisters player: FFS !!!
Well, we figured out that there will be kits that are not snap fit. The Thread is about the Cartoonish looking Death Guard. More than one person agrees that the aesthetic is Cartoonish. However, it seems to be that many many fanboys are doing that thing they do when you have a personal subjective opinion that does not agree with your own. They start jumping on a lynch mob.
Honestly, the amount of NO YOUR WRONG I'M GONA TELL MOMMY. is getting out of hand. I don't honestly care about who's subjective opinion differs from mine. No one is wrong. You think they don't look cartoonish. I do. Other do as well. No one is right or wrong. The LOT of you need to grow the up.
There are fans that feel that it looks cartoonish.
The argument that war game is for children does not hold a lot of water with some older fans.
"Your Opinion is wrong because It's not exactly like mine" Is all I'm hearing. I might as well be facing down a lynch mob of KKK saying "HE'S NOT THE RIGHT COLOR" Threads done. WHO KNEW A SUBJECTIVE VIEWPOINT COULD BE INCORRECT... It's Art. ART IS SUBJECIVE...
Good lord. People disagree with you so you play the victim card? Your OP was mainly about how the new starter set lacks choice and options from a modeling perspective, which is patently absurd considering that every starter set so far has been the same.
It's funny how the person who is complaining about people crying is the one who posts in the tone of a child throwing a tantrum while attacking thr character of others and claiming to be the one being attacked....
That said, there are darker images in the pre-order stuff for the Dark Imperium box that show a darker color scheme (I almost expect the lighter one is due to color balances being adjusted in post to show off model details rather than an attempt to make anything "cartoony". It's the same logic why models tend to be painted in brighter colors rather than darker ones hen they have a lot of defail to show off):
So yeah, color makes a difference.
I mean hell, the Primaris marines looked better painted like Black Templars they do as Ultra Marines. A paint scheme is often all it takes to change the more toyetic look of the model into one that represents something more "real" in design,
Well, we figured out that there will be kits that are not snap fit. The Thread is about the Cartoonish looking Death Guard. More than one person agrees that the aesthetic is Cartoonish. However, it seems to be that many many fanboys are doing that thing they do when you have a personal subjective opinion that does not agree with your own. They start jumping on a lynch mob.
Honestly, the amount of NO YOUR WRONG I'M GONA TELL MOMMY. is getting out of hand. I don't honestly care about who's subjective opinion differs from mine. No one is wrong. You think they don't look cartoonish. I do. Other do as well. No one is right or wrong. The LOT of you need to grow the up.
There are fans that feel that it looks cartoonish.
The argument that war game is for children does not hold a lot of water with some older fans.
"Your Opinion is wrong because It's not exactly like mine" Is all I'm hearing. I might as well be facing down a lynch mob of KKK saying "HE'S NOT THE RIGHT COLOR" Threads done. WHO KNEW A SUBJECTIVE VIEWPOINT COULD BE INCORRECT... It's Art. ART IS SUBJECTIVE...
Good lord. People disagree with you so you play the victim card? Your OP was mainly about how the new starter set lacks choice and options from a modeling perspective, which is patently absurd considering that every starter set so far has been the same.
No one is playing a victim card. This is the putting words in peoples mouths I was talking about. I was pointing out at the stupidity of trying to turn a subjective opinion into an argument. Enough.. Get over it.
usmcmidn wrote: This shows us that GW will never please everyone lol.
Chaos player: We need new models.
GW: How about these cool new demons?
Chaos player: No we meant Marines.
GW: okay, what about these very detailed plague guys?
Chaos player: No looks to silly.
GW: ... sigh... Blight drone?
Chaos player: No no one wants that.
GW: Screw it I'm making a sweet looking Repulser Tank.
Space Marine Player: Ew we need more fluffy models.
Sisters player: FFS !!!
Funny thing is that I love the new Death Guard models (especailly the Bloat Drone) but since I'm not running Death Guard I am declining to oick them up for the moment.
usmcmidn wrote: This shows us that GW will never please everyone lol.
Chaos player: We need new models.
GW: How about these cool new demons?
Chaos player: No we meant Marines.
GW: okay, what about these very detailed plague guys?
Chaos player: No looks to silly.
GW: ... sigh... Blight drone?
Chaos player: No no one wants that.
GW: Screw it I'm making a sweet looking Repulser Tank.
Space Marine Player: Ew we need more fluffy models.
Sisters player: FFS !!!
Funny thing is that I love the new Death Guard models (especailly the Bloat Drone) but since I'm not running Death Guard I am declining to oick them up for the moment.
And in the end, the real victim is the SoB player.
No one is playing a victim card. This is the putting words in peoples mouths I was talking about. I was pointing out at the stupidity of trying to turn a subjective opionon into an argument. Enough.. Get over it.
So you don't want to discuss or be exposed to opinions that differ from your own, you just want a venue to express your subjective opinion without any feedback. May I suggest a journal?
usmcmidn wrote: This shows us that GW will never please everyone lol.
Chaos player: We need new models.
GW: How about these cool new demons?
Chaos player: No we meant Marines.
GW: okay, what about these very detailed plague guys?
Chaos player: No looks to silly.
GW: ... sigh... Blight drone?
Chaos player: No no one wants that.
GW: Screw it I'm making a sweet looking Repulser Tank.
Space Marine Player: Ew we need more fluffy models.
Sisters player: FFS !!!
Funny thing is that I love the new Death Guard models (especailly the Bloat Drone) but since I'm not running Death Guard I am declining to oick them up for the moment.
And in the end, the real victim is the SoB player.
I don't know of any Sisters players who have real expectations of plastics being a thing anytime soon at this point, myself included.
usmcmidn wrote: This shows us that GW will never please everyone lol.
Chaos player: We need new models.
GW: How about these cool new demons?
Chaos player: No we meant Marines.
GW: okay, what about these very detailed plague guys?
Chaos player: No looks to silly.
GW: ... sigh... Blight drone?
Chaos player: No no one wants that.
GW: Screw it I'm making a sweet looking Repulser Tank.
Space Marine Player: Ew we need more fluffy models.
Sisters player: FFS !!!
Funny thing is that I love the new Death Guard models (especailly the Bloat Drone) but since I'm not running Death Guard I am declining to oick them up for the moment.
And in the end, the real victim is the SoB player.
I don't know of any Sisters players who have real expectations of plastics being a thing anytime soon at this point, myself included.
Melissia wrote: There's nothing about this that should make you stop enjoying the game any more than I should stop enjoying the game because of how dull and uninteresting chaos space marines are, or how GW keeps trying to force 30k bullgak in to 40k, or how gw keeps trying to make new marines that are marinier than your marines and the mariniest marines that ever marined your marine in the marine with their marines. Or how every damned new thing is so damned marine-focused.
I think she doesn't like marines.
Let's be fair- this is a very common complaint from the about half of 40k players who don't play Space Marines.
I mean, I played IG, 'nids and Chaos Marines at a store for a while- and when I started a Salamanders, there were folks who were treating me like I was turning to the 'dark side.'
ClockworkZion wrote: For the record, if someone doesn't want their viewpoint challenged, they should probably just not post it on the internet...
So underhanded manipulation tactics, trying to bait belittle people with harassment is somehow justified? Right...
You're the one who is upset that people are disagreeing with you and posting that they disagree with you. I was just pointing out that if you want an echo chamber of people who only agree with you, a public forum is likely the worst place for it.
usmcmidn wrote: This shows us that GW will never please everyone lol.
Chaos player: We need new models.
GW: How about these cool new demons?
Chaos player: No we meant Marines.
GW: okay, what about these very detailed plague guys?
Chaos player: No looks to silly.
GW: ... sigh... Blight drone?
Chaos player: No no one wants that.
GW: Screw it I'm making a sweet looking Repulser Tank.
Space Marine Player: Ew we need more fluffy models.
Sisters player: FFS !!!
Funny thing is that I love the new Death Guard models (especailly the Bloat Drone) but since I'm not running Death Guard I am declining to oick them up for the moment.
And in the end, the real victim is the SoB player.
I don't know of any Sisters players who have real expectations of plastics being a thing anytime soon at this point, myself included.
Ye of little faith, heretic.
I have faith, but no hope. Hope leads to damnation (and weird Tzeentchy tentacles).
Artwork. Subjective. Some consider Tracey Emin's bed to be actual art. I beg to differ. Neither party is Correct.
Gameplay. A game being made easier and thus quicker to play doesn't equate to be it being dumbed down, not is it a sign that it's solely for the youth. Consider my situation. As I type this, I'm on my coach home from work in London. It's now 17:12. If I, lucky, I'll be home around 18:30 with enough time to nip to the Post Office. That's my life Monday to Friday. Up at stupid o'clock, commute to work, do work, leave office around 4:30, commute home for around 18:30. Then there's dinner to think about, other irritating auditing to do. I barely played 6th and 7th Edition because I just never had the time.
With 8th Ed at least promising a faster gaming experience, well. That's good for me, no? If I can squeak out a decent sized game, including set up, within about two hours....I'll be active again in no time. And that's not due to a gutting of the rules. It's just less faffing. As a Mechanicus player, I'm stoked that I can field my Apocalypse Army without needing four books.
Mature? Funny. In this thread people seem to equate Mature with boobies, lady parts, rape and swearing....not a terribly mature attitude I'd wager.
ClockworkZion wrote: For the record, if someone doesn't want their viewpoint challenged, they should probably just not post it on the internet...
So underhanded manipulation tactics, trying to bait belittle people with harassment is somehow justified? Right...
You're the one who is upset that people are disagreeing with you and posting that they disagree with you. I was just pointing out that if you want an echo chamber of people who only agree with you, a public forum is likely the worst place for it.
usmcmidn wrote: This shows us that GW will never please everyone lol.
Chaos player: We need new models.
GW: How about these cool new demons?
Chaos player: No we meant Marines.
GW: okay, what about these very detailed plague guys?
Chaos player: No looks to silly.
GW: ... sigh... Blight drone?
Chaos player: No no one wants that.
GW: Screw it I'm making a sweet looking Repulser Tank.
Space Marine Player: Ew we need more fluffy models.
Sisters player: FFS !!!
Funny thing is that I love the new Death Guard models (especailly the Bloat Drone) but since I'm not running Death Guard I am declining to oick them up for the moment.
And in the end, the real victim is the SoB player.
I don't know of any Sisters players who have real expectations of plastics being a thing anytime soon at this point, myself included.
Ye of little faith, heretic.
I have faith, but no hope. Hope leads to damnation (and weird Tzeentchy tentacles).
Everyday, we stray farther and farther from the Emperor's light.
I'd just like to point out that they aren't going "cartoony" per-say. Firstly, the original figures were INCREDIBLY cartoony, as shown in a lot of images posted by people. As the developers grew the universe from rock bands (as shown in the thread, noise marines literally held guitars) and crazy action heroes in flared boots and massive shoulder pads, to suit the audiences of the time, it's gotten much more serious.
So the art style began to change with that, and the models got a little grittier and, I guess, more realistic? Though GW minis have ALWAYS had unrealistic proportions and "cartoony" features. Look at the Imperial Guard Cadian figures! Even the space marines, still with their 80's flares!
The art in the books absolutely changed and got a lot more realistic for the most part, and I feel like 6-7th ed figures began to loose some of their charm.
For AoS, they overhauled their art style, bringing in new sculptors and artists, and invented a new style that they could get into which has been the cause of some of the best models I've seen from any model company.
They're now doing that for 40k, doing the art in the books to match so that you don't have a terrible discrepancy between what the art tells you they should look like and what the figures actually look like. Also, now that they're able to put this amount of details into their minis, the art my as well replicate it.
So in short, I don't believe it's falling into a cartoony style. I think they've always had a cartoony style, but now they've got an art style for their figures that can allow their drawn art to look good even while replicating the figures.
Artwork. Subjective. Some consider Tracey Emin's bed to be actual art. I beg to differ. Neither party is Correct.
Gameplay. A game being made easier and thus quicker to play doesn't equate to be it being dumbed down, not is it a sign that it's solely for the youth. Consider my situation. As I type this, I'm on my coach home from work in London. It's now 17:12. If I, lucky, I'll be home around 18:30 with enough time to nip to the Post Office. That's my life Monday to Friday. Up at stupid o'clock, commute to work, do work, leave office around 4:30, commute home for around 18:30. Then there's dinner to think about, other irritating auditing to do. I barely played 6th and 7th Edition because I just never had the time.
With 8th Ed at least promising a faster gaming experience, well. That's good for me, no? If I can squeak out a decent sized game, including set up, within about two hours....I'll be active again in no time. And that's not due to a gutting of the rules. It's just less faffing. As a Mechanicus player, I'm stoked that I can field my Apocalypse Army without needing four books.
Mature? Funny. In this thread people seem to equate Mature with boobies, lady parts, rape and swearing....not a terribly mature attitude I'd wager.
Yeah, that level of "maturity" is the sort of maturity that pre-teens think is mature. Actual maturity would be looking at it, going "ain't my thing, but if it was a bit darker it might work" and moving on.
Flipping out because something doesn't market itself perfectly to you is definitely not a sign of maturity.
How cartoony models look is entirely subjective, while it is possible for models to look cartoony, these do not. that particular picture the Op showed is quite bright and clean though.
As for warhammer being for kids: no, it's not. At least in the way it's often implied. Warhammer is not and is not headed toward the kindergarten playroom. No even if the rules get simpler and/or the models get easier to build and paint. A lot of the fluff seems to be aimed at what teenage boys find awesome, but that does not make it "for kids".
GW models are definitely designed with ease of building and painting in mind (with exaggerated features and large flat spaces) painting a few true scale 28mm from other companies makes that obvious. Which is not a bad thing and does not mean it's necessarily aimed at younger customers, it could just as easily be aimed at people who prefer easy things over difficult things when the result is equivalent or better.
No one is playing a victim card. This is the putting words in peoples mouths I was talking about. I was pointing out at the stupidity of trying to turn a subjective opionon into an argument. Enough.. Get over it.
So you don't want to discuss or be exposed to opinions that differ from your own, you just want a venue to express your subjective opinion without any feedback. May I suggest a journal?
A discussion would be great. But that's never going to happen against a lynch mob. Feedback would also be great. If people stopped with Trolling and twisting words. Not to mention the baiting and baseless arguments about baselessness.
Gameplay. A game being made easier and thus quicker to play doesn't equate to be it being dumbed down, not is it a sign that it's solely for the youth. Consider my situation. As I type this, I'm on my coach home from work in London. It's now 17:12. If I, lucky, I'll be home around 18:30 with enough time to nip to the Post Office. That's my life Monday to Friday. Up at stupid o'clock, commute to work, do work, leave office around 4:30, commute home for around 18:30. Then there's dinner to think about, other irritating auditing to do. I barely played 6th and 7th Edition because I just never had the time.
With 8th Ed at least promising a faster gaming experience, well. That's good for me, no? If I can squeak out a decent sized game, including set up, within about two hours....I'll be active again in no time. And that's not due to a gutting of the rules. It's just less faffing. As a Mechanicus player, I'm stoked that I can field my Apocalypse Army without needing four books.
I've found that I actually prefer faster and simpler rules as I get older. I have better things to occupy my mind than scouring army\rule books for the most effective way to play a game, I suppose.
Flipping out because something doesn't market itself perfectly to you is definitely not a sign of maturity.
Seems to be a sign of taking GW games too seriously.
Okay, okay, okay. i'll come in and piece it all out.
You guys are looking at cartoony paintjobs- not cartoony sculpting. The sculpts are no more or less cartoony than GW has been for a while (yes, there's some 'heroic' proportioning, but that's no more than usual- and even a little less with the Primaris Marines).
But that's not what people are seeing when they see something Cartoony here. What people are seeing is the paintjob that the studio gave to those Death guard.
They used light colors with very dark lining. Doing that together gives a mini an overly crisp look- and reminds us of the very crisp outlines in a cartoon or comic book.
This is why so many painters advise against using Black for lining- extremely dark lining gives an extremely crisp appearance that is often disliked- although I find it is entirely appropriate depending on the mini you're painting and the effect you're going for.
A discussion would be great. But that's never going to happen against a lynch mob. Feedback would also be great. If people stopped with Trolling and twisting words. Not to mention the baiting and baseless argumements about baselessness.
Discussion and feedback I see in this thread from people whose opinions differ from yours; a lynch mob not so much. You said you didn't like how simple the modeling aspect of the new starter set is, and people responded by (correctly) asserting that this is nothing new. You said you don't appreciate the over the top or cartoonish art design that GW is employing, and people again asserted (correctly) that over the top, silly models have also been around since the beginning, albeit with even less detail. When I started playing this game the 2nd edition cover art featured a Blood Angels captain with hot rod flames painted on his armor. And yes, to my 10-11 year old self, I found that to be pretty rad. As a grown man I still do. Yes, that is my subjective taste, but it's objectively false that the game or models themselves are moving in a particularly more cartoonish or childlike direction, because it always has had those elements. If that doesn't suit your own subjective tastes, there are plenty of ways you can paint or model your own miniatures in a more gritty and realistic manner. That's the point.
Artwork. Subjective. Some consider Tracey Emin's bed to be actual art. I beg to differ. Neither party is Correct.
Gameplay. A game being made easier and thus quicker to play doesn't equate to be it being dumbed down, not is it a sign that it's solely for the youth. Consider my situation. As I type this, I'm on my coach home from work in London. It's now 17:12. If I, lucky, I'll be home around 18:30 with enough time to nip to the Post Office. That's my life Monday to Friday. Up at stupid o'clock, commute to work, do work, leave office around 4:30, commute home for around 18:30. Then there's dinner to think about, other irritating auditing to do. I barely played 6th and 7th Edition because I just never had the time.
With 8th Ed at least promising a faster gaming experience, well. That's good for me, no? If I can squeak out a decent sized game, including set up, within about two hours....I'll be active again in no time. And that's not due to a gutting of the rules. It's just less faffing. As a Mechanicus player, I'm stoked that I can field my Apocalypse Army without needing four books.
Mature? Funny. In this thread people seem to equate Mature with boobies, lady parts, rape and swearing....not a terribly mature attitude I'd wager.
Yeah, that level of "maturity" is the sort of maturity that pre-teens think is mature. Actual maturity would be looking at it, going "ain't my thing, but if it was a bit darker it might work" and moving on.
Flipping out because something doesn't market itself perfectly to you is definitely not a sign of maturity.
This is exactly the BS I'm talking about. Your statement is inflammatory. How is saying "it aint my thing " Than agreeing with everyone I don't agree with. By saying ,but if It was a bit darker it might work." how is being force fed your ideals. Or being told I need to agree with you 100% in some way is mature at all. It's not.
You could paint the thing entirely black And I would still say the aesthetic is Cartoonish. I stand by my statement that the character assassination and manipulation by the fanboys here is insane. Control freaks much? You literally said "unless you say exactly my view point you're immature.
I am not saying no to being challenged. Sure go ahead say" I think it's not cartoonish. "
But there was no challenge. I was simply insulted told my subjective view point was baseless then told unless I accept that I'm wrong.
What I have been told to accept is not only abusive but down right creepy.
Unless I parrot exactly what you want me to say. You will continue to be controlling abusive trolls. So yeah. Try again maybe this time with basic human respect.
I will state this very simple so everyone can understand
To me personally. No matter how dark you paint it. The Aesthetic looks cartoonish.
Disagree all you want. But don't be a total creepy control freak when you do.
This is exactly the BS I'm talking about. Your statement is inflammatoire. How is saying "it aint my thing " Than agreeing with everyone I don't agree with. By saying ,but if It was a bit darker it might work." how is being force fed your ideals. Or being told I need to agree with you in some way mature at all. It's not.
You could paint the thing entirely black And I would still say the aesthetic is Cartoonish. I stand by my statement that the character assasination and manipulation by the fanboys here is insane. Control freaks much? You litteraly said "unless you say exactly my view point you're immature.
I am not saying no to being challanged. Sure go ahead say" I think it's not cartoonish. "
But there was no challenge. I was simply insulted told my subjective view point was baseless then told unless I accept that I'm wrong.
What I have been told to accept is not only abusive but down right creepy.
Unless I parrot exactly what you want me to say. You will continue to be controlling abusive trolls. So yeah. Try again maybe this time with basic human respect.
I will state this very simple so everyone can understand
To me personally. No matter how dark you paint it. The Aesthetic looks cartoonish.
Disagree all you want. But don't be a total creepy controll freak when you do.
You're the one throwing around insults and calling people creepy control freaks and fanboys for disagreeing with you. You were told your viewpoint was baseless because, well, it doesn't appear to be based on anything. You don't have any kind of supporting information to point to to back up what you're saying, you're just stating your opinion and then rebutting any dissent from that opinion by accusing people of being abusive toward you. So again, if you just wanted to state your opinion without having the expectation that you would elaborate on it or back it up with anything, and you don't want to entertain any other opinions, then why start the thread in the first place?
A discussion would be great. But that's never going to happen against a lynch mob. Feedback would also be great. If people stopped with Trolling and twisting words. Not to mention the baiting and baseless argumements about baselessness.
Discussion and feedback I see in this thread from people whose opinions differ from yours; a lynch mob not so much. You said you didn't like how simple the modeling aspect of the new starter set is, and people responded by (correctly) asserting that this is nothing new. You said you don't appreciate the over the top or cartoonish art design that GW is employing, and people again asserted (correctly) that over the top, silly models have also been around since the beginning, albeit with even less detail. When I started playing this game the 2nd edition cover art featured a Blood Angels captain with hot rod flames painted on his armor. And yes, to my 10-11 year old self, I found that to be pretty rad. As a grown man I still do. Yes, that is my subjective taste, but it's objectively false that the game or models themselves are moving in a particularly more cartoonish or childlike direction, because it always has had those elements. If that doesn't suit your own subjective tastes, there are plenty of ways you can paint or model your own miniatures in a more gritty and realistic manner. That's the point.
I can agree to some of what you say. But I would point out that yes it started out cartoony do to lack of skill/ressources at the time. Around 4th 5th and 6th /7th there was a push for realism. Or less cartoony. The latest edition of tac squad could be an example. I will agree that somewhat cartoonish has always been a thing. But I would argue that the pendulam has swung to far back from realism into the realm of fusion/comics cartoons. And I know more then a few people agree. I suggest agreeing to disagree. It seems a lot better then the belittlement harrasment creepy controll freaks and trolls.
I disagree with you. By saying that we have "Correctly" asserting that this has always been the case. And saying it's objectivly false is just more being a controll freak. "Grim Dark" has been the standard. Visceral terrifying and hopeless. Is what the game is billed as.
You may feel that your subjective oppion is the only right anwser. But I disagree. And honestly nothing has been said to change my subjective opinion. I did learn never dissagree with creepy trolls that brow beat anyone they see as threatening or having differnt ideas.
You guys are looking at cartoony paint jobs- not cartoony sculpting. The sculpts are no more or less cartoony than GW has been for a while (yes, there's some 'heroic' proportioning, but that's no more than usual- and even a little less with the Primaris Marines).
But that's not what people are seeing when they see something Cartoony here. What people are seeing is the paint job that the studio gave to those Death guard.
They used light colors with very dark lining. Doing that together gives a mini an overly crisp look- and reminds us of the very crisp outlines in a cartoon or comic book.
This is why so many painters advise against using Black for lining- extremely dark lining gives an extremely crisp appearance that is often disliked- although I find it is entirely appropriate depending on the mini you're painting and the effect you're going for.
You could paint it any color you want and it will always look cartoonish.
ForceChoke wrote: This is exactly the BS I'm talking about. Your statement is inflammatoire.
Says the person who has attacked people for not agreeing with him and compared them to inflammatory groups.
That said, it's fitting that a Sister's player would light fires, no?
ForceChoke wrote: How is saying "it aint my thing " Than agreeing with everyone I don't agree with. By saying ,but if It was a bit darker it might work." how is being force fed your ideals. Or being told I need to agree with you in some way mature at all. It's not.
No one said you had to agree with anyone. But perhaps, you know, attacking people like you do in your very post I'm replying to right now (labeling people "fanboys" as an insult for making factual statements about the history of models, model kits and you know, everything GW has ever done). You claim you want a grittier and more mature look for the models while showing no maturity about the very topic you raised. Congrats?
ForceChoke wrote: You could paint the thing entirely black And I would still say the aesthetic is Cartoonish. I stand by my statement that the character assasination and manipulation by the fanboys here is insane. Control freaks much? You litteraly said "unless you say exactly my view point you're immature.
I am not saying no to being challanged. Sure go ahead say" I think it's not cartoonish."
I assume you're using the "figurative" definition of "literally" since I literally have never demanded that anyone agree with me. I have however pointed out that if you have issues with your views being challenged as you seem to, then the internet is no the best place to post said views.
And no, I don't think they're "cartoonish" as I don't see something I typically thing as "cartoony". That is a difference of opinion on what fits that definition though.
Now, claiming that this is somehow a new direction for the universe and the models is something that is blatantly false and something many of us have been actually been pointing out. GW has always had designs that tend to lean in this sort of direction and frankly to act like it's the new worst thing ever is a bit of a jump.
ForceChoke wrote: But there was no challenge. I was simply insulted told my subjective view point was baseless then told unless I accept that I'm wrong.
The only thing people have told you where wrong on had to do with the lack of poses due to it being a starter kit, and the idea that this direction of modeling is somehow a new thing that is now ruining the universe when it's the same direction things have been going in for decades.
Oh, and the idea that Plague Marines have [i]ever[/b] been the sort of entrail dragging models you prefer. To illustrate the point, these are all of the plague Marine models we have had since RT to the current kit:
Number 022317 in the middle has a Plague Marine gut
So yeah, while disgusting Plague Marines with hanging guts and the like are something that fit the lore, they've never been the official face of the unit on the table.
ForceChoke wrote: What I have been told to accept is not only abusive but down right creepy.
I've stated no such thing. All I said was that a knee jerk reaction and inflammatory posts about how everyone else is wrong for not agreeing with you is not really a mature reaction.
ForceChoke wrote: Unless I parrot exactly what you want me to say. You will continue to be controlling abusive trolls. So yeah. Try again maybe this time with basic human respect.
Again with the slander while pretending to be a victim of anything other than your own attitude. No one wants you to parrot anything, so please stop posting this tripe.
ForceChoke wrote: I will state this very simple so everyone can understand
To me personally. No matter how dark you paint it. The Aesthetic looks cartoonish.
Disagree all you want. But don't be a total creepy controll freak when you do.
Congrats, you think it's cartoonish and others don't. That's not what people have been correcting you on. We have tried to show that the paint job is largely responsible for how it looks since that can influence opinions, but no one has claimed (as far as I recall anyways) that you have to agree that it doesn't look cartoonish.
ForceChoke, I believe that you are recognising some legitimate issues with the new models, It's just that "cartoonish" is not the right word to describe it. It just isn't a very useful word to describe what you are talking about. At best cartoonish is having exaggerated eyes, heads, and hands, and wildly animated too. The new models are literally the opposite of that with more realistic proportions. There are lots of negative things you can call them but cartoon is one that doesn't actually fit very well.
What other people have commented on these models is that they are over designed. Too many details in an effort that screams "look how much detail is on these models". It doesn't look realistic at all but that's not the same as being cartoonish. Maybe stylized would be a better word. The best example is that gigantic bell. Can you imagine how that thing would swing around while the marine runs about the battlefield? Yeah, no paint job is going to cover that one.
Personally though I don't think 40k would be better off if everything was painted call of duty brown or michael bay orange. And I don't think you do either.
I think these plague marines look better than previous generations, but I think gw painted them cartoony to appeal to a more family friendly crowd. with the right paintjob I think they could look downright gruesome.
This is exactly the BS I'm talking about. Your statement is inflammatoire. How is saying "it aint my thing " Than agreeing with everyone I don't agree with. By saying ,but if It was a bit darker it might work." how is being force fed your ideals. Or being told I need to agree with you in some way mature at all. It's not.
You could paint the thing entirely black And I would still say the aesthetic is Cartoonish. I stand by my statement that the character assasination and manipulation by the fanboys here is insane. Control freaks much? You litteraly said "unless you say exactly my view point you're immature.
I am not saying no to being challanged. Sure go ahead say" I think it's not cartoonish. "
But there was no challenge. I was simply insulted told my subjective view point was baseless then told unless I accept that I'm wrong.
What I have been told to accept is not only abusive but down right creepy.
Unless I parrot exactly what you want me to say. You will continue to be controlling abusive trolls. So yeah. Try again maybe this time with basic human respect.
I will state this very simple so everyone can understand
To me personally. No matter how dark you paint it. The Aesthetic looks cartoonish.
Disagree all you want. But don't be a total creepy controll freak when you do.
You're the one throwing around insults and calling people creepy control freaks and fanboys for disagreeing with you. You were told your viewpoint was baseless because, well, it doesn't appear to be based on anything. You don't have any kind of supporting information to point to to back up what you're saying, you're just stating your opinion and then rebutting any dissent from that opinion by accusing people of being abusive toward you. So again, if you just wanted to state your opinion without having the expectation that you would elaborate on it or back it up with anything, and you don't want to entertain any other opinions, then why start the thread in the first place?
Your god dam right I'm calling the control freaks creepy and abusive. Being told that unless you parrot what we think your immature and wrong is creepy as ..
I don't need to back up a subjective opinion on art. The plastic modeling no matter how you paint it with the stupid bells and giant teeth look cartoonish. Which is an entirely subjective opinion. If you all understood that evidence is not reacquired for personal taste and stopped being creepy and abusive we could all get along great. I will not parrot what you want. I refuse to capitulate to abusive creeps that control everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Point_blank wrote: ForceChoke, I believe that you are recognising some legitimate issues with the new models, It's just that "cartoonish" is not the right word to describe it. It just isn't a very useful word to describe what you are talking about. At best cartoonish is having exaggerated eyes, heads, and hands, and wildly animated too. The new models are literally the opposite of that with more realistic proportions. There are lots of negative things you can call them but cartoon is one that doesn't actually fit very well.
What other people have commented on these models is that they are over designed. Too many details in an effort that screams "look how much detail is on these models". It doesn't look realistic at all but that's not the same as being cartoonish. Maybe stylized would be a better word. The best example is that gigantic bell. Can you imagine how that thing would swing around while the marine runs about the battlefield? Yeah, no paint job is going to cover that one.
Personally though I don't think 40k would be better off if everything was painted call of duty brown or michael bay orange. And I don't think you do either.
I 100% believe cartoonish is the right word to describe it. Please explain how it looking cartoonish no matter how you paint it to my eyes is incorrect. Cartoonish and heavily stylized. My subjective oppion. How canI be incorrect from an entirely subjective view point or baseless or anything else that was said.
Also others agree others disagree. Just leave it at that. Stop trying to tell me that my brain coming up with the "cartoonish" adjective on a subjective art piece is incorrect.
How about a basic level of understanding you could say. " I personally dont find it cartoonish. That would make more sense
What he wants is for people to validate his opinion by telling him his opinion is valid.
C'mon everybody!
Hey Forcechoke. You are entitled to your opinion. If you think the sculpt is cartoony and bad that is okay. It's okay man. People feel all kinds of ways and this is the way you feel and it's okay. Your opinion is valid.
Considering no one understands English or the word subjective. I think I will stop replying.
No one is wrong we are talking about weather you like something as in personal taste.
"I disagree I don't find it cartoonish" would have been a less creeptastic control freak response.
It's art. Art is subjective. I personally find the kits aesthetics not to my personnel taste because no matter how you paint it. It will still look cartoonish to me. There is no being wrong or incorrect. When it comes to personal taste. Can you all off with the trolling. And can a mod close this thread.
This is exactly the BS I'm talking about. Your statement is inflammatoire. How is saying "it aint my thing " Than agreeing with everyone I don't agree with. By saying ,but if It was a bit darker it might work." how is being force fed your ideals. Or being told I need to agree with you in some way mature at all. It's not.
You could paint the thing entirely black And I would still say the aesthetic is Cartoonish. I stand by my statement that the character assasination and manipulation by the fanboys here is insane. Control freaks much? You litteraly said "unless you say exactly my view point you're immature.
I am not saying no to being challanged. Sure go ahead say" I think it's not cartoonish. "
But there was no challenge. I was simply insulted told my subjective view point was baseless then told unless I accept that I'm wrong.
What I have been told to accept is not only abusive but down right creepy.
Unless I parrot exactly what you want me to say. You will continue to be controlling abusive trolls. So yeah. Try again maybe this time with basic human respect.
I will state this very simple so everyone can understand
To me personally. No matter how dark you paint it. The Aesthetic looks cartoonish.
Disagree all you want. But don't be a total creepy controll freak when you do.
You're the one throwing around insults and calling people creepy control freaks and fanboys for disagreeing with you. You were told your viewpoint was baseless because, well, it doesn't appear to be based on anything. You don't have any kind of supporting information to point to to back up what you're saying, you're just stating your opinion and then rebutting any dissent from that opinion by accusing people of being abusive toward you. So again, if you just wanted to state your opinion without having the expectation that you would elaborate on it or back it up with anything, and you don't want to entertain any other opinions, then why start the thread in the first place?
Your god dam right I'm calling the controll freaks creepy and abusive. Being told that unless you parrot what we think your immature and wrong is creepy as ..
I don't need to back up a subjective oppion on art. The plastic modeling no matter how you paint it with the stupid bells and giant teeth look cartoonish. Which is an entirely subjective oppion. If you all understood that evidence is not reauired for personal taste and stopped being creepy and abusive we could all get along great. I will not parrot what you want. I refuse to capitulate to abusive creeps that controll everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Point_blank wrote: ForceChoke, I believe that you are recognising some legitimate issues with the new models, It's just that "cartoonish" is not the right word to describe it. It just isn't a very useful word to describe what you are talking about. At best cartoonish is having exaggerated eyes, heads, and hands, and wildly animated too. The new models are literally the opposite of that with more realistic proportions. There are lots of negative things you can call them but cartoon is one that doesn't actually fit very well.
What other people have commented on these models is that they are over designed. Too many details in an effort that screams "look how much detail is on these models". It doesn't look realistic at all but that's not the same as being cartoonish. Maybe stylized would be a better word. The best example is that gigantic bell. Can you imagine how that thing would swing around while the marine runs about the battlefield? Yeah, no paint job is going to cover that one.
Personally though I don't think 40k would be better off if everything was painted call of duty brown or michael bay orange. And I don't think you do either.
I 100% believe cartoonish is the right word to describe it. Please explain how it looking cartoonish no matter how you paint it to my eyes is incorrect. Cartoonish and heavily stylized. My subjective oppion. How canI be incorrect from an entirely subjective view point or baseless or anything else that was said.
Also others agree others disagree. Just leave it at that. Stop trying to tell me that my brain coming up with the "cartoonish" adjective on a subjective art piece is incorrect.
How about a basic level of understanding you could say. " I personally dont find it cartoonish. That would make more sense
Just because you can have your own personal and subjective opinion does not give you a magical "get out of jail" free card that makes you exempt from people critiquing or pointing out the flaws in your opinion. Opinions CAN in fact, be wrong. The fact that you have to resort to ad hominems and playing the victim rather than backing up your statements (notice how the posters you're decrying as control freaks and "abusers" post actual pics and evidence that directly support their opinion, unlike yours) implies that maybe your subjective opinion isn't such an untouchable thing after all?
Also, it's kinda ironic that you call people out for being control freaks when its you whose been telling everyone to back off and accept that your opinion is correct.
I don't need to back up a subjective oppion on art. The plastic modeling no matter how you paint it with the stupid bells and giant teeth look cartoonish. Which is an entirely subjective oppion.
I don't need to back up a subjective oppion on art. The plastic modeling no matter how you paint it with the stupid bells and giant teeth look cartoonish. Which is an entirely subjective oppion.
Agreed. I like objectivity over subjectivity in my opinions.
This is exactly the BS I'm talking about. Your statement is inflammatoire. How is saying "it aint my thing " Than agreeing with everyone I don't agree with. By saying ,but if It was a bit darker it might work." how is being force fed your ideals. Or being told I need to agree with you in some way mature at all. It's not.
You could paint the thing entirely black And I would still say the aesthetic is Cartoonish. I stand by my statement that the character assasination and manipulation by the fanboys here is insane. Control freaks much? You litteraly said "unless you say exactly my view point you're immature.
I am not saying no to being challanged. Sure go ahead say" I think it's not cartoonish. "
But there was no challenge. I was simply insulted told my subjective view point was baseless then told unless I accept that I'm wrong.
What I have been told to accept is not only abusive but down right creepy.
Unless I parrot exactly what you want me to say. You will continue to be controlling abusive trolls. So yeah. Try again maybe this time with basic human respect.
I will state this very simple so everyone can understand
To me personally. No matter how dark you paint it. The Aesthetic looks cartoonish.
Disagree all you want. But don't be a total creepy controll freak when you do.
You're the one throwing around insults and calling people creepy control freaks and fanboys for disagreeing with you. You were told your viewpoint was baseless because, well, it doesn't appear to be based on anything. You don't have any kind of supporting information to point to to back up what you're saying, you're just stating your opinion and then rebutting any dissent from that opinion by accusing people of being abusive toward you. So again, if you just wanted to state your opinion without having the expectation that you would elaborate on it or back it up with anything, and you don't want to entertain any other opinions, then why start the thread in the first place?
Your god dam right I'm calling the controll freaks creepy and abusive. Being told that unless you parrot what we think your immature and wrong is creepy as ..
I don't need to back up a subjective opinion on art. The plastic modeling no matter how you paint it with the stupid bells and giant teeth look cartoonish. Which is an entirely subjective opinion. If you all understood that evidence is not reacquired for personal taste and stopped being creepy and abusive we could all get along great. I will not parrot what you want. I refuse to capitulate to abusive creeps that control everything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Point_blank wrote: ForceChoke, I believe that you are recognizing some legitimate issues with the new models, It's just that "cartoonish" is not the right word to describe it. It just isn't a very useful word to describe what you are talking about. At best cartoonish is having exaggerated eyes, heads, and hands, and wildly animated too. The new models are literally the opposite of that with more realistic proportions. There are lots of negative things you can call them but cartoon is one that doesn't actually fit very well.
What other people have commented on these models is that they are over designed. Too many details in an effort that screams "look how much detail is on these models". It doesn't look realistic at all but that's not the same as being cartoonish. Maybe stylized would be a better word. The best example is that gigantic bell. Can you imagine how that thing would swing around while the marine runs about the battlefield? Yeah, no paint job is going to cover that one.
Personally though I don't think 40k would be better off if everything was painted call of duty brown or michael bay orange. And I don't think you do either.
I 100% believe cartoonish is the right word to describe it. Please explain how it looking cartoonish no matter how you paint it to my eyes is incorrect. Cartoonish and heavily stylized. My subjective oppion. How canI be incorrect from an entirely subjective view point or baseless or anything else that was said.
Also others agree others disagree. Just leave it at that. Stop trying to tell me that my brain coming up with the "cartoonish" adjective on a subjective art piece is incorrect.
How about a basic level of understanding you could say. " I personally dont find it cartoonish. That would make more sense
Just because you can have your own personal and subjective opinion does not give you a magical "get out of jail" free card that makes you exempt from people critiquing or pointing out the flaws in your opinion. Opinions CAN in fact, be wrong. The fact that you have to resort to ad hominems and playing the victim rather than backing up your statements (notice how the posters you're decrying as control freaks and "abusers" post actual pics and evidence that directly support their opinion, unlike yours) implies that maybe your subjective opinion isn't such an untouchable thing after all?
Also, it's kinda ironic that you call people out for being control freaks when its you whose been telling everyone to back off and accept that your opinion is correct.
A subjective oppion on art can not in anyway be wrong. Because it's subjective.
And it's creepy as to force your ideas on people that have a subjective oppion. Sure you can say I dont agree. But it's subjective. As in art. That's like saying I dont like the songs of justin bibbler. And being told your incorrect.
Sorry but if people are being creepy controlling and abusive. Then I will call it out.
It's insulting to say "your subjective thoughts on art are wrong"
Do you understand the word Subjective?
If anyone else is going to respond first be tactful. Here is a guide. "I disagree because it doesn't look cartoonish to me"
ClockworkZion wrote: So are we now ignoring people who say you can dislike the stuff if you want?
If so this isn't a discussion thread, it's an echo chamber.
Pretty much at this point.
Forcechoke, you still haven't properly addressed all the different points that the other posters have made that highlight the flaws in your opinion. Until you do that, people will just see you as someone plugging their fingers into their ears and yelling for the bad people to go away.
Also, opinions, subjective or not, can be wrong. I can have the opinion that the Statue of Liberty originates from the crowning achievement of the crab people's dominance over mankind in their victory during the War of 1812, and if I tell people about it and others rightfully correct me on its true historical origins, there's nothing stopping that opinion from being misinformed or flat out wrong.
If anyone else is going to respond first be tactful. Here is a guide. "I dissagree because it doesn't look cartoonish to me"
Problem is, people have been saying exactly that. "It doesn't look cartoonish to me, and here's why..."
To which you have routinely responded by saying that their reasoning behind their opinion is not only wrong, because the models look cartoonish no matter what in your "subjective" opinion, but the mere fact they presented their own opinion and backed it up with examples and reason is abusive.
Now can a MOD please close this thread.
That would probably be the most constructive thing to happen to this thread, but then where would I get my laughs?
"Looking cartoon / anime"
I could think of worse things it could look like but I will attempt to be less flippant.
There are more details than in the past which will be a wee bit of a challenge when building up an army so "cartoon" may be a bit of a stretch.
The models do have a more "iconic" look to them, which the paint scheme will have a huge impact on their look.
The Death Guard seems to be more "horns and holes" as their theme (yep, even on the daemons).
There is a wee bit of bells attached which I find goofy but my much beloved Black Templars got their weapons chained to them so who am I to complain?
I have to point out that they are converging more with the look of their fantasy counterparts.
Not so much the guts or boils hanging out we have seen in the recent past.
The new marines is all about "layers" of armor, I kinda like the look (like the plated armor of old with interlocked segments).
We can get into the discussion on size but I just point at the "new" Terminators (post 1" base, metal termies) and how they are disproportioned to the "normal" marines as it is.
People have been converting to "true-scale" for a terribly long time, I would say this was inevitable.
It will be interesting to see if we ever see an adjustment where they become the "real" marines and the little guys are "Squat'ed".
Too many plastic kits to even contemplate that for a while yet for GW.
ClockworkZion wrote: So are we now ignoring people who say you can dislike the stuff if you want?
If so this isn't a discussion thread, it's an echo chamber.
Pretty much at this point.
Forcechoke, you still haven't properly addressed all the different points that the other posters have made that highlight the flaws in your opinion. Until you do that, people will just see you as someone plugging their fingers into their ears and yelling for the bad people to go away.
Also, opinions, subjective or not, can be wrong. I can have the opinion that the Statue of Liberty originates from the crowning achievement of the crab people's dominance over mankind in their victory during the War of 1812, and if I tell people about it and others rightfully correct me on its true historical origins, there's nothing stopping that opinion from being misinformed or flat out wrong.
I flat out disagree with your assertion based on personal taste
Were talking about art not delusions your analogy doesn't work in this scinario. We are not discussing facts or history we are discussing art and personal taste.
I addressed the paint job being bright already. If you base coated it matt black. The physical shape of the models would still look cartoonish from my view point.
The only reason I'm defensive at all is the moronic assertion that personal taste is not subjective. As well as the manipulation twisting of words trolling and abuse.
I have addressed all your points. Even the models always have been cartoony. I argued that was a lack of resources and skill. That the pendulam has swung to far from realism and grim dark to disney like levels.
I have not dismissed anyone until the character assassination trolling and abuse started to happen.
I was told unless i agree with the paint is the only reason it looks cartoonish. Then Im immature wrong etc
Clearly anyone. That doesn't parrot what you agree with is wrong.
I don't know if we can really call plastic toy soldier models "art". I'd argue the paint job and conversions would be more a show of artistry than the models themselves.
I'm not trying to bash on the sculpts or sculptors of course, but those serve as the medium for people to express their ideas with, making them, in my view, as much "art" as a blank canvas is.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't know if we can really call plastic toy soldier models "art". I'd argue the paint job and conversions would be more a show of artistry than the models themselves.
I'm not trying to bash on the sculpts or sculptors of course, but those serve as the medium for people to express their ideas with, making them, in my view, as much "art" as a blank canvas is.
That is like calling "paint by numbers" not art.
It is a creative endeavor even though it is at it's most basic form.
I have made many a conversion I am quite proud of that I would not call art... ever.
I find the more difficult something looks to an individual, the more likely they will call it art.
If anyone else is going to respond first be tactful. Here is a guide. "I dissagree because it doesn't look cartoonish to me"
Problem is, people have been saying exactly that. "It doesn't look cartoonish to me, and here's why..."
To which you have routinely responded by saying that their reasoning behind their opinion is not only wrong, because the models look cartoonish no matter what in your "subjective" opinion, but the mere fact they presented their own opinion and backed it up with examples and reason is abusive.
Now can a MOD please close this thread.
That would probably be the most constructive thing to happen to this thread, but then where would I get my laughs?
What utter BS no one has said anything but you are wrong. You claim that people have been saying exactly that. And I 100% think it's utter crap. That's an outright lie. People have been TELLING me what to think.
This looks cartoonish to me I feel it's a bad direction. This is my supporting evidence. On an entirely Subjective Viewpoint, I might add. So do you mind stopping with the BS and lies that would be great
ForceChoke wrote: So do you mind stopping with the BS and lies that would be greate.
greate is spelled great
ForceChoke wrote: We're talking about art not delusions your analogy doesn't work in this scenario. We are not discussing facts or history, we are discussing art and personal taste.
I addressed the paint job being bright already. If you base coated it matte black. The physical shape of the models would still look cartoonish from my view point.
The only reason I'm defensive at all is the moronic assertion that personal taste is not subjective. As well as the manipulation twisting of words trolling and abuse.
I have addressed all your points. Even the models always have been cartoony. I argued that was a lack of resources and skill. That the pendulum has swung too far from realism and grim dark to Disney like levels.
I have not dismissed anyone until the character assassination trolling and abuse started to happen.
I was told unless I agree with the paint, it is the only reason it looks cartoonish. Then I'm immature, wrong, etc
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't know if we can really call plastic toy soldier models "art". I'd argue the paint job and conversions would be more a show of artistry than the models themselves.
I'm not trying to bash on the sculpts or sculptors of course, but those serve as the medium for people to express their ideas with, making them, in my view, as much "art" as a blank canvas is.
That is like calling "paint by numbers" not art.
It is a creative endeavor even though it is at it's most basic form.
I have made many a conversion I am quite proud of that I would not call art... ever.
I find the more difficult something looks to an individual, the more likely they will call it art.
That's fair. I just mean it's hard to use the "art is subjective" argument with toys.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't know if we can really call plastic toy soldier models "art". I'd argue the paint job and conversions would be more a show of artistry than the models themselves.
I'm not trying to bash on the sculpts or sculptors of course, but those serve as the medium for people to express their ideas with, making them, in my view, as much "art" as a blank canvas is.
That is like calling "paint by numbers" not art.
It is a creative endeavor even though it is at it's most basic form.
I have made many a conversion I am quite proud of that I would not call art... ever.
I find the more difficult something looks to an individual, the more likely they will call it art.
That's fair. I just mean it's hard to use the "art is subjective" argument with toys.
It's very rude thanks. Do you think I enjoy having words swim on the page or appear backwards even when they are underlined by red squiggles. You're now in the realm of insulting people with Disabilities. Don't go down that road. It's disgusting.
ForceChoke wrote: So do you mind stopping with the BS and lies that would be greate.
greate is spelled great
Dyslexia. Easy to target other peoples' spelling and grammar when there is no argument left.
I would apologize, but truth be told, I'm bored. You are watching this thread refreshing every thirty seconds. Consider watching some videos on youtube or crunchyroll in between refreshes. Personally, it is well established (IMO to myself at least) that I have minimum taste. I paint lousy. I still talk 40k even though I haven't played a game in years. Oh, and I play Tau.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't know if we can really call plastic toy soldier models "art". I'd argue the paint job and conversions would be more a show of artistry than the models themselves.
I'm not trying to bash on the sculpts or sculptors of course, but those serve as the medium for people to express their ideas with, making them, in my view, as much "art" as a blank canvas is.
That is like calling "paint by numbers" not art.
It is a creative endeavor even though it is at it's most basic form.
I have made many a conversion I am quite proud of that I would not call art... ever.
I find the more difficult something looks to an individual, the more likely they will call it art.
That's fair. I just mean it's hard to use the "art is subjective" argument with toys.
It's very rude thanks. Do you think I enjoy having words swim on the page or appear backwords even when they are underlined by red squiggles. You're now in the realm of insulting people with Disabilities. Don't go down that road. It's disgusting.
So suggesting tools to try and make things easier for you to communicate your ideas is now an insult.
I'm so glad you ignore all my posts pointing out that no one is actually attacking you to take insult with a well meaning suggestion of something that may help you.
I'm seriously assuming you're only posting in an attempt to try and see if you can get banned at this point. You've done nothing but attack people, name call, claim that everyone is wrong for their opinions and stances while claiming that you can never be wrong due to subjectivity, despite that an opinion based solely on emotions can be wrong.
Basically you're lashing out at everyone who doesn't agree with you, projecting your actions on those who don't agree with you, and ignore any valid point people make to rehash the same invalid argument time and time again.
So yes, this thread truly is useless and it'd die faster if you stopped dragging out a dead horse and telling us it can win the Kentucky Derby just because your subjective opinion says so.
The only "telling" I can see in this thread is you telling people what they're posting instead of people knowing what they're actually posting.
You're very good at twisting words. You're an outright liar.
I want a slow clap Ormoticon for this post. I love how my posts have shown examples of my claims, and yet I'm the liar. What a magical world you must live in.
ForceChoke wrote: you're an abusive and insulting person that is albiest. And Prejiduce. So as far as I'm concerned you're oppionon is trash.
Quite untrue actually. I'm slowly losing my ability to see distant objects clearly and will end up being nearly legally blind in a few years and have a knee with no cartilage in it. Yet I wouldn't claim that someone saying I should wear glasses or recommending the lift to be "albiest". Tools to improve your quality of life and ensure you can communicate at the same level of everyone else is not "albeism", it's "equality". You choosing to not use those tools and then hide behind a label of persecution is when they're mentioned is hilarious though. That'd be like Steven Hawking not using his wheelchair and yelling at anyone who mentioned he'd have an easier time getting around if he used it.
And my opinion is "subjective" which, according to you, means I can never be wrong. So you aren't allowed to defame it in any manner, as per what you yourself have claimed.
Last one is a conversion using a Rat Ogre and the Talos kit, but yet, the game is fully of things that make no logical sense if we even consider normal logic a thing that should be applied to 40k.
That isn't cartoony Luciferian. Those are classic*
Spoiler:
Classic: A word used to describe things that one likes by the only atribute of being the first he had experience when he began to look at some form of art or artistic expresion.
ForceChoke wrote: you're an abusive and insulting person that is albiest. And Prejiduce. So as far as I'm concerned you're oppionon is trash.
Quite untrue actually. I'm slowly losing my ability to see distant objects clearly and will end up being nearly legally blind in a few years and have a knee with no cartilage in it. Yet I wouldn't claim that someone saying I should wear glasses or recommending the lift to be "albiest". Tools to improve your quality of life and ensure you can communicate at the same level of everyone else is not "albeism", it's "equality". You choosing to not use those tools and then hide behind a label of persecution is when they're mentioned is hilarious though. That'd be like Steven Hawking not using his wheelchair and yelling at anyone who mentioned he'd have an easier time getting around if he used it.
And my opinion is "subjective" which, according to you, means I can never be wrong. So you aren't allowed to defame it in any manner, as per what you yourself have claimed.
I am trying to be polite but you continue to insult and belittle and shame and be prejudice why SHOULD I have to use those tools? You make grammar mistakes everyone does. Pointing it out is rude. please stop with the prejudice attacks.
I am asking you to stop. AS in NO means NO. Please desist with your harassment. You claiming it's hilarious is also insulting. It's Belittling, and harassment.
And for the record, I usually EDIT after the fact.
'
I was also talking about "Subjective Feelings about ART not about you're abusive prejudice behavior. Being Subjective. Which has crossed a line. Literally you doubled down with your prejudice and insults.
The particular paintjob they've chosen to use for the new Death Guard stuff does lean more heavily on the brighter, cleaner side compared to some of the muddier paintjobs that are popular. It does look influenced by World of Warcraft.
I think it's a pretty good take on the forces of Nurgle. Sure, a little more slime here and a little more gunk there would be good. Put some shine to the models! But a fundamentally cheerful and dramatic paintjob is very fitting. It isn't the only way to paint plague marines and it isn't what everyone is going to like but it's one of the aspects of the legion that you can choose to emphasise or to deemphasise as you see fit. I'm all for multiple interpretations of what something in 40k looks like.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't know if we can really call plastic toy soldier models "art". I'd argue the paint job and conversions would be more a show of artistry than the models themselves.
I'm not trying to bash on the sculpts or sculptors of course, but those serve as the medium for people to express their ideas with, making them, in my view, as much "art" as a blank canvas is.
Art definition
1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
synonyms: fine art, artwork
"he studied art"
•works produced by human creative skill and imagination.
"his collection of modern art"
synonyms: fine art, artwork
"he studied art"
•creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture.
"she's good at art"
2. the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.
"the visual arts"
3. subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects).
"the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatible"
4. a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice.
"the art of conversation"
synonyms: skill, craft, technique, knack, facility, ability, know-how
"the art of writing"
I would think the sculptures themselves are more art than what I usually do to them with paint. just because a thing is mass produced does not mean it did not take a lot of skill, and creativity to create. if a person makes an amazing statue and then makes a mold of it and sells reproductions it might make it less valuable from a monetary standpoint, but it certainly still took skill to make that original.
On the paint job and what it means to the person. my minis are usually just painted to decent table top standard. I do a base coat, some shading, some wash and a few metal bits here and there. those I would agree are not really "art" to me, but to somebody else they might do the same thing and feel they are fully expressing themselves. On the other hand I have some models where I do multiple layers of blending, use more than 10-15 colors and shades per model and really make them centerpieces for my army, those I would call works of art (subjective sure but to me they have meaning and express my creativity and skill with airbrushes, paint and normal brush). that said it does not mean others have to think that it is a piece of art. I see plenty of "art" that I do not get but it is still art to the creator and some people so I just smile and move on with life.
ClockworkZion wrote: I don't know if we can really call plastic toy soldier models "art". I'd argue the paint job and conversions would be more a show of artistry than the models themselves.
I'm not trying to bash on the sculpts or sculptors of course, but those serve as the medium for people to express their ideas with, making them, in my view, as much "art" as a blank canvas is.
Art definition
1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
synonyms: fine art, artwork
"he studied art"
•works produced by human creative skill and imagination.
"his collection of modern art"
synonyms: fine art, artwork
"he studied art"
•creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture.
"she's good at art"
2. the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.
"the visual arts"
3. subjects of study primarily concerned with the processes and products of human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects).
"the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatible"
4. a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice.
"the art of conversation"
synonyms: skill, craft, technique, knack, facility, ability, know-how
"the art of writing"
I would think the sculptures themselves are more art than what I usually do to them with paint. just because a thing is mass produced does not mean it did not take a lot of skill, and creativity to create. if a person makes an amazing statue and then makes a mold of it and sells reproductions it might make it less valuable from a monetary standpoint, but it certainly still took skill to make that original.
On the paint job and what it means to the person. my minis are usually just painted to decent table top standard. I do a base coat, some shading, some wash and a few metal bits here and there. those I would agree are not really "art" to me, but to somebody else they might do the same thing and feel they are fully expressing themselves. On the other hand I have some models where I do multiple layers of blending, use more than 10-15 colors and shades per model and really make them centerpieces for my army, those I would call works of art (subjective sure but to me they have meaning and express my creativity and skill with airbrushes, paint and normal brush). that said it does not mean others have to think that it is a piece of art. I see plenty of "art" that I do not get but it is still art to the creator and some people so I just smile and move on with life.
That's a fair stance. I just don't usually put them in the same mental category as different forms of art. But that's just me.
There is not liking Justin Beebs because you just don't like him.
And then there is not liking Justin Beebs because he does not have the talent and skill to be good. His vocal range is poor, the composition of his music is childish in it's simplicity and execution. The artistic merit of his body of work is shallow and hollow and adds nothing to the musical scene of value.
One of those opinions has merit. The other is one person just spouting off with nothing of value to contribute. Which one sound like ForceChoke?
Galas wrote: That isn't cartoony Luciferian. Those are classic*
Spoiler:
Classic: A word used to describe things that one likes by the only atribute of being the first he had experience when he began to look at some form of art or artistic expresion.
I happen to agree, but partly because the over-the-top ludicrousness of some of the art and models is what initially drew me to 40k
Lance845 wrote: There is not liking Justin Beebs because you just don't like him.
And then there is not liking Justin Beebs because he does not have the talent and skill to be good. His vocal range is poor, the composition of his music is childish in it's simplicity and execution. The artistic merit of his body of work is shallow and hollow and adds nothing to the musical scene of value.
One of those opinions has merit. The other is one person just spouting off with nothing of value to contribute. Which one sound like ForceChoke?
Both of those arguments have merit. One is less descriptive one is more descriptive. I also gave reasons why I disliked the artwork. Because it looked cartoonish to me. I gave reason and evidence. Why the personal attacks is all I was ever saying. Why are you farming me out to be a bad person ?
ForceChoke wrote: This is exactly the BS I'm talking about. Your statement is inflammatoire.
Then what do you call this?
ForceChoke wrote: The argument that war game is for children does not hold a lot of water with some older fans. None of the older fans want the game to be An MOBA. Or an Overwatch Game. Or whatever multiplayer the kids are playing today.
First of all, I am an "older fan". I've been into 40k since 4th edition, so for about 11 years now. I'm 30. And I'm telling you 40k does have, and has always had, elements and imagery that were designed to appeal to children, most notably young teens going through that phase where they think they're more "mature" than the adults around them. You know what I'm talking about, we've all been there. They like "edgy" or "dark" music, movies, video games, etc. If they played Overwatch, using your example, they would probably think Reaper was the coolest character in the roster because he wears a black trench coat and a skull mask and acts "scary", or the "Joker-esque" Junkrat who just wants to blow everything up because "Anarchy, yeah! Eff the system!", whereas us older gamers might have more appreciation for characters like Tracer or D.va because they're cute (some people find Tracer's bubbly attitude annoying, but whatever), or maybe even identify with Soldier: 76 because we too are old and tired of everyone's crap.
Second, I think most of you guys are splitting hairs: insisting the game is not made "for kids" but then later admitting that it has elements that pre-teens find "cool" and that part of GW's demographic are boys aged 14-16 who can get their parents (who themselves probably grew up with tabletop games) to help them buy models. Those are kids. Like it's not even up for debate, legally people in that age range are children.
Finally, if part of your argument is that 40k's central focus being violent themes like war and death is part of what makes it an "adult's game", then how does this not also apply to a game like Overwatch? Widowmaker's backstory, for example, is that she was kidnapped by a terrorist organization that had been aiming to kill her husband but failed, brainwashed/indoctrinated by them, then allowed to be "rescued" by Overwatch. Shortly after she kills her own husband in his sleep, returns to the organization and becomes one of their operatives, where she is tortured and experimented on until she has no memory of her past life, and her skin becomes purple because they've slowed her heart rate way down to make her a better marksman/killer. At one point she assassinates an omnic monk and pacifist who's trying to promote peace, which Tracer fails to prevent. There's also the whole human/omnic conflict in general which is probably a bit too "real" and has parallels to terrible events in real life, like apartheid. I won't even get into Genji and Hanzo's backstory...
Sounds like pretty mature themes for a "kiddie game" to me. And then there's the fact that the gameplay centers entirely around killing the other team, with guns, fighting over objectives...like on one map you're escorting an EMP to the subway which is going to basically kill the omnic population in the city, if I'm not mistaken, and the other team is trying to stop you.
You could do the same with MOBAs. Probably half or more of League of Legends roster of characters are assassins and killers, one of which is a chimeric specter whose sole purpose is to lead an army of ghosts and apparitions against the living on an annual basis and reap their souls. Kinda like Halloween, except instead of going out for candy you get murdered by ghosts every year.
In any case though, I would actually agree with you, they're games that are still designed to be kid-friendly with cartoonish graphics. Kinda like 40k has always been, in fact! Oh yeah, if you dig real deep into the "fluff" you'll probably find some stuff that might be "disturbing" to younger minds, but as I pointed out, the same is probably true for Overwatch and most kids playing either don't realize or just don't care because it's popular and fun. When you see 40k played on a table and don't know anything else about the game, regardless of what edition you came into it, it looks cartoony because you're using brightly-colored models with exaggerated proportions and goofy-looking space tanks and walkers.
ForceChoke wrote: You could paint the thing entirely black And I would still say the aesthetic is Cartoonish.
Fair enough. All I've been trying to say is that the game's always kinda been that way. Whether or not it's getting worse might be debatable, but then again every time I look at the old models and artwork I think "Yeah, things could be way worse."
ForceChoke wrote: I stand by my statement that the character assasination and manipulation by the fanboys here is insane. Control freaks much? You litteraly said "unless you say exactly my view point you're immature.
The feth are you talking about? And no one "literally" said that, either.
ForceChoke wrote: I am not saying no to being challanged. Sure go ahead say" I think it's not cartoonish. "
But there was no challenge. I was simply insulted told my subjective view point was baseless then told unless I accept that I'm wrong.
I think you're getting too hung up on one or two posts in particular.
ForceChoke wrote: And saying it's objectivly false is just more being a controll freak. "Grim Dark" has been the standard. Visceral terrifying and hopeless. Is what the game is billed as.
I think that's part of the point you're missing, though. In my eyes, and to some others, that "grimdark" thing is kinda childish. Everything is "visceral, terrifying and hopeless"...to the point of absurdity. It's over-the-top and becomes silly, and almost feels like a parody. Which is appropriate because this is apparently what the original game was designed to be in the first place, it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
Hell, even the game's tagline "...there is only war" is silly. How can there be only war? So no one in this universe lives a normal life, it's all war? How do all their cities and war machines get built in the first place? Who mines the resources? Where does all the food come from that feeds the soldiers, are there still farmers in the grim, dark future? Do people still date or have sex? How do you make new people to replace all the dead ones? Do people still drive cars? Are there still companies selling gak or is everything rationed out by the Imperium? Is fast food still a thing? Do cheeseburgers still exist?
ForceChoke wrote: You may feel that your subjective oppion is the only right anwser.
BrianDavion wrote: the only person being insulting and belittling I see here forcechoke is you. might wanna chill out man.
And I feel this is bandwagon syndrome Did I accidentally insult your friend by disagreeing with them? I have done nothing but counterpoint the assertion that I am being rude and Immature unless I agreed with "It's the Paint Job that only makes it Cartoonish" When my opinion which as stated many many times was entirely subjective. Was "THE MODEL LOOKS CARTOONISH NO MATTER HOW YOU PAINT IT"
I feel this is a character attack. I think it's rude and I dislike being pushed in that way.
Please desist with the character attacks and harassment. I have been told what to say. And if I don't agree I am rude and immature. I have been insulted for having a differing viewpoint.
Please tell me how being defensive and disagreeing with being told what to think is Insulting and Belittling.
Because I don't see your point at all.
I feel it's disgusting to bandwagon on top of someone simply because you think they are attacking your hobby. I still love 40k.. Nor am I trying to be rude. Only defend myself against baseless character attacks rude behavior and control freaks and trolls.
SO one last time PLEASE DESIST WITH YOUR HARRASMENT.
A mod did point out that telling people to off was rude however I will not do that again. I am only pointing out that I have done nothing wrong except that small error. Only that I have disagreed with being TOLD what to think. I have given examples of this.
ForceChoke wrote: This is exactly the BS I'm talking about. Your statement is inflammatoire.
Then what do you call this?
ForceChoke wrote: The argument that war game is for children does not hold a lot of water with some older fans. None of the older fans want the game to be An MOBA. Or an Overwatch Game. Or whatever multiplayer the kids are playing today.
First of all, I am an "older fan". I've been into 40k since 4th edition, so for about 11 years now. I'm 30. And I'm telling you 40k does have, and has always had, elements and imagery that were designed to appeal to children, most notably young teens going through that phase where they think they're more "mature" than the adults around them. You know what I'm talking about, we've all been there. They like "edgy" or "dark" music, movies, video games, etc. If they played Overwatch, using your example, they would probably think Reaper was the coolest character in the roster because he wears a black trench coat and a skull mask and acts "scary", or the "Joker-esque" Junkrat who just wants to blow everything up because "Anarchy, yeah! Eff the system!", whereas us older gamers might have more appreciation for characters like Tracer or D.va because they're cute (some people find Tracer's bubbly attitude annoying, but whatever), or maybe even identify with Soldier: 76 because we too are old and tired of everyone's crap.
Second, I think most of you guys are splitting hairs: insisting the game is not made "for kids" but then later admitting that it has elements that pre-teens find "cool" and that part of GW's demographic are boys aged 14-16 who can get their parents (who themselves probably grew up with tabletop games) to help them buy models. Those are kids. Like it's not even up for debate, legally people in that age range are children.
Finally, if part of your argument is that 40k's central focus being violent themes like war and death is part of what makes it an "adult's game", then how does this not also apply to a game like Overwatch? Widowmaker's backstory, for example, is that she was kidnapped by a terrorist organization that had been aiming to kill her husband but failed, brainwashed/indoctrinated by them, then allowed to be "rescued" by Overwatch. Shortly after she kills her own husband in his sleep, returns to the organization and becomes one of their operatives, where she is tortured and experimented on until she has no memory of her past life, and her skin becomes purple because they've slowed her heart rate way down to make her a better marksman/killer. At one point she assassinates an omnic monk and pacifist who's trying to promote peace, which Tracer fails to prevent. There's also the whole human/omnic conflict in general which is probably a bit too "real" and has parallels to terrible events in real life, like apartheid. I won't even get into Genji and Hanzo's backstory...
Sounds like pretty mature themes for a "kiddie game" to me. And then there's the fact that the gameplay centers entirely around killing the other team, with guns, fighting over objectives...like on one map you're escorting an EMP to the subway which is going to basically kill the omnic population in the city, if I'm not mistaken, and the other team is trying to stop you.
You could do the same with MOBAs. Probably half or more of League of Legends roster of characters are assassins and killers, one of which is a chimeric specter whose sole purpose is to lead an army of ghosts and apparitions against the living on an annual basis and reap their souls. Kinda like Halloween, except instead of going out for candy you get murdered by ghosts every year.
In any case though, I would actually agree with you, they're games that are still designed to be kid-friendly with cartoonish graphics. Kinda like 40k has always been, in fact! Oh yeah, if you dig real deep into the "fluff" you'll probably find some stuff that might be "disturbing" to younger minds, but as I pointed out, the same is probably true for Overwatch and most kids playing either don't realize or just don't care because it's popular and fun. When you see 40k played on a table and don't know anything else about the game, regardless of what edition you came into it, it looks cartoony because you're using brightly-colored models with exaggerated proportions and goofy-looking space tanks and walkers.
ForceChoke wrote: You could paint the thing entirely black And I would still say the aesthetic is Cartoonish.
Fair enough. All I've been trying to say is that the game's always kinda been that way. Whether or not it's getting worse might be debatable, but then again every time I look at the old models and artwork I think "Yeah, things could be way worse."
ForceChoke wrote: I stand by my statement that the character assasination and manipulation by the fanboys here is insane. Control freaks much? You litteraly said "unless you say exactly my view point you're immature.
The feth are you talking about? And no one "literally" said that, either.
ForceChoke wrote: I am not saying no to being challanged. Sure go ahead say" I think it's not cartoonish. "
But there was no challenge. I was simply insulted told my subjective view point was baseless then told unless I accept that I'm wrong.
I think you're getting too hung up on one or two posts in particular.
ForceChoke wrote: And saying it's objectivly false is just more being a controll freak. "Grim Dark" has been the standard. Visceral terrifying and hopeless. Is what the game is billed as.
I think that's part of the point you're missing, though. In my eyes, and to some others, that "grimdark" thing is kinda childish. Everything is "visceral, terrifying and hopeless"...to the point of absurdity. It's over-the-top and becomes silly, and almost feels like a parody. Which is appropriate because this is apparently what the original game was designed to be in the first place, it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
Hell, even the game's tagline "...there is only war" is silly. How can there be only war? So no one in this universe lives a normal life, it's all war? How do all their cities and war machines get built in the first place? Who mines the resources? Where does all the food come from that feeds the soldiers, are there still farmers in the grim, dark future? Do people still date or have sex? How do you make new people to replace all the dead ones? Do people still drive cars? Are there still companies selling gak or is everything rationed out by the Imperium? Is fast food still a thing? Do cheeseburgers still exist?
ForceChoke wrote: You may feel that your subjective oppion is the only right anwser.
Who's saying that?!
You have some good points. But I was responding to specific posts that is why I replied to them. It's easy to get deffensive when your being TOLD what to think by some people. Most of your posts have been reasoned well. And Mature.
And I feel this is bandwagon syndrome Did I accidentally insult your friend by disagreeing with them? I have done nothing but counterpoint the assertion that I am being rude and Immature unless I agreed with "It's the Paint Job that only makes it Cartoonish" When my opinion which as stated many many times was entirely subjective. Was "THE MODEL LOOKS CARTOONISH NO MATTER HOW YOU PAINT IT"
I feel this is a character attack. I think it's rude and I dislike being pushed in that way.
Please desist with the character attacks and harassment. I have been told what to say. And if I don't agree I am rude and immature. I have been insulted for having a differing viewpoint.
Please tell me how being defensive and disagreeing with being told what to think is Insulting and Belittling.
Because I don't see your point at all.
I feel it's disgusting to bandwagon on top of someone simply because you think they are attacking your hobby. I still love 40k.. Nor am I trying to be rude. Only defend myself against baseless character attacks rude behavior and control freaks and trolls.
SO one last time PLEASE DESIST WITH YOUR HARRASMENT.
A mod did point out that telling people to off was rude however I will not do that again. I am only pointing out that I have done nothing wrong except that small error. Only that I have disagreed with being TOLD what to think. I have given examples of this.
You don't think that calling people fanboys, creepy control freaks, manipulators, liars, cultists, and disgusting bigots is insulting or belittling?
All of the Chaos Gods are frankly kind of silly and one-dimensional, but then again that's because they each represent single, unfettered drives or emotions. Doesn't mean there aren't interesting things you can explore there, and it also certainly doesn't mean there aren't plenty of cringe-inducing ideas to discover as well
And I feel this is bandwagon syndrome Did I accidentally insult your friend by disagreeing with them? I have done nothing but counterpoint the assertion that I am being rude and Immature unless I agreed with "It's the Paint Job that only makes it Cartoonish" When my opinion which as stated many many times was entirely subjective. Was "THE MODEL LOOKS CARTOONISH NO MATTER HOW YOU PAINT IT"
I feel this is a character attack. I think it's rude and I dislike being pushed in that way.
Please desist with the character attacks and harassment. I have been told what to say. And if I don't agree I am rude and immature. I have been insulted for having a differing viewpoint.
Please tell me how being defensive and disagreeing with being told what to think is Insulting and Belittling.
Because I don't see your point at all.
I feel it's disgusting to bandwagon on top of someone simply because you think they are attacking your hobby. I still love 40k.. Nor am I trying to be rude. Only defend myself against baseless character attacks rude behavior and control freaks and trolls.
SO one last time PLEASE DESIST WITH YOUR HARRASMENT.
A mod did point out that telling people to off was rude however I will not do that again. I am only pointing out that I have done nothing wrong except that small error. Only that I have disagreed with being TOLD what to think. I have given examples of this.
You don't think that calling people fanboys, creepy control freaks, manipulators, liars, cultists, and disgusting bigots is insulting or belittling?
When they actually are being thoose things. And I was responding in a reaction to being trolled. Insulted etc and being told what to say by control freaks
So no. I disagree with your assertion. Not everyone was being horrible. But a good number of people were being highly dismissive and controlling. I simply disagreed strongly and pointed out the abusive behaivor. You don't blame the person being mugged. For responding in kind with force.
Sorry but if you demand that I agree with you then I feel your controlling.
Luciferian wrote: All of the Chaos Gods are frankly kind of silly and one-dimensional, but then again that's because they each represent single, unfettered drives or emotions. Doesn't mean there aren't interesting things you can explore there, and it also certainly doesn't mean there aren't plenty of cringe-inducing ideas to discover as well
none more simple than Malal.. i wish gw would find a way to require that IP, the chaos god of... anarchy and chaos he was an absolute blast and I hope for the return one day. i think the simplicity of drives is what I like about some of the chaos models though the complexity of other renegades makes them interesting (see Alpha marines). you don't question what drives khornes followers, survival of the fittest, the strong beat the weak and that is all there is to it. as an army point, it at other army, try to get there, try to eat faces.
Actually, as far as the basic Plague Marines and Terminator Lord of the Starter go, most modelers of 5-10 years ago would probably have thought they were plenty awesome and full of suitable body-horror for Plague Marines, at least in a much darker color scheme with dark washes and corroded metals. The Sorcerer has a horrible cartoon look that seems much more than just the color scheme (like the awful face).
The guy with the giant bell I think I can make into a much better Sorcerer or Champion by replacing the godawful giant bell and backpack with a more standard chaotic one like the others have, cutting off the chains and bells and replacing the bell in his left hand with some sort of rusted power axe or staff. I think there's a good Ork power axe that closely matches the Terminator Lord's that might work, or one of the jagged Raptor chainswords/power sword with lots of corrosion effect added.
Look at any Plague Marine/Typhus art. It's been too, too long without Chaos troops that look like the new Plague Marines or the Chosen/Lord from Dark Vengeance or Raptors/Warp Talons. I'm actually fine with Chaos forces being over-designed as far as the baroque details go, to balance the nice, stark brutish lines of the Imperium.
AegisGrimm wrote: Actually, as far as the basic Plague Marines and Terminator Lord of the Starter go, most modelers of 5-10 years ago would probably have thought they were plenty awesome and full of suitable body-horror for Plague Marines, at least in a much darker color scheme with dark washes and corroded metals. The Sorcerer has a horrible cartoon look that seems much more than just the color scheme (like the awful face).
The guy with the giant bell I think I can make into a much better Sorcerer or Champion by replacing the godawful giant bell and backpack with a more standard chaotic one like the others have, cutting off the chains and bells and replacing the bell in his left hand with some sort of rusted power axe or staff. I think there's a good Ork power axe that closely matches the Terminator Lord's that might work, or one of the jagged Raptor chainswords/power sword with lots of corrosion effect added.
Look at any Plague Marine/Typhus art. It's been too, too long without Chaos troops that look like the new Plague Marines or the Chosen/Lord from Dark Vengeance or Raptors/Warp Talons. I'm actually fine with Chaos forces being over-designed as far as the baroque details go, to balance the nice, stark brutish lines of the Imperium.
I like that idea, use a little scratching and drilling to add corrosion to a big choppa and then pin it in place for that stave. as for the head maybe a demon prince one or just a space marine helmet
I'm not sure I could save the Sorceror, as he has a horrible staff, dumb face that doesn't pull off what it's supposed to, and in the 3D spins on the GW site, has a really bad balance to his pose.
The Bell guy (Harbinger, maybe?) also has some bad forward balance to his pose, but at least has a passable helmet and I really think he can be saved with my aforementioned backpack and left hand weapon swap. And looking at the bitz for Warp talons, their power sword could look pretty cool and be a super simple conversion.
I'm hoping the basic Plague Marines will be available as cheap bitz like the Chosen from DV- they would make a really nice skirmish force, especially as they lack repeated poses, unlike the really lazy duplicate of the "Bolter guy" from the Chosen.
Guys, I think I translated the original post. I suspect the OP is actually an agent of khorne who is upset that there will be less blood spilled from hobby knives with these fantastic new models.
Swabby wrote: Guys, I think I translated the original post. I suspect the OP is actually an agent of khorne who is upset that there will be less blood spilled from hobby knives with these fantastic new models.
This is the insulting bandwagon crap I pointed out before. Stop it.
Talamare wrote: Not to mention Slaanesh is a perfect example of a rather immature concept that wouldn't really attract anyone other than perhaps a horny teenager.
Um, you seem to be confusing Slaanesh as a thematic concept with the ironic way that many gamers treat the fluff (which is basically "p0rn and boobs!").
Slaanesh is actually a key component of the Chaos pantheon because what it fundamentally represents at a metaphysical level is corruption of the soul and everything that is noble. The other Chaos Gods have been depicted as fearing Slaanesh because it is parasitic on their essence. So the good King who fears what will happen to his kingdom when he passes turns to Nurgle, the wise sage who has reached the limitations of his mortal cognitive capabilities turns to Tzeentch and the noble warrior who is consumed by the need for greater tests of prowess turns to Khorne. So Nurgle, Tzeentch and Khorne all gain a new follower but Slaanesh too has gained power because something that once represented nobility of the soul has become corrupted and perverse. Followers of Slaanesh simply tend to be the most solipsistic and self regarding individuals because if there is one vice that Slaanesh preys upon it is pride.
With regards to whether 40K appeals to kids, I think it always has. The thing is that teenagers in particular love more adult oriented content. When I was a kid we all loved violent 18/R-rated action movies. But we now live in a world of PG-13 content (although TV shows like Walking Dead are an obvious exception) which is interesting because adult content is more easily available than it has ever been. Whether you're a major film studio or GW, you don't want to limit your market by making content 'too' adult. So GW has to walk that fine line so as to not raise the eyebrows of the parents holding the purse strings.
Luciferian wrote: All of the Chaos Gods are frankly kind of silly and one-dimensional, but then again that's because they each represent single, unfettered drives or emotions. Doesn't mean there aren't interesting things you can explore there, and it also certainly doesn't mean there aren't plenty of cringe-inducing ideas to discover as well
The Chaos Gods represent...chaos. It's a metaphysical concept which is basically in the tradition of myth and allegory, similar to ancient religious texts and creation myths. It describes fundamental elements of human experience. The physical universe is inherently chaotic (although it also has a form and order to it) and so when consciousness emerges in the universe it has been shaped by that chaos. But consciousness also creates a new feedback loop within the universe because consciousness gives birth to intent. There's a reason why Nurgle and Tzeentch are grouped together and Slaanesh is the youngest God (aside from the fluff reasons). Nurgle and Tzeentch represent something more primordial (entropy vs evolution) which is an ancient process which predates advanced consciousness. Then as conscious intent emerges is layers onto these ancient forces as it seeks to commandeer the underlying processes and this manifests itself as the essence of an a corrupting force (a God). Slaanesh is the most advanced God because it first requires some form of higher value or transcendence to be subverted. I don't think it's a coincidence that Rick Priestley envisaged the most noble and powerful race (with its own Gods who are the manifestation of the most noble ideals of its culture) giving birth to Slaanesh. Slaanesh suggests that even if you achieve the highest realisation of the noblest ideals, you are not safe. At that point, if your curiosity is not sated, where else is there to go?
If anything the concept has become one dimensional because writers don't do anything interesting with the concept or turn Chaos followers into boring snarling pantomime villains (GW's lack of quality control with regards to its fluff is another matter). Of course GW in 2017 is very different from GW in 1987 but Rick Priestley was a well read and smart guy. He knew how to pull together material from numerous sources and transform it into a thematic setting that was cohesive and compelling. Yeah things have changed a lot over the years and more and more writers have got their grubby hands on the setting but GW has basically been feasting on all of Priestley's work for the past 30 years.
Thargrim wrote: Problem with the new DG is they aren't disturbing enough. Not enough guts, maggots, gore, pus bubbles etc. The tentacles and spikes/horns everywhere is just cartoony and its too much on some of these models. I was a kid when I got into 40k. But I loved it so much because of how gritty and disturbing some of it was. By removing that they are in a sense tripping out older fans. I'm only 24 years old but I can definitely see a change in the tone/art of 40k. Especially when I got into it with the second iteration of chaos marines in 3rd ed, and later in 4th.
I still haven't totally forgiven GW for what they did to the Daemonettes and Slaanesh as a whole, then they butchered the Necrons fluff entirely. They have had some serious missteps along the way.
Then by all means, model them how you wish. Feel free to embellish your models with the viscera that you miss so much, but don't rain on the parades of the kids that you may play against in flgs because their headcanon for 40k doesn't match yours. If you want to, use Fantasy Catapults in place of artillery. Paint tits on your daemonettes. Paint your AM to look like Nazi SS penal platoons. Just restrain yourself from pointing out the genesis of your ideas.
And if an older player sees your conversions when playing you and says, "DUDE!" Grin, then go for a pint with him\her afterwards. . . regardless of who wins.
Have you ever watched 'Watchmen' with kids before? Do you point out to them that Dr. Manhattan's junk is swinging in the breeze the entire movie? Or do you let them enjoy the movie because that particular tidbit is unlikely to be noticed by them until it is pointed out (as it was for me)?
Yeah I can't see myself walking up to kids at the lgs and saying "back in my day daemonettes had stacks of titties!" Besides, I haven't set foot in a GW or LGS in over 5 years, and I can't see myself doing so because there aren't any around within reasonable drive distance.
NenkotaMoon wrote:Back when things were edgy.... *Remembers leopard print Noise marines*
I didn't mean THAT old, I was thinking more of the era where Karl Kopinski did most of the codex art covers.
These new DG are still good models, they aren't bad by any means. They just remind me of the DV Chosen, or they almost looked possessed especially the one with the maw on his face, and the other one from the previews with a toothy maw on his stomach. Here is an example of the artistic difference between what I originally liked and what we got now:
VS
There isn't a huge difference, but the last one looks more daemon infested, possessed or whatever. The top ones actually look decayed. The mk IV legs on the one also look good too, not sure why plague marines have to be only in mk III. A different paintjob on the new models can bring them closer to some of this artwork..thankfully.
well I have missed and have chosen to miss several pages of this thread...and it seems I am better off for it.
My take is that many things in the real world or in fantasy can be taken very cartoonish or very intense depending on the user. Whether it is Lord of the Rings novels, 90's independent comic book lines, Smurfs(is that a bad choice ), Harry Potter, Cthulu, or 40k.
Just look at some of the artwork over 30 years...or the short stories....and then look at other short stories or some of the really good novels/movies. Some of the stuff is light and fun and others are borderlining on better stuff.
Same in the game....you can make what you want of it....get all super life absorbing forget the real world crazy over it or take it as a quick way to blow some time.
It is what it is to you...and really not much else period.
Rosebuddy wrote: The particular paintjob they've chosen to use for the new Death Guard stuff does lean more heavily on the brighter, cleaner side compared to some of the muddier paintjobs that are popular. It does look influenced by World of Warcraft.
I think it's a pretty good take on the forces of Nurgle. Sure, a little more slime here and a little more gunk there would be good. Put some shine to the models! But a fundamentally cheerful and dramatic paintjob is very fitting. It isn't the only way to paint plague marines and it isn't what everyone is going to like but it's one of the aspects of the legion that you can choose to emphasise or to deemphasise as you see fit. I'm all for multiple interpretations of what something in 40k looks like.
In fairness World of Warcraft has been influanced by 40k for some time as well. I mean you can't tell me this death knight armor
Thats because warcraft IS warhammer. The original warcraft game was being written as a warhammer game. They lost the rights to the property (or failed to aquire them) so they made up their version of trolls gave ogres a second head and changed hammer to craft.
The 40k and WHFB of the early-mid 90s seemed more cartoony but that's more in retrospect following two decades of grim dark aesthetic. There's a bit of contradiction there because on the one hand the setting and aesthetic was more tongue in cheek but also more brutal and violent. Kind of like an 80s Death Metal album cover...
Some of this simply reflects the more 'amateurish' nature of gaming at the time.
Galas wrote: That isn't cartoony Luciferian. Those are classic*
Spoiler:
Classic: A word used to describe things that one likes by the only atribute of being the first he had experience when he began to look at some form of art or artistic expresion.
I happen to agree, but partly because the over-the-top ludicrousness of some of the art and models is what initially drew me to 40k
Exorcist tank got me into playing Sisters. Sometimes all it takes it something over the top to get an army going.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To answer the"Death Guard in MkIII' thing: The Death Guard Legion was one of the legions that largely fielded Mark III armour prior to the aheresy, and while MkIV went to the traitor legions I imagine Mortarion choosing to stick with the tried and true MkIII at the time because of he thicker front armour which lended itself well to the way the Death Guard would unyielding advance towards their target while shrugging off incoming fire.
Plus the Death Guard were known for repairing any rents in their armour but leaving the scars of previous damge on them to show their foes ow much they've fought through and yet live. It was a strong psychological tactic that would have been lost if they mass switched over to the MkIV.
That or they didn't get a chance to switch before Typhus betrayed the Legion to Nurgle and got them all converted.
Am I an utter heretic for looking forward to being able to field a mix of some 4 different generations of nurgle models together?
I think the mix of old and new will give even more of that "organic" feel to them.
I am rather surprised how heated this got on the topic of opinion on artistic merit.
I figure if it is performed far better than I can do personally: it is all good.
Not like we do not have a bit of choice in the matter.
The new CSM models are bit more... detailed but it will just make any conversion you wish to undertake all the more exciting.
Or just take an older model and detail it up to the level you want.
Rule of Cool tends to be successful if you show a bit of work involved.
As to "disabilities" there are means to help improve on the challenges involved.
My youngest son is "colour-blind / challenged" however you wish to call it, but his shade paintjobs are freaking epic, there is something freeing about it.
My eldest has "high functioning" Autism which boils down to being in a hurry and never satisfied: speed painting is a whole new level with this dude.
I have ironed out my own dyslexia, it helps having a wife who is a "spelling Nazi", no mercy found here at home, lucky for her I find her cute.
Tolerance and finding your strengths is the order of the day for me.
I am actually looking forward to these models, possibly impatient.
If I do not like some element it will be cut off or modified, make it your own.
Cartoon or more realistic, they still make an excellent base to work from.
A game for kids and a cartoon style are two separate things. I started 40k when I was 12 years old, quit a few years later and rejoined the GW universe only in my mid 20s. At 18-20 I considered 40k a game/hobby for children actually. Now at 30 I appreciate the GW universe more than 15+ years ago There's nothing bad in something that is suited for kids.
About the cartoon style, I agree, many latest releases are awful. But the more cartoonish ones are the tau, IMHO a huge mistake, and the most horrible army available. It seems like they were released only to appeal some nerds that are fan of japanese cartoons (and they are a lot), those ones involving robots. Guilliman, Ynnead, Celestine are also extremely cartoon miniatures, not to mention the entire AOS catalogue.
Now, I don't want to criticize what other people like, and I certaily don't want to offend anyone (I can consider a nerd myself, and I think it's very cool to be nerds ) but criticizing the new start collecting box while a lot of other silly/cartoonish miniatures are out since years doesn't seem very appropriate.
BrianDavion wrote: well yeah Tau are pretty blatent "anime mecha" inspired.
not anymore. they have the visual aesthetic admittedly, but they now play like every other army in the game.
I'm pretty sure the aesthetic is what he's referring to. When Tau were released there was a lot of talk around how they didn't 'fit' in 40k universe and that the faction was a cynical cash grab.
Vaktathi wrote: GW's visuals have, for the last several years, trended more and more towards a videogame-y look, increasingly imitating stuff like League of Legends and WoW in terms of art design. Part of this, I'm guessing, is trying to keep "hip" with certain crowds, but part is also due to GW's decision to go all plastic.
Plastic has advantages. It scales much better in terms of marginal cost for production capacity and allows for very lightweight but very large models. Hence why we've seen the profusion of things like Knights, Riptides, Baneblades, etc. The problem with plastic is that it also has limitations on what one can do with it in terms of detail, undercuts, curves, etc. This lends plastic kits to certain visual styles. This has been going on for several years and is why the game increasingly looks the way it does. The coupling of official art to strictly render exactly what the plastic kits look like (while older art was generally inspirational and not directly representative of the kits) further pushes that style.
Because it makes money. They don't want to be alien or else it wouldn't track attention. Video Gamey is the new style of art. But in the most due course because Digital Artists work both in Video Games, Movies, and Board Games.
Hell, some of GW's former staff work at blizzard.
IT makes them money and I think I am fine with that, it is still impressive, sure it is not 'tone' fitting. But again this seems like a rebranding and that's fine. I don't think many serious artists are perturbed by the sudden shift of art focus. It was about time GW started revitalizing its art department and doing something new.
If you want to show off your game more your models (either physical or not) should be the best representation of your game.
ITs why in the games industry we have such high-quality cutscenes, but still the models in games are only dumbed down but still look the same but just with different poly counts. (While the other is prerendered the other not being a big influence as well). They want to best represent characters in both cutscenes and gameplay. It wouldn't make sense narratively for them to look so different and would be distracting to the player's intended experience.
The Designers of GW are clearly noticing that discrepancy so they have taken the reins and have reeled in as much as they could to appeal to their target demographics. ITs a classic design choice and I as an experience designer do not fault them for that.
BrianDavion wrote: well yeah Tau are pretty blatent "anime mecha" inspired.
not anymore. they have the visual aesthetic admittedly, but they now play like every other army in the game.
I'm pretty sure the aesthetic is what he's referring to. When Tau were released there was a lot of talk around how they didn't 'fit' in 40k universe and that the faction was a cynical cash grab.
People don't like change and thats a fact. People are inherently afraid of anything new. Though there are exceptions to this. IN business we have to be innovative or we will be left behind. Its why each year we practice new ways or organizing people and leading groups of people, of course products are polarizing when they first come out, I remember when they first introduced much of the new technology that is now used daily how afraid people were of some of those objects. Or how there is much resistance to progressive technologies or to any rampant change. People do not like it.
I think people should give it a chance and instead of sticking their head into the ground just exploring it and seeing if it is worth it. If not just get on with your life, stop complaining about something that hasn't even reached store shelves. I've seen probably hundreds of people in the last few days complaining about how 40k is dead, or how Primaris Marines are too animes or whatever gak or vitriol people have thrown at this game. It is very polarizing for no reason, like watching two kids arguing over well, nothing really important. Many of the changes are actually quite positive and quite interesting as someone who found 7th and 6th edition incredibly boring. I am glad they have moved onto something new.
ClockworkZion wrote: I always found it funny that Tau was the mecha army as in the fluff the giant robots were everyone else's gig and Tau just used bigger guns.
...but then the bigger mechs came out and squashed that.
The old pragmatical Tau fluff was so good... but as much as internet hate to admit, people loves their big anime mechas in 40k.
ClockworkZion wrote: I always found it funny that Tau was the mecha army as in the fluff the giant robots were everyone else's gig and Tau just used bigger guns.
...but then the bigger mechs came out and squashed that.
The old pragmatical Tau fluff was so good... but as much as internet hate to admit, people loves their big anime mechas in 40k.
I'll admit that I love me some big models.
I can accept the big Tau mechs, it was just a little sad to see them change up their stuff so muc.
On the flipside, the player who made the Tau Metal Gear conversion can finally play his conversion thanks to the change.
Spending some time looking at the models today I can say that I feel the Nurgle models are very "busy". Perhaps you could even call them cluttered. Most character models have some sort of major focal point to draw your attention, but honestly it feels like they have too many focal points, your attention isn't being drawn to any one thing like you see with most models and that really brings the models down.
I want to say it's the bright colors honestly. They make all of the details stand out basically all at once. A more muted pallete (perhaps focused more towards a darker brown color with some greens) would scale that back pretty strongly as the details would still be there, but not shown off as strongly as they are now.
I mean, who heard of Nurgle without rust on them? Almost all the metal bits are way too clean and bright, as is the armour.
I wish I had some PS skills to try playing with the color choices because I'm almost positive that a darker tone would go a long way to fixing the lCk of focus that the models have.
That sId, I love those details, I just feel like many of them could be more subdued than they are in the promo shots.
As an Ork player, I really miss the more cartoon-y days of 40k. I think a lot of the hate of the new Death Guard stems from the bright color scheme, which is needed to show off the details in the new figures. I think once people start to airbrush and shade wash them green and brown they should look gritty and gross as hell.
ClockworkZion wrote: I always found it funny that Tau was the mecha army as in the fluff the giant robots were everyone else's gig and Tau just used bigger guns.
...but then the bigger mechs came out and squashed that.
The old pragmatical Tau fluff was so good... but as much as internet hate to admit, people loves their big anime mechas in 40k.
I would've liked it if the giant robots where left to orks, the Imperium and the Eldar so the Tau were given basically flying saucers instead. The cheesy 50's weedy dudes with deathrays and weird flying ships sci-fi hasn't been fully embraced in 40K. Eldar and necrons have elements of it but the tau could've really gone for it. Particularly with their alien coalition!
ClockworkZion wrote: I always found it funny that Tau was the mecha army as in the fluff the giant robots were everyone else's gig and Tau just used bigger guns.
...but then the bigger mechs came out and squashed that.
The old pragmatical Tau fluff was so good... but as much as internet hate to admit, people loves their big anime mechas in 40k.
Agreed. GW, the butcher of great fluff in order to sell models.
Still don't own any mech bigger than a Broadside (and not even the new Broadsides, I mean the old plastic and metal kits and one XV88-2 from Forge World!) as my protest.
Why they didn't make Tau a flying transport which could carry Crisis Suits or Fire Warriors whilst packing some anti-infantry firepower and seeker missiles, I'll never know. The army fluff called out for it. Instead we got mediocre fighter planes.
ClockworkZion wrote: I always found it funny that Tau was the mecha army as in the fluff the giant robots were everyone else's gig and Tau just used bigger guns.
...but then the bigger mechs came out and squashed that.
The old pragmatical Tau fluff was so good... but as much as internet hate to admit, people loves their big anime mechas in 40k.
I'll admit that I love me some big models.
I can accept the big Tau mechs, it was just a little sad to see them change up their stuff so muc.
On the flipside, the player who made the Tau Metal Gear conversion can finally play his conversion thanks to the change.
As if the Tau mechs are as cool as Metal Gear. The Stormsurge looks ridiculous. If you are going to retcon something to justify new, expensive models, at least make them look good and consistent with the faction they are intended for *glares at wardex necron vehicles*
Alright, tbf, the Riptide and the FW suits look ok and do seem like the logical outcome of plus sized battle suits. Metal Gear is still cooler though.
The entitlement on display in this thread is off the charts!
Any long-time 40k fan could have expected a negative reaction to the new models, it happens every single time a new line of anything is released.
But I honestly did not expect it to be taken to the level of "this will encourage new players and *I* don't want new players".
You know why 40k really sucks? It's the freaking grognards that play it, that ruin the game for everyone else. Anecdotally speaking, I just don't see the kind of absolute bottom-of-the-barrel, angry, entitled, misogynist, pathetic, sub-human supernerds that you get at 40k events and stores. Somehow Warhammer became the go-to game for these individuals some time ago, perhaps owing to the game's longevity - I honestly hope that the new edition sticks in their collective craws so much that they finally move on with their lives and find a new community to drag down with their vitriol and negativity.
Jambles wrote: Anecdotally speaking, I just don't see the kind of absolute bottom-of-the-barrel, angry, entitled, misogynist, pathetic, sub-human supernerds that you get at 40k events and stores.
Normally, those players are more the kind that spend all his time in his house winning in forums that going to play at stores, but in my decades of gaming I have meet... 4 in person. The worst human beings I have meet personally.
Jambles wrote: The entitlement on display in this thread is off the charts!
But of course!
I am sure a wing of GW headquarters I have paid for myself!
Any long-time 40k fan could have expected a negative reaction to the new models, it happens every single time a new line of anything is released.
Because they are models I do not have.
You should know that I only like models I own, all others are sub-standard... until I buy them.
But I honestly did not expect it to be taken to the level of "this will encourage new players and *I* don't want new players".
New players would mean change to my hobby, change is scary.
Plus it is so hard to train new opponents these days.
They are so hung up on these new fangled rules rather than doing what I tell them to...
You know why 40k really sucks? It's the freaking grognards that play it, that ruin the game for everyone else.
This is a bad thing?
This is how you learn to play properly.
Anecdotally speaking, I just don't see the kind of absolute bottom-of-the-barrel, angry, entitled, misogynist, pathetic, sub-human supernerds that you get at 40k events and stores.
I DO tend to think of myself as rather "super" thanks for saying so!
Somehow Warhammer became the go-to game for these individuals some time ago, perhaps owing to the game's longevity
Well considering people like me tend to live for an incredibly long times, this is a natural state of affairs.
I will give you a hint: if there is incredibly loose rules to play with, making it up as you go becomes so much easier!
- I honestly hope that the new edition sticks in their collective craws so much that they finally move on with their lives and find a new community to drag down with their vitriol and negativity.
But you can get such a leg-up on other people before they know all the rules!
A loud authoritative voice carries the day every time for many months at least!
(Thus ends me channeling my own inner aole. I don't let him out much).
In all seriousness, the really jerky people tend to gravitate anywhere they are not challenged on their bad behavior.
Considering much of us gaming folk who are not that way tend to be pretty accepting, can sometimes allow these challenging people to "thrive".
I look at it that we should be inclusive to those who are shy, unsure or insecure, belligerent, bossy, pushy people I tend to get in their face: bullies have always pushed my button.
I hope the newer game methods make the game "light" enough that those with a huge ego do not get the rush they would by "crushing" their opponent in prior versions.
I still like competitive gaming, a friendly game of locking horns with smart people always makes me smile winning or losing, I hope there is enough there for that.
Ah well, I think there can be nasty people pretty much anywhere, just do not play them and they may take the hint (it just may take a while).
I have found I definitely do not see the same types for X-wing games for instance.
I honestly think that more challenging gaming with a fair bit of balance tends to drive away the bullies a bit since they have clearer rules where a strong opinion has less sway.
Hello. This is a friendly reminder that strongly disagreeing with other posters is not an excuse to passively-aggressively post flamebait, thread-derailing generalizations. Thank you!
...we didn't start the flame wars... na-na-na na-na na ...
On topic I'd say that GW's painting style is always a good bit cartoonish in order to appeal to kids. Look at their shiny-clean ork faces, look at their rainbowcolored demons, look at the classic models:
yeah, not cartoonish at all...
But a good dose of grime on the new ones, less bright colours, a bit of rotting, deseased blood here and there and you are good to go. The models themselves look nicely enough. Hell, it's the reason I'm getting a box of the things. That, wayland's 20% discount and the criminally low GBP-Euro conversion right now.
What people need to understand is that when you are painting a model to put in a webpage, you need to make the detail clear. Thats why you normally see crisp and colorfull paint schemes.
It goes against' all reasonable marketing to paint your lovely detailed new Death Guard with muted colours, full of ooze and corrosion. Look at the paint scheme in the Website for the old death guard. It fit the models better, I agree, but for a marketing image they are terrible! You can't appreciate the details in them.
Plus: Bright coloured images always catch our attention much more than dark coloured ones. A shelve in a store full of nice brightfull boxes is gonna attract much more customers.
@Manchu: Not sure if my parody of the "entitled" elicited the comment but I can back off on that.
General disagreeable comments about the community I cannot typically leave alone when there are many positive elements to be found.
Moving along with "Rule #1" I agree that sharp cartoonish lines make for better pictures than a more realistic look to the models.
I find the subject matter is already cartoonish unto-itself that it seems like taking the model too seriously to make it look "realistic".
I save that for my Bolt Action figures.
I would not claim it's as timmy child like as AOS looks vs whfb, but it's getting there. Having been around since RT days the art and overall visual vibe of both fb and 40k were indeed much more serious and darker in the old days. 2nd ed was the red period and I hated it then and hate it now, I would even claim the miniatures turned into piles of static armed raised cartoon sculpts..it was not just the paint jobs.
Around the end of 3rd ed 40k things took a more muted semi realistic darker vibe which was good, although the box art during 2nd and 3rd was terrible. The latest box art for 40k within the last year is a bit of darker and more modern slick mass production look to it all.
7th was not really that gritty but some of the art was decent some of it was outright deviant fanart garbage.
The overall serious grimdark tones to be accurate really started when adrian smith and john blanche ( along with certain others ) were doing their high end art in the late 80s. JB is still good as is AS but both their styles kinda took a semi dive...my guess is time, you will notice blanche ever since 2nd ed has resorted to his typical drawing style but every time it's a quick wash over top of one or two colors, and AS has mostly done full paintings vs some of his truly epic ROC pencil work back in the day.
It's not just GW, it's the majority of game companies and it comics in turn, just look at the high end artist marvel and dc had from the early 80s to early 90s and look at the same old repetitive cheap looking covers ever since. Too many animu fankids have ruined the atmosphere and the companies pleasing them, we no longer have the traditional high end artist around anymore in many cases and just have pc colored rush out vomit.
I very much agree that the cartoon vibe is nothing new. To begin with, the "realism" bar was always very low for GW IPs. There is a separate dial, called "grittiness," which has been turned up now and again, but that has never been mutually exclusive with cartoonishness (e.g., Tau).
Revenant78, I can agree with many points that you have said but I don't think this isn't to be expected or that we are living in some doomsday period. (And... RT was realistic? RT was the most comical and cartoonish period of all of 40k! When people say That I don't know what they understand by cartoony). Actually, for Warhammer Fantasy Battles, to me the most historical-fantasy, realistic and gritty period was 6th-7th edition. The older editions were totally fantasy and cartoony. And much more brighter.
Is the natural curse of life. The people drawing and buying in the 70-80 aren't the ones doing it in 2020.
The "All of the old was better!" is pretty ... old in itself. Personally I don't want to look like a 70 years old lamenting the old good days, at least before reaching that age
I don't understand what anime has to do with anything. Not all anime is pokemon or Gundam Watch something like Fist of the North Star, Evangelion, Berserk or Violence Jack expecting colorful, happy fun times and you'll be very, very surprised. GW was colorful even before the Tau. Just look at RT and second ed, notably Slaanesh. Blaming everything on Tau or anime is unreasonable.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I don't understand what anime has to do with anything.
Not all anime is pokemon or Gundam
Watch something like Fist of the North Star, Evangelion, Berserk or Violence Jack expecting colorful, happy fun times and you'll be very, very surprised.
Doing ignorant claims is easy. Is like saying "all superheroes comics are commercial crap", and then you have "The Boys" by Garth Ennis or "Arkham Assylum", etc... the kind of people that does those ignorant claims, is the kind of people that don't bother to look for information about something they don't know about.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I don't understand what anime has to do with anything.
Not all anime is pokemon or Gundam
Watch something like Fist of the North Star, Evangelion, Berserk or Violence Jack expecting colorful, happy fun times and you'll be very, very surprised.
I guess one would ask what is intended by saying "looking very cartoon/fusion anime".
For good pictures, bright block painting with gradients could look like cell shading.
If by esthetic, by tacking on iconic bit of stuff here and there (he is EVIL, this guy is GOOD, see the colours! See the skulls!).
GW was colorful even before the Tau. Just look at RT and second ed, notably Slaanesh.
I would maintain GW was always colourful, if my stacks or WD magazines are to be believed.
We are looking for tiny little models to "pop" on the tabletop from some 3 feet away.
Blaming everything on Tau or anime is unreasonable.
I think anime was just a handy comparison rather than something to be "blamed".
Tau are more of a science fiction poster child race (big stomping robots, big guns, targeting systems, hover technology, stealth tech...).
I was drawn to anime like Trigun and Bubblegum Crisis: they have terribly funny moments, incredibly dark moments and plain old insane moments.
Just like 40k.
I think it is perfectly acceptable to mimic slightly something you admire or enjoy.
A "Hello Kitty" space marine force is not my thing, but I sure can respect the dedication in making it and the look is undeniably nuts / awesome / epic to see.
Some of the most memorable movies and shows I have seen have been cartoons, I think there is little wrong in engaging that look when indulging in a bit of fantasy.
Galas wrote: Revenant78, I can agree with many points that you have said but I don't think this isn't to be expected or that we are living in some doomsday period. (And... RT was realistic? RT was the most comical and cartoonish period of all of 40k! When people say That I don't know what they understand by cartoony). Actually, for Warhammer Fantasy Battles, to me the most historical-fantasy, realistic and gritty period was 6th-7th edition. The older editions were totally fantasy and cartoony. And much more brighter.
Is the natural curse of life. The people drawing and buying in the 70-80 aren't the ones doing it in 2020.
The "All of the old was better!" is pretty ... old in itself. Personally I don't want to look like a 70 years old lamenting the old good days, at least before reaching that age
This song comes in handy:
Ok I get what you are saying but let me expand on this a little bit and have been discussing this with friends the last while who feel the same and have noticed a lot of this too.
I agree that RT itself...internally...was cartoonish...to a degree, but it's not fair to claim it all was. First of all GW during the tail end of the 80s had a number of rather unique artists working for them, many of these guys were young and in their prime filled with passion ( as was much of the GW studio ), there was generally two kinds of internal art that GW had as a whole. 1 The more illustrative pencil style and 2 what was essentially an 80s comic art style. Anyone looking at blood bowl second ed would instantly pick this up and a number of WD articles for RT had that same guy I believe, but then you had a few guys like jes goodwin, paul boner ( spelling ? ) wayne england and adrian smith...along with john blanche.
Those guys were mainly doing fine traditional illustrations, anyone looking at their art from those periods will see just how much detail they put into these, much of it is within the ROC book ( lets not forget IM's work for that too ). Those pieces in no kind of way were cartoony...they very much were serous high end art pieces that captured a weird and dark gritty setting for both 40k and fb.
If we look at TSR during the 80s you will mostly find the same, it was elmore and caldwell along with jeff and parkinson...their works remain to this day as high quality traditional art pieces.
During the the early 80s, late 80s and very early 90s.. in comics you had people like ron lim, todd mcfarlane, rob liefeld ( the horror feet I know ) jim lee and marc silvestri, mark tex etc...many of these guys were doing highly unique and very detailed art that really had not been seen during the 60s era.
Now if you look at gw, tsr/wotc and marvel and dc around the year 2000 to now...you will find...outside of these guys doing the odd cover from time to time, fantasy art, comic art, and well most of this subject matter art has never really been the same, it's taken a huge dive and I do in fact blame much of this on the sudden anime otaku downs fest that was all the rage, along with the strong emphasis to go pure digital...and being an artist yea it shows I can look at most digital paintings and say...thats fake cause I can see the smear faux paint and it looks totally fake so does the color and this is what most internal gw and game art is like and frankly...is sub par rushed out amateur poo.
Peoples standards for quality have dropped, and since nobody is telling them look this is a pile of shate...they keep doing it and most of the modern art schools churn out cookie cutter types like this.
Art in itself is totally subjective. It may have taken a nosedive in your eyes but in mine they have improved almost all aspects of their presentation and I have been enjoying the art from the beginning.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I don't understand what anime has to do with anything.
Not all anime is pokemon or Gundam
Watch something like Fist of the North Star, Evangelion, Berserk or Violence Jack expecting colorful, happy fun times and you'll be very, very surprised.
I guess one would ask what is intended by saying "looking very cartoon/fusion anime".
For good pictures, bright block painting with gradients could look like cell shading.
If by esthetic, by tacking on iconic bit of stuff here and there (he is EVIL, this guy is GOOD, see the colours! See the skulls!).
GW was colorful even before the Tau. Just look at RT and second ed, notably Slaanesh.
I would maintain GW was always colourful, if my stacks or WD magazines are to be believed.
We are looking for tiny little models to "pop" on the tabletop from some 3 feet away.
Blaming everything on Tau or anime is unreasonable.
I think anime was just a handy comparison rather than something to be "blamed".
Tau are more of a science fiction poster child race (big stomping robots, big guns, targeting systems, hover technology, stealth tech...).
I was drawn to anime like Trigun and Bubblegum Crisis: they have terribly funny moments, incredibly dark moments and plain old insane moments.
Just like 40k.
I think it is perfectly acceptable to mimic slightly something you admire or enjoy.
A "Hello Kitty" space marine force is not my thing, but I sure can respect the dedication in making it and the look is undeniably nuts / awesome / epic to see.
Some of the most memorable movies and shows I have seen have been cartoons, I think there is little wrong in engaging that look when indulging in a bit of fantasy.
Keep in mind when I say Tau are clearly anime inspired it's not a base on the Tau it's just the facts. Tau are clearly, aesteticly inspired by Japanese "big stompy robot" anime. this isn't a bad thing, (I also play Battletech, which likewise owes some orgins to that) but if you look at some of the Tau Suits the inspiration is obvious.
this IMHO isn't a bad thing, 40k is such a rich and varied universe it can have something for everyone.
Galas wrote: Revenant78, I can agree with many points that you have said but I don't think this isn't to be expected or that we are living in some doomsday period. (And... RT was realistic? RT was the most comical and cartoonish period of all of 40k! When people say That I don't know what they understand by cartoony). Actually, for Warhammer Fantasy Battles, to me the most historical-fantasy, realistic and gritty period was 6th-7th edition. The older editions were totally fantasy and cartoony. And much more brighter.
Is the natural curse of life. The people drawing and buying in the 70-80 aren't the ones doing it in 2020.
The "All of the old was better!" is pretty ... old in itself. Personally I don't want to look like a 70 years old lamenting the old good days, at least before reaching that age
This song comes in handy:
Ok I get what you are saying but let me expand on this a little bit and have been discussing this with friends the last while who feel the same and have noticed a lot of this too.
I agree that RT itself...internally...was cartoonish...to a degree, but it's not fair to claim it all was. First of all GW during the tail end of the 80s had a number of rather unique artists working for them, many of these guys were young and in their prime filled with passion ( as was much of the GW studio ), there was generally two kinds of internal art that GW had as a whole. 1 The more illustrative pencil style and 2 what was essentially an 80s comic art style. Anyone looking at blood bowl second ed would instantly pick this up and a number of WD articles for RT had that same guy I believe, but then you had a few guys like jes goodwin, paul boner ( spelling ? ) wayne england and adrian smith...along with john blanche.
Those guys were mainly doing fine traditional illustrations, anyone looking at their art from those periods will see just how much detail they put into these, much of it is within the ROC book ( lets not forget IM's work for that too ). Those pieces in no kind of way were cartoony...they very much were serous high end art pieces that captured a weird and dark gritty setting for both 40k and fb.
If we look at TSR during the 80s you will mostly find the same, it was elmore and caldwell along with jeff and parkinson...their works remain to this day as high quality traditional art pieces.
During the the early 80s, late 80s and very early 90s.. in comics you had people like ron lim, todd mcfarlane, rob liefeld ( the horror feet I know ) jim lee and marc silvestri, mark tex etc...many of these guys were doing highly unique and very detailed art that really had not been seen during the 60s era.
Now if you look at gw, tsr/wotc and marvel and dc around the year 2000 to now...you will find...outside of these guys doing the odd cover from time to time, fantasy art, comic art, and well most of this subject matter art has never really been the same, it's taken a huge dive and I do in fact blame much of this on the sudden anime otaku downs fest that was all the rage, along with the strong emphasis to go pure digital...and being an artist yea it shows I can look at most digital paintings and say...thats fake cause I can see the smear faux paint and it looks totally fake so does the color and this is what most internal gw and game art is like and frankly...is sub par rushed out amateur poo.
Peoples standards for quality have dropped, and since nobody is telling them look this is a pile of shate...they keep doing it and most of the modern art schools churn out cookie cutter types like this.
Personally I don't think quality has dropped. Is just that with the internet you have access to a much, much, MUCH bigger exposure to all kind of arts, so the bigger sample tends to the mediocre.
Think about it. In the 70-80 even mid 90's, if you know something, it was because it was GOOD. Now, you can open internet and find 3000 different comics from 1900 different artists. Is obvious that with a much bigger spectrum the medium quality drops.
But I agree. To me Jess Godwinn and Karl Kopinski are the BEST artists has ever had drawing for them. (Specially Kopinski. I love the work of that man)
And I think that the fact Tau don't "fit" into 40k is just the reason they are so good. They offer such a big constrat, that makes the grimdark and aesthetic of the rest even more strong. They are a parody of the typical sci-fi Republic of Star Wars or Star Trek, but instead of humans they are weak blue aliens.
Models were always cartoonish, but before it was a 2000AD type brit punks comic book style.
Now it is more and more USA comic book style, or Blizzard style or sth. It's not paintjobs, awful GW studio schemes make it worse but naked plastic still has it.
There is no menace in Death Guard models from DI, only loads and loads of pointless detail, they're basicaly poster boys for christmas tree syndrome. I'll still buy, cut them to pieces and use DV stuff lying around to make proper Death Guard terminators and marines though.
Another trend is that 40k gets more and more fantasyish. They went for dark sci fi at some point up to 5th but more fantasy in 6th onwards, Helldrakes and all. The effect is much more kiddish minis.
Jambles wrote: The entitlement on display in this thread is off the charts!
Any long-time 40k fan could have expected a negative reaction to the new models, it happens every single time a new line of anything is released.
But I honestly did not expect it to be taken to the level of "this will encourage new players and *I* don't want new players".
You know why 40k really sucks? It's the freaking grognards that play it, that ruin the game for everyone else. Anecdotally speaking, I just don't see the kind of absolute bottom-of-the-barrel, angry, entitled, misogynist, pathetic, sub-human supernerds that you get at 40k events and stores. Somehow Warhammer became the go-to game for these individuals some time ago, perhaps owing to the game's longevity - I honestly hope that the new edition sticks in their collective craws so much that they finally move on with their lives and find a new community to drag down with their vitriol and negativity.
Except that art in 7th got atrocious, models get more and more busy and 40k was one of the worst, most broken games around, and probably will stay that way. Also, Age of Sigmar shooting imaginary horses out of close combat.
ClockworkZion wrote: I always found it funny that Tau was the mecha army as in the fluff the giant robots were everyone else's gig and Tau just used bigger guns.
...but then the bigger mechs came out and squashed that.
The old pragmatical Tau fluff was so good... but as much as internet hate to admit, people loves their big anime mechas in 40k.
BrianDavion wrote:Keep in mind when I say Tau are clearly anime inspired it's not a base on the Tau it's just the facts. Tau are clearly, aesteticly inspired by Japanese "big stompy robot" anime. this isn't a bad thing, (I also play Battletech, which likewise owes some orgins to that) but if you look at some of the Tau Suits the inspiration is obvious.
this IMHO isn't a bad thing, 40k is such a rich and varied universe it can have something for everyone.
The really ironic part is that Eldar tended to be more anime-inspired with smooth lines and over-compensating weapons while Tau were more reminiscent of Battletech's original work (not the rip-offs) and Heavy Gear. The closest anime that matches Tau is Dougram which trends a little bit astray from the more Gundam and Macross motif that other mecha trended to follow.
Except that art in 7th got my opinion, my opinion, my opinion, my opinion, my opinion.
But but grognards and super nerds.
You're proving my point dude
So, Age of Sigmar having rules about imaginary horses, or shooting out of close combat, is an opinion?
Models having more detail than before, and having overall style of detail overdose, is an opinion?
That art became mostly CGI, shown only models and was obviously cheaper than before, is an opinion?
And having that "opinion", makes me a "freaking grognard", and "absolute bottom-of-the-barrel, angry, entitled, misogynist, pathetic, sub-human supernerd"?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I don't understand what anime has to do with anything.
Not all anime is pokemon or Gundam
Watch something like Fist of the North Star, Evangelion, Berserk or Violence Jack expecting colorful, happy fun times and you'll be very, very surprised.
Doing ignorant claims is easy. Is like saying "all superheroes comics are commercial crap", and then you have "The Boys" by Garth Ennis or "Arkham Assylum", etc... the kind of people that does those ignorant claims, is the kind of people that don't bother to look for information about something they don't know about.
Who's being ignorant exactly ? Clearly the art style has changed over the years taking new directions. I'm actually an artist. I can identify fusion anime as in mix between anime and other styles of art BECAUSE I STUDIED ART. AND I AM NOT ONLY A PROFESSIONAL ARTIST BUT A GAME DEVELOPER. ( And I don't give a if you believe it or not, because I have autism. And it's not the first time someone has underestimated me or misjudged my talents)
As in it's easy to identify when you know what it looks like. Teen Titans Comes to mind or DC's Emperor Joker there are many sub styles of Fusion Anime/ Manga You don't even know what fusion anime/manga is do you?
I have watched anime, read manga and drawn it, for over 25 years. You know when you're a trained professional you tend to study the material you like .
So who's ignorant again? Maybe just you?
There are other people in this thread that have talked about the style moving from realistic to more cartoonish depending on the time period artists and edition of the game.
The argument it has always been cartoonish (which is not actually a word) holds some weight. But that has changed over the years swinging between realism and well comic. Thus the gradient of style has changed. Meaning at one point it was less cartoon then a previous edition. It's now looking very very cartoonish/ fusion anime. THE BASE SCULPT NOT THE PAINT. I don't care if you can't see it. But I can. As an artists and as a professional.
It's now appears to have taken on a American anime fusion style. At least from what this professional artists that loves anime can see. And I AM NOT A FAN of the new direction . it's not the bright colors of the paint. It's the shape of the BASE SCULPT on the models. The primaris marines for example.
No one is ignorant for having a differing opinion then yours. However it's very insulting to call people ignorant when you have nothing to back up your statement.
Gee maybe people don't like being called ignorant. ... who would have thought. Basic human respect comes to mind. Maybe people don't like being told what to think. Maybe the game art style has not been STATIC over the years and the accounts of more then one person in this thread especially people playing through multiple editions actually have a point.
Maybe the only ignorant people are those that refuse to acknowledge that it has gone through various version and styles depending on the edition.
Or maybe you're just ignorant.
What really gets under my skin on this thread is the assumption that by disliking the recent change to new aesthetics is some how attacking the game. Which people take personally. I have sunk over 1000$ into this hobby. I am not attacking the game or its fan base.
But that picture sure as hell has been forced by the adversarial elements posting on this thread It's very disturbing. And I will stick to my guns and hold my own. We are all fans and should treat each other with respect. Disagreeing is one thing but out right calling people ignorant and telling them how to think or act is pushing this conversation out of it's intended direction. And no disagreeing with someone is not supporting an echo chamber. Discussion will always have multiple sides and viewpoints.
What I am asking for is basic human respect. I only ever started to be defensive when I people insisted that no matter what I was wrong. And that I must capitulate or I was some how being rude. Yes I have called people creepy. in response to compelled speech. Because they demanded that unless I agree I was immature. Well no. I will not agree it does not make me immature. Followed by more trolling and more character attacks/ grammar nazism(character assassination) I have demonstrated that it's not black and white issue, that art style is not Static. I have demonstrated that it looks more like DC's Emperors Joker(a fusion anime style) than it ever has before
All I am asking for is a modest bit of compassion in this debate that does not degrade into a flame war. WITH BASIC HUMAN RESPECT. I am fine with dissenting opinion but telling people to capitulate or they are immature or calling them ignorant because they see things differently then you is just wrong.
Any one else want to take a swing at me? Let me be very concise. I AM ALSO A FAN OF THE GAME.. JUST BECAUSE MYSELF AND OTHERS YES MORE THEN ONE PERSON DISLIKE THE NEW ART DIRECTION AND THINK IT LOOKS LIKE FUSION ANIME IT DOESN'T MEAN WE ARE ATTACKING THE GAME OR ARE TRYING TO SAY YOU ARE WRONG. IT MEANS WE HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION ON SOMETHING SUBJECTIVE..
ForceChoke wrote: I am fine with dissenting opinion but telling people to capitulate or they are immature or calling them ignorant because they see things differently then you is just wrong.
ForceChoke wrote: I am fine with dissenting opinion but telling people to capitulate or they are immature or calling them ignorant because they see things differently then you is just wrong.
Any one else want to take a swing at me?
Pot, meet Kettle.
Oh, you dropped a grand into this game? That's low. I've dropped that much into the rulebooks.
I think your confusing not wanting to be attacked by abusive people with actual debate and discussion.
Also not of all of us are rolling in cash. Some of us have family and animals and other expenses. I could care less if you can afford more gaming miniatures than I can. I'm just happy more people are playing 40k.
carldooley wrote: I'm not actually rolling in cash; it's more to do with the fact that I've played the game since before people could download rules off the internet.
And I have played since 3rd and 4th I have had a few rule books. They were a gift with a few additional purchases here and there. I missed 5th and 6th. Sold all my models. Worked on my education. Got back in for 7th spent over a grand so far. My roommate bought the codex and rules we both play marines. And I'm not very enthusiastic about 8th from what I have seen. Might buy a 5th edition book. I don't see what any of that has to do with staying on topic however. Just tired of being insulted.
Purifier wrote: Jesus, ForceChoke... you really need to lay off. This is cringey as all hell.
Why should I allow people to continue to insult me, badger, harass,demonize, troll, and be abusive. Also how would you do better? I have very little experience being told what to say and how to properly respond other then calling the person an A hole.
I have provided more than enough evidence to prove my point.
But I was still being called ignorant what else am I suppose to do. Be insulted and not defend myself let other people dictate what public should think about me. How would you have handled it better?
Purifier wrote: Jesus, ForceChoke... you really need to lay off. This is cringey as all hell.
Why should I allow people to continue to insult me, badger, harass,demonize, troll, and be abusive. Also how would you do better? I have very little experience being told what to say and how to properly respond other then calling the person an A hole.
I have provided more than enough evidence to prove my point.
But I was still being called ignorant what else am I suppose to do. Be insulted and not defend myself let other people dictate what public should think about me. How would you have handled it better?
You're trying to extinguish a fire by dropping gasoline on it. Just stop.
Purifier wrote: Jesus, ForceChoke... you really need to lay off. This is cringey as all hell.
Why should I allow people to continue to insult me, badger, harass,demonize, troll, and be abusive. Also how would you do better? I have very little experience being told what to say and how to properly respond other then calling the person an A hole.
I have provided more than enough evidence to prove my point.
But I was still being called ignorant what else am I suppose to do. Be insulted and not defend myself let other people dictate what public should think about me. How would you have handled it better?
You're trying to extinguish a fire by dropping gasoline on it. Just stop.
By defending myself from abuse and definitively proving I was right ? I defy you to do better when 15 people kick you while your down. Insult you just because other people are doing it. They aren't my friends. They were not being respectful. I will not accept being treated like a dog. Especially when I was easily able to prove I was right.
By defending myself from abuse and definitively proving I was right ? I defy you to do better when 15 people kick you while your down. Insult you just because other people are doing it.
By defending myself from abuse and definitively proving I was right ? I defy you to do better when 15 people kick you while your down. Insult you just because other people are doing it.
Isn't that pointing pose fairly generic though? I mean, you see it a lot on GW minis.
Here's an Ork doing it
Here's an Eldar Ranger doing it. Main weapon is a bit higher, but its still the same sort of thing; body off to the side, left hand weapon extended.
Then we have these old GK models doing a similar sort of thing
Spoiler:
Have you considered that that pose is not an anime thing, but a stylistic thing intended to show off as much as the character as possible? All I see is coincidence with your examples.
I think out of all the completely bonkers threads to come out of 8th (including 14 pages of ragemathhammer trying to convince everyone that GW had an evil hateboner for chaos because 2 units cost the same, only to find out that the loyalist unit was almost triple the points) this one has the purest crazy.
I don't see it. Moreover it's not like the previous sculpts have been super realistic, they've always been stylised to some degree, you may have noticed all the skulls for example. Also if you need to flip that hard to prove your point you may need to take 5 mins out to chill otherwise call a mod if people are being abusive.
The problem with most creative people in video games, movies, magazines etc. is that they are very young. They can not possibly master all aspects of creating an imperfect object at the time it is expected from them to deliver. Thusly their creations will take the appearance of that which is made by hand.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Isn't that pointing pose fairly generic though? I mean, you see it a lot on GW minis.
Here's an Ork doing it
Here's an Eldar Ranger doing it. Main weapon is a bit higher, but its still the same sort of thing; body off to the side, left hand weapon extended.
Then we have these old GK models doing a similar sort of thing
Spoiler:
Have you considered that that pose is not an anime thing, but a stylistic thing intended to show off as much as the character as possible?
All I see is coincidence with your examples.
Not even close. The action lines may be similar but the negative space and angle of the legs is a Fusion Anime style. I'm not going to even bother anymore. Comments like I don't see it. Okay.... I don't care if you don't see it. The anime stance is a very distinct pose.
Gundam is famous for it.
I'm not going to try to convince true believers. You can argue with the evidence all you want. It's really blatant. And no the orc is not doing the same thing. The action lines are off. Same with Iron man.
The Tilt of the legs and width of the negative space are all STRONG indicators of anime influence. And that's not he only example I found.
It's not even hard to see.
I don't even know if you're just at this point trying to defend your hobby some how. But I give up. I studied this. It's like a DR saying look you have cancer and you're like. It doesn't feel like cancer it's probably tennis elbow.
ForceChoke, I apologize if you thought that I was calling you ignorant. I was talking about people that think that all anime is just pokemon or digimon, not knowing that is a proper animation style and it goes from anime for childs to anime for adults, etc...
Again, I'm sorry. But actually you responses have been very well tought and I have learned something. Thanks for that.
Oh, so that also is anime, but doesn't have the posings. So basically everything that has been drawn is anime. No, your arbitrary readings of some generic poses isn't convincing.
The Eldar ranger has EXACTLY the same pose as a few of the ones in your anime picture, and yet you arbitrarily rule him out. Nope, you're being silly.
Purifier wrote: Oh, so that also is anime, but doesn't have the posings. So basically everything that has been drawn is anime. No, your arbitrary readings of some generic poses isn't convincing.
The Eldar ranger has EXACTLY the same pose as a few of the ones in your anime picture, and yet you arbitrarily rule him out. Nope, you're being silly.
Whatever you want to believe . I can see visually the stances are not the same style. Weight distribution action lines slope and angle of the legs. Etc.
Other people with out art backgrounds can see it. Are multiple people wrong ?
Purifier wrote: Oh, so that also is anime, but doesn't have the posings. So basically everything that has been drawn is anime. No, your arbitrary readings of some generic poses isn't convincing.
The Eldar ranger has EXACTLY the same pose as a few of the ones in your anime picture, and yet you arbitrarily rule him out. Nope, you're being silly.
Whatever you want to believe . I can see visually the stances are not the same style. Weight distribution action lines slope and angle of the legs. Etc.
Other people with out art backgrounds can see it. Are multiple people wrong ?
Cool story bro.
You're seeing what you want to see. It's clear that you're ignoring some things to fit your narrative. It's when you brag about having autism that you lose all credibility. I mean if a doctor told me "you have cancer, and I don't care if you believe me because I have autism" you can bet your beard against a rabid weasel that I wouldn't trust him to have the slightest idea what he's talking about.
does your canoness look like mega man or have astro boy boots? Because the primaris marines do.
I mean... that's highly debatable and even if we assume that's true (jesus, have you ever even seen Astro Boy?) old Space Marines looked like nothing like the new ones, right? /facepalm
does your canoness look like mega man or have astro boy boots? Because the primaris marines do.
I mean... that's highly debatable and even if we assume that's true (jesus, have you ever even seen Astro Boy?) old Space Marines looked like nothing like the new ones, right? /facepalm
lol nice try. The wide leg stance here is not anime influenced. And looks nothing like the primaris marines
this pic does however . The primaris marines are standing in this weird broken horse stance that says I've don't know how people are suppose to stand and come push me over with a slight breez.
lol nice try. The wide leg stance here is not anime influenced. And looks nothing like the primaris marines
this pic does however
WHAT!? Jesus, I'm inclined to question whether you're blind. Ok, nevermind. You are clearly off your rocks. I'm not touching this anymore.
They are completely different styles of art. How am I completely off my rocks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FudgeDumper wrote: Maybe we should clarify why anime is drawn the way it is and why its so obnoxious to anyone that does not have an aesthetic sense of a 10 year old? (That is not an insult, many great artists aspired to become children again, including Leonardo Da Vinci).
My guess is that those who draw manga/anime are mostly people who has been sitting in a room their entire life. This is true for most Japanese people (from where the art form originates). Most things they draw breaks the law of nature in one way or another. Its because they have been sitting in a room and not had a lot of contact with real life. Their style is mainly influenced by emotions. A person who rely on emotions would probably find it very attractive, because things like gravity, structure and other tangible concepts are not important to them. But to a person who base their appreciation in the laws that govern us, this style can seem exaggerated and flawed.
Look at Michelangelos paintings, I believe he was an ancient manga painter. He paints his masculine humans with hugely expanded shoulders and torso much like the manga artists of today who either willingly or unwillingly ignore the machinations of nature.
Are you suggesting that the artists accidentally made them look like mega man?
The grinning pox-walkers definitely feel like something you might see in an anime - evil dead, as opposed to walking dead.
Although, you know, the flying primaris remind me a lot of the "Sammus" armor used by the Coalition in the Rifts RPG back in the day. But, then again, they were likely anime inspired too.
does your canoness look like mega man or have astro boy boots? Because the primaris marines do.
I have a metal Lascannon Long Fang that's posed almost exactly like that, except his gun is level and pointing at the enemy. And this Long Fang definitely has big fat shapeless greaves like that.
Purifier wrote: But somehow, you refuse to draw those same little red lines on these legs. Cherry picking to fit your narrative.
I already told you the style, weight distribution negative space and angle of the legs are different. So I will have to simply just disagree with you. Combine the Sunrise stance and the fact that MOST of the Primaris marines have this wide leg anime stance. With the other blatant anime influences. I am simply going to tell you no I disagree.
Forgive me but the are two distinctly different stances, though similar they are not the same kind of style of art. One appears to be eastern influence and the other seems to be American or European.
Purifier wrote: Oh yeah, the wide stance that defines this model. Gotcha.
It's moving forward in this stance.. compare it to the rest of the box which are standing in this extra wide stance. This pic just had the best view of the boots. If you google giant anime robot boots. You find the image of that robot above it's the third pic.
Purifier wrote: Oh yeah, the wide stance that defines this model. Gotcha.
It's moving forward in this stance.. compare it to the rest of the box. This pic just had the best view of the boots. If you google giant anime robot boots a robot with same image with that circle is like the third pic.
So the boots in isolation can be "anime" then. Point proven. The guys I just posted above have anime boots according to your assessment. From the OOOOOOOOLD boxes.
Purifier wrote: Oh yeah, the wide stance that defines this model. Gotcha.
It's moving forward in this stance.. compare it to the rest of the box. This pic just had the best view of the boots. If you google giant anime robot boots a robot with same image with that circle is like the third pic.
So the boots in isolation can be "anime" then. Point proven. The guys I just posted above have anime boots according to your assessment. From the OOOOOOOOLD boxes.
Purifier wrote: But somehow, you refuse to draw those same little red lines on these legs. Cherry picking to fit your narrative.
I already told you the style, weight distribution negative space and angle of the legs are different. So I will have to simply just disagree with you. Combine the Sunrise stance and the fact that MOST of the Primaris marines have this wide leg anime stance. With the other blatant anime influences. I am simply going to tell you no I disagree.
Forgive me but the are two distinctly different stances, though similar they are not the same kind of style of art. One appears to be eastern influence and the other seems to be American or European.
One stance is european and the other is eastern? Is this serious?
Purifier wrote: But somehow, you refuse to draw those same little red lines on these legs. Cherry picking to fit your narrative.
I already told you the style, weight distribution negative space and angle of the legs are different. So I will have to simply just disagree with you. Combine the Sunrise stance and the fact that MOST of the Primaris marines have this wide leg anime stance. With the other blatant anime influences. I am simply going to tell you no I disagree.
Forgive me but the are two distinctly different stances, though similar they are not the same kind of style of art. One appears to be eastern influence and the other seems to be American or European.
One stance is european and the other is eastern? Is this serious?
Hey man I didn't hold a gun to each sculptors head and ask them to do the sunrise stance on the new primaries marines. The guy must really love gundam. He probably drew loads of anime.
If you keep spinning your argument back and forth like this, you'll be able to power a small village if you hook it up to a dynamo.
I was not at any point spinning anything. I simply presented new pictures as evidence for what I have been trying to say all along.
So are oversized boots and shinplates anime inspired or not?
You would have to ask the original sculptors. They had limited skills and tool sets at the time. Maybe space marines were originally anime inspired. It's just a lot more present now in the new space marine box set. There are a lot of reasons why it looks like a fusion style of anime.
Eh, as someone who has absolutely no interest in anime and who actively avoids it (hell, I was annoyed when Tau came out)... I'm really not seeing its influence here at all.
Yes, the DG are more cartoonish, but I'm definitely not getting the anime vibe that makes me want to vomit.
Seriously look at old orks and nids and compare them to current ones and tell me with a straight face that its more cartoony.
up.
Number 022317 in the middle has a Plague Marine gut
