Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CoreCommander wrote:
Yes, it's a free forum and that's why you and I are able to write these two posts, entirely cut off from the topic on hand.

Actually, you aren't - keep it up any longer, and you're going to get in trouble. "Stay on topic" is Rule #2.

 -DE- wrote:
Let me ask you a straightforward question - what is the point of this topic? For you to flex your eristic skills? To make fun of GW in a thinly-veiled manner?

Whichever it is, it makes for a colossal waste of time for everybody involved.

Unless we're all continuing to read for our amusement. As I am. If you don't like it, nobody is sitting you down, super glued to a chair with your eyes propped open by night goblin spears.

@OP: I find your satirical argument quite fun. Keep it up!

 Swastakowey wrote:

Really? A skull is detailed? If you look at the detail, it's not really detailed. It's just skulls and cracks copied and pasted over the whole thing. I didn't think smooth almost identical skulls placed right next to each other was considered detail.

The skull is detail, not skull is detailed. The skull is the detail on the fort's wall.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Nothing here is exceptionally detailed, it's just cluttered with below averagely done items (skulls) and well more skulls. Also clutter means to "cover or fill (something) with an untidy collection of things." and well in this case yes it is cluttered with skulls, not detailed in skulls. But yea my opinion, but I think cluttered describes it better than detailed.

If you insist I can admit, it's cluttered with -details-. The skulls are details as they're small pieces that visually make up a part of the whole. Detail is not always linked to art. You disliking the visuals is a whole different kind of animal. If you're going to use definition of "clutter" then also make sure to follow the definition for detail. :-)

 Swastakowey wrote:
The time it takes for some one to custom build one (it's not that hard) will probably be similar to the time it takes for you to do a reasonable paint job on this fort because of the "detail", there is no real reason not to unless you really like skulls, like like skulls.

I agree - to wish to own this piece of scenery you need to like the way it looks, no doubt there. Although it's different with crafting a fort yourself - not everyone has the manual skills or materials that would let him build something he'd like. Not everyone settles for "okay" and not everyone is capable of making something profesional. With factory-made terrain like GW's plastic pieces you get things made more precisely than any typical wargamer can make without spending hours upon hours on each section. Not to mention room for making it - not everyone has the comfort of being able to take up enough space to work on terrain himself, so bought pieces are a good alternative for some. Sometimes making one would cost you more in money than you would spend in time and effort combined and, frankly, not every wargamer enjoys doing stuff like that. I, for one don't enjoy painting, so I can see how some people might be losing patience or just outright dislike converting or putting effort into extensive kitbashing, same goes for scenery crafting.

 Swastakowey wrote:
This is Fantasy not medieval... in fantasy you kind of need air defense to stop... you know, the jet pack space marines in Fantasy for example... If these guys are dumb enough to build forts like this then I have a hard time believing them to be a dangerous enemy at all and any slightly competent army would be able to walk over them. Building forts in vital areas is a basic strategy commanders use even today.

I think this has been covered by some other poster here - we're talking Chaos, there are enough winged daemons and furies cluttering the sky to deter any potential attack from the air. If you've read any books where hordes of Chaos are mentioned you'll remember all the descriptions of skies darkened by daemons' wings. Their AA is their own air support.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I just want to point out, AOS is the worst game I have ever seen. It's like those bad movies (like Birdemic). So making fun of it is kind of why it's there even if it took itself seriously. Plus the game is so easy to pick apart. Honestly I can come to this section of the forum and face palm at what people try do to make this game sound ok. I haven't had this much fun on the forum in a while to be honest.

I am all for the freedom of speech, people are free to speak their minds should they feel a need to, but I genuinely believe that while enjoying the sight of people trying to "make this game sound ok" despite your subjective hate towards it, constantly criticizing it just for the sake of it when others are trying to enjoy it is just... uncool. You are aware that you might be ruining people's fun and your comments have negative influence on them as you bash the game they like and you decide to keep doing it. Why don't you let them enjoy it without poisoning their fun with the game with your negativity towards it? I mean... you've already made it clear that you don't like this game, why keep repeating it, other than to ruin others' fun? I'm not saying that you can't, I'm just asking if you should. :-)

I will admit (and I thought I wrote it, sorry) that detail and clutter do not negate each other. I just find it more clutter than detail.

The rest of your points make sense but I still think it's silly.

If someones fun for a game can be ruined merely because some random guy in his office is posting criticisms of a game online then the game can't be that fun... I will continue to do it and eventually grow tired of it im sure. Maybe.

For those upset, remember I am only bashing a game. A GAME. If you are upset you need to toughen up. It is only a game (and a bad one at that... )

It's like they ran quickly out of ideas so they just keep adding more and more skulls. What does little Timmy like? More skulls

I like the GW terrain, despite its expense, because it is thematic and nicely done. Miniature gaming, for me, is my gaming midlife crisis. With everything going digital, I need something I can touch and feel. Something that exists. And when I look at those beautifully photographed dioramas that GW produces, that's what I want. Exactly that. When I pick colors to paint with, I use the colors they used. I want the scenery they use. I want the experience that is advertised in the brochure - and there is comfort in knowing that it is obtainable. With effort and cost, sure, but I can have it if I want to.

In the past, miniature games have always had homemade terrain, which adds considerable extra effort when it comes to building a table. The majority of the non-trivial skills you learned assembling and painting the models does not translate to the materials, tools, and techniques required to build a table. GW's Realm of Battle board and various castles and scenery bits are just really big miniatures. Same materials. Same tools. Same techniques. It's expensive as gak, and that puts it forever out of my reach unless I make some serious changes to my budget (like giving up food).

That's the appeal of this stuff. You get what is in the picture. You get your battlefield with golden angels against corrupted knights among trees and Khorne's skull-heavy castles, ruins from the Age of Myth and the story related realm gates. It's not just any castle. It's a castle built by Khorne followers from the skulls of the defeated. Blood for the blood god and all that.

So, anyone count all the skulls on the fortress pic yet?

I thought of entering Hurley's numbers from Lost, but didn't want to crash on a desert island somewhere...

(* Old Lost reference. Yes, I'm old and lame.*)

Shadowstrife wrote:
So, anyone count all the skulls on the fortress pic yet?

I thought of entering Hurley's numbers from Lost, but didn't want to crash on a desert island somewhere...

(* Old Lost reference. Yes, I'm old and lame.*)

If you had to use those numbers... at least use them for something cooler than a skull fort haha

^ Yep. Not gonna tempt fate somehow.

And the prices on this thing are crazy- I'm not that hard up for a skully macskullfort of skullville quite yet.

But the new 'Igneus Delta' Realm of battle tile looks really good.

 Sqorgar wrote:

That's the appeal of this stuff. You get what is in the picture. You get your battlefield with golden angels against corrupted knights among trees and Khorne's skull-heavy castles, ruins from the Age of Myth and the story related realm gates. It's not just any castle. It's a castle built by Khorne followers from the skulls of the defeated. Blood for the blood god and all that.

Sqorgar, we are definitely on the same page. I can make myself cheap fortresses of foam and card stock, but to get what you see in the rulebooks, you can't beat these plastic kits.

Looking through the thread today, I don't see anything new to apologize for on GW's behalf - mostly folks asked things already covered, although:

CoreCommander wrote:
I have a little more serious matter with the fortress though. Why is there no way to interact with the walls themselves other than take damage from them? Is there something I'm missing? Is all you can do shoot at the defenders and try to open the door? Where are the teeny-weeny boarding ladders for the sigmarines?

When I started the thread, it was because a lot of people were saying nonsensical things, like "Too many skulls!", which would be a valid concern on a dwarf hold or elf tower or even those cracks in the realm of battle board. But saying a Khorne structure has too many skulls is like saying the Statue of Liberty looks too "New Yorky," and I wanted to address that, among other complaints, that seemed to be misunderstandings of the product.

But, this one CoreCommander, I can only shrug and agree with you. For some reason, all of the various watch towers and bastion-type buildings were not given rules to simulate them as defensive structures. So, if you stand in a castle, or stand in a ruined castle, the benefit seems to be the same. Of course, there's also the problem that the Bloodbound armies seen so far to have no ranged weapons, so there's next to no benefit to putting Bloodwarriors or Bloodreavers in the fortifications, versus putting them behind the fortifications. AoS being what it is though, I imagine players can very easily make up their own house rules for this - the game's rules are so easy, and permissive to modification, that it shouldn't be too big a problem. An odd omission on GW's part though.

I have to agree with those who regret not getting items like the Garden of Morr or Witchfate Tor when the time was right. Part of me still hopes they'll return in time, with a big Age of Sigmar stamp on them, and new names like "Garden of Nagash." But, time will tell - first we have to see if AoS even sees new releases after the first run of Stormcast and Bloodbound are complete, or if this explosion of models and books is intended to more or less be it, with the rest supported purely by re-issued old stock.

When I started the thread, it was because a lot of people were saying nonsensical things, like "Too many skulls!"

Well no it is valid. A Nazi (sorry guys) tank in some Sci Fi alternate universe with a mobile gas chamber full of minorities is gonna be seen as too far. Likewise a demon fort almost made up of skulls and god knows what-else is being seen as too much/too far. It's not nonsensical at all. See a demon fort should look imposing, not cartoonist funny. Maybe in the 20s this would have been scary and taboo but that time has long since passed and it is something I would expect the villain of a spoof movie to dwell in.

Even your "excuses" original message had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to excuse the issues with this thing and as a result a few people thought you were trying to be being funny...

As for the fort... it is what it is.... overpriced Khorne themed terrain. I for one don't like overpriced terrain and have no interest in Khorne themed terrain. I'm not sure why anyone would be miffed about the fort other than to say maybe they should have made a non-Khorne themed fort instead.

@Swastakowey - that's a pretty bad comparison, though. Toys that depict hate and genocide are one thing, while toys that are just silly are something else.

Chaos dreadfort should not offend anyone that doesn't just dislike GW; there arelenty of people who won't like the product, but the solution is to not buy it, and let people who do like it enjoy it in peace.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
As for the fort... it is what it is.... overpriced Khorne themed terrain. I for one don't like overpriced terrain and have no interest in Khorne themed terrain. I'm not sure why anyone would be miffed about the fort other than to say maybe they should have made a non-Khorne themed fort instead.

There I can raise a mug to that.

 Talys wrote:
@Swastakowey - that's a pretty bad comparison, though. Toys that depict hate and genocide are one thing, while toys that are just silly are something else.

Chaos dreadfort should not offend anyone that doesn't just dislike GW; there arelenty of people who won't like the product, but the solution is to not buy it, and let people who do like it enjoy it in peace.

I think you missed the point buddy. My example was to show how an idea can be taken too far. For example... Skulls.

Or the solution is to make fun of a really lame product...

Next post I have to edit or delete for being off-topic is getting the poster a vacation. Just sayin'.

If you suddenly are missing a post in the thread, or your post has been shortened, this message just might apply to you.

 Swastakowey wrote:

This is Fantasy not medieval... in fantasy you kind of need air defense to stop... you know, the jet pack space marines in Fantasy for example... If these guys are dumb enough to build forts like this then I have a hard time believing them to be a dangerous enemy at all and any slightly competent army would be able to walk over them. Building forts in vital areas is a basic strategy commanders use even today.

also

Sqorgar wrote:
It's a castle built by Khorne followers from the skulls of the defeated. Blood for the blood god and all that.

I intended to write this in my last post, but I forgot. At least in 40k lore (and I can safely presume in Fantasy aswell as the Realms of Chaos are largely identical in both settings) there are examples of powerful chaos entities willing into reality vast structures like towers, bastions, giant brass thrones etc. These may either be made from the raw stuff of chaos or sculpted from the land by means of sorcery. This castle doesn't have to be build by bloodthirsty warriors leaving their professions for a while for some masonry leisure time or by forced slave labour. It could have just appeared as many things in the Realm of Chaos tend to do. After all in the current setting chaos spread all across the realms.

As for functionality - it is true that chaos bestows boons upon those that do its will, but it doesn't really care for them beside using them as tools. It is known to betray its followers just for the lulz, out of spite and for many other reasons which point to the utter disregard it has for the wellbeing of everything. Why should a mighty Bloodthirster, high in the favour of Khorne raise its fortress (which, in addition to all other its owner may have for it, is a monument to his glory) to protect his followers? He may have thought that if they were weak enough to be pushed into the castle they were not worthy of protecting for example. There are many reasons one can come up with why a certain chaos model would look in lore as it does in the game.

Having seen some of the macabre structures built by Catholic monks, I'm not sure that the Dreadhold actually has enough skulls. If I was Khorne I'd be very disappointed.

I am quite surprised that this is a discussion at all...

I collect GW miniatures since around 1990 and Khorne and generic Chaos were the first to get more skulls.
Many people liked Khorne, liked skulls, we got more skulls.

The skulls are not for me, just as the gore of Nurgle, which i even like a lot less, but Khorne and Nurgle are the 2 best selling chaos factions since day 1, so the public seem to like it

Skulls beling to Khorne, that should be ovvious.
This is not some generic fortress, this is a Khorne fortress.

If Tzeentch (my favourite Chaos god by the way) does not get a different type of scenery, THAT should raise an eyebrow.

But even for someone like me, i find this building perfect for Khorne. And i might even buy a tower, just because it gives exactly the right Khorny feeling.

ChazLikesCake wrote:
Having seen some of the macabre structures built by Catholic monks, I'm not sure that the Dreadhold actually has enough skulls. If I was Khorne I'd be very disappointed.

Don't forget that there was this real life dude named Timur the Lame in the 1300s, a self proclaimed Ghengis Khan, who went around killing entire villages and creating skull pyramids outside of them as a warning to others. One pyramid was said to contain 90,000 skulls.

An even more recent example is a post-WW2 display in the middle of Maddison Ave in NYC which was a giant pyramid made up of, not skulls, but the helmets of German soldiers killed in the war. We, as a species, just love our gruesome totems.



Truth is stranger than grimdark.

If you like the GW Chaos aesthetic the castle is an awesome kit, encrusted with skull bling and spikes, that you can split into smaller bastions or form up into a massive eight point star.

What could be more appropriate?

Yes, it's expensive, but you expect that from GW, it is simply the price to be paid for off the shelf Chaos castles. At least you can buy it in chunks rather than the whole thing at one payment.

If you are not into GW Chaos stuff, obviously the same money will go a lot further on toy castles that you can saw up and make into something cool, or if you invest it into foamcore board and embossed plastic sheet, you could probably build your own house. Lots more work, or fun, depending on how much you enjoy making terrain.

I have a complaint. In your original post you claimed forgeworld does not expect you to pay thousands of dollars to play 30k. This is categorically false.

 Sqorgar wrote:

ChazLikesCake wrote:
Having seen some of the macabre structures built by Catholic monks, I'm not sure that the Dreadhold actually has enough skulls. If I was Khorne I'd be very disappointed.

Spoiler:

Don't forget that there was this real life dude named Timur the Lame in the 1300s, a self proclaimed Ghengis Khan, who went around killing entire villages and creating skull pyramids outside of them as a warning to others. One pyramid was said to contain 90,000 skulls.

An even more recent example is a post-WW2 display in the middle of Maddison Ave in NYC which was a giant pyramid made up of, not skulls, but the helmets of German soldiers killed in the war. We, as a species, just love our gruesome totems.

Spoiler:

Truth is stranger than grimdark.

For a start, that is actually a WW1 monument, it's easy to tell due to the clothing and guns also featured along with the tone of the picture. WW1 got very hateful as time went on and by the end of it there was a lot of hatred as we can see in the treaties, celebrations and later tensions between the nations etc. Unlike the chaos Fort that monument makes sense and is hardly gruesome. Also contrary to the chaos fort that pyramid is not cartoonishly lame. You are also incorrect because these helmets are not from the dead but merely ex german equipment.

That exposed cemetery is hardly gruesome or nasty either. The monks did it so the bodies would not be condemned as the cemetery needed to be relocated and so to be space efficient, respectful and help the people of the city they created a place for people to respect the dead and contemplate death etc. Unlike the skull fort of chaos that chapel has a good reason for being there and makes sense.

None of the above was done "bekuz uf dah skulz beeeein keeewl" or anything silly like that. Thats why the Chaos Skull Fort sucks, but those historical monuments etc do not.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

ChazLikesCake wrote:
Having seen some of the macabre structures built by Catholic monks, I'm not sure that the Dreadhold actually has enough skulls. If I was Khorne I'd be very disappointed.

Spoiler:

Don't forget that there was this real life dude named Timur the Lame in the 1300s, a self proclaimed Ghengis Khan, who went around killing entire villages and creating skull pyramids outside of them as a warning to others. One pyramid was said to contain 90,000 skulls.

An even more recent example is a post-WW2 display in the middle of Maddison Ave in NYC which was a giant pyramid made up of, not skulls, but the helmets of German soldiers killed in the war. We, as a species, just love our gruesome totems.

Spoiler:

Truth is stranger than grimdark.

For a start, that is actually a WW1 monument, it's easy to tell due to the clothing and guns also featured along with the tone of the picture. WW1 got very hateful as time went on and by the end of it there was a lot of hatred as we can see in the treaties, celebrations and later tensions between the nations etc. Unlike the chaos Fort that monument makes sense and is hardly gruesome. Also contrary to the chaos fort that pyramid is not cartoonishly lame. You are also incorrect because these helmets are not from the dead but merely ex german equipment.

That exposed cemetery is hardly gruesome or nasty either. The monks did it so the bodies would not be condemned as the cemetery needed to be relocated and so to be space efficient, respectful and help the people of the city they created a place for people to respect the dead and contemplate death etc. Unlike the skull fort of chaos that chapel has a good reason for being there and makes sense.

None of the above was done "bekuz uf dah skulz beeeein keeewl" or anything silly like that. Thats why the Chaos Skull Fort sucks, but those historical monuments etc do not.

Dude it's a castle built by the followers of a fantasy god whose domain is conflict as represented through blood and skulls. Its the Khorne equivilent of covering your church with massive golden icons of saints. Religion isn't particularly know for being subtle.

I honestly don't know why people keep finding new ways to be surprized about Khorne models with excessive skulls or blood when this same behavior is pretty standard across the board for fantasy panthiestic gods. I mean Elder Scrolls depicted the realm of the god of order as a no-nonsense plain or solid crystal, guarded by knights made out of crystal. Creative. /s

Also if you find the Chaos fort gruesome then I guess GW did a great job because I imagine that's the point.

I don't find the castle gruesome, I find it cartoonishly lame.

I was just a correcting some misinformation and how the situations they presented are nothing like the fort, that was all.

When religious people make churches or Art normally they are stunningly beautiful or have actual meaning. This fort is nothing like that.

Like you say, this fort is not particularly creative. Kind of like GW these last few years actually...

 Swastakowey wrote:
I dont find the castle gruesome, I find it cartoonishly lame.

Your words, not mine. More importantly in comparison to what? Because certainly it could just be normal stone walls. In which case anyone could certainly buy the same from any other fantasy terrain manufacturer.

Swastakowey wrote:When religious people make churches or Art normally they are stunningly beautiful or have actual meaning. This fort is nothing like that.

Thats very much a matter of personal taste and opinion. Its also a massive generalized assumption.

Swastakowey wrote: Like you say, this fort is not particularly creative. Kind of like GW these last few years actually...

Are you really attacking GW about their lack of creativity over a skull fort? A company that makes miniatures based an a genre which can largely be summerized as "like Lord of the Rings but...". Their entire company has been based on re appropriating novel elements of other series since the get go, and considering how long they've been in business it doesn't seem to be working to their detriment.

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I dont find the castle gruesome, I find it cartoonishly lame.

Your words, not mine. More importantly in comparison to what? Because certainly it could just be normal stone walls. In which case anyone could certainly buy the same from any other fantasy terrain manufacturer.

Swastakowey wrote:When religious people make churches or Art normally they are stunningly beautiful or have actual meaning. This fort is nothing like that.

Thats very much a matter of personal taste and opinion. Its also a massive generalized assumption.

Swastakowey wrote: Like you say, this fort is not particularly creative. Kind of like GW these last few years actually...

Are you really attacking GW about their lack of creativity over a skull fort? A company that makes miniatures based an a genre which can largely be summerized as "like Lord of the Rings but...". Their entire company has been based on re appropriating novel elements of other series since the get go, and considering how long they've been in business it doesn't seem to be working to their detriment.

Ummm they actually are your words mate... not mine

So you are saying religious monuments are not made for specific reasons or purposes?

Ok so just because a companies origins might be a rip off that somehow means their current state is no longer criticize?

What are you talking about anyway dude, I was correcting some made up facts a few people posted. If that annoys you I think you need to take a breath and find something worth arguing about.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Ummm they actually are your words mate... not mine

Actually it was Sqogar who made the comparison with those actual sites using the word grotesque. You then criticized his comparison using the phrase "unlike the skull fort" which could imply that you find it grotesque. That was my mistake however.

Swastakowey wrote:So you are saying religious monuments are not made for specific reasons or purposes?

That is blatantly a strawman because the comment I was replying to, in your own words, said

When religious people make churches or Art normally they are stunningly beautiful or have actual meaning. This fort is nothing like that.

Which has nothing to do with the purpose of why a religious structure was built but rather the prescription of qualities such as meaning or beauty. I disagreed, on the basis that beauty and meaning are purely subjective to the speakers own viewpoint.

Moreover your strawman isn't even relevant as it implies the skull fort is without purpose. In setting it is meant, as was said previously, as a religious monument to Khorne. Irl its a plastic facsimile of an imagined object meant to represent it on the tabletop. If you're criticizing its purpose in setting, then you are willfully ignoring its appropriateness to lore in favor of making your argument. If you're criticizing its irl purpose, then by extension you might as well question why anyone bothers to make miniatures.

Swastakowey wrote: Ok so just because a companies origins might be a rip off that somehow means their current state is no longer criticize?

When your criticism is based around the originality of products from a company based on being derivative, as well as implying that this is some recent phenomenon. Then yeah I feel that ship has sailed.

Swastakowey wrote: What are you talking about anyway dude, I was correcting some made up facts a few people posted.

Which I do sincerely appreciate as I learned something from Sqogar's post and your correction.

Swastakowey wrote: If that annoys you I think you need to take a breath and find something worth arguing about.

You can play dumb all you want, but you wrote about a paragraph and a half arguing with Sqogar, ending with the statement

None of the above was done "bekuz uf dah skulz beeeein keeewl" or anything silly like that. Thats why the Chaos Skull Fort sucks

You are clearly trying to insult the intelligence of people who like the skullfort with questioning the intelligence of its design the basis of you not liking its asthetics. The same is basically true of all your "criticism" in other threads about the new releases.

If new releases for AoS annoy you I think you need to take a breath and find something else to spend your time on.

Edit: My tablet deleted some of my post while I was typing.

Yes it is a recent phenomenon. GW has gone through a current phase of renaming their old work and upgrading their old work. This is, in my opinion, one of the least creative stages I have ever seen from GW. Their Fantasy Marines are their newest idea they have had in a long while. Does it matter the origins? Not really, that was a long time ago. My house has foundations like any other house, but that does not mean my house cannot end up unique eventually despite it's foundation. Likewise with GW, it may have been similar to other fiction at the time but it is now pretty different.

Well no, you learnt nothing from his post because it was not true... you learnt from my post which was true.

Im not insulting the people who like it, im insulting the people who made it.

If people criticising new seems like an insult to you, perhaps you need to take a deep breath and realize it's just someone elses opinion.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yes it is a recent phenomenon. GW has gone through a current phase of renaming their old work and upgrading their old work. This is, in my opinion, one of the least creative stages I have ever seen from GW. Their Fantasy Marines are their newest idea they have had in a long while. Does it matter the origins? Not really, that was a long time ago. My house has foundations like any other house, but that does not mean my house cannot end up unique eventually despite it's foundation. Likewise with GW, it may have been similar to other fiction at the time but it is now pretty different.

You assert that purely on the basis that it helps your own argument . All the themes and stylistic elements which it shared with Tolkiens works were still there throughout the history of the Old World. Certainly the characters and stories are different, but the general themes, fantasy races, and even setting elements were the same. Not to mention all the inspiration it took from high magic fantasy such as DnD.

Swastakowey wrote:Well no, you learnt nothing from his post because it was not true... you learnt from my post which was true.

That's incredibly arrogant of you. If Sqogar hadn't made those comparisons then the topic would have never would have been broached. The path to knowledge is as important as its results.

Swastakowey wrote:Im not insulting the people who like it, im insulting the people who made it.

If the people who make a product purely valued for its aesthetics are idiots, then what does that imply about those who appreciate it? If someone actually likes the design didn't you just imply they are a knuckle-dragger "bekuz uf dah skulz beeeein keeewl"?

Swastakowey wrote:If people criticising new seems like an insult to you, perhaps you need to take a deep breath and realize it's just someone elses opinion.

It was your opinion yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that, stretching all the way back to the start of AoS. I don't care that you don't like it. I care that you feel the need to gakpost, attack people, and derail threads because you don't like it.

Sqogar and Chazlikecake's posts were absolutely relevant to the discussion, as the Khorne skull fort is an insetting religious monument of war, the they compared it to a religious monument and a monument of war. You then came in here to correct a factual inaccuracy (which again, I do appreciate), and then go on to offhandedly argue with them on the basis that real religion and war monuments are good, therefore the skull fort is distasteful because you don't like it. Never mind its appropriateness to setting, it doesn't please you so any comparisons to monuments built from war trophies or skulls are now irrelevant.

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yes it is a recent phenomenon. GW has gone through a current phase of renaming their old work and upgrading their old work. This is, in my opinion, one of the least creative stages I have ever seen from GW. Their Fantasy Marines are their newest idea they have had in a long while. Does it matter the origins? Not really, that was a long time ago. My house has foundations like any other house, but that does not mean my house cannot end up unique eventually despite it's foundation. Likewise with GW, it may have been similar to other fiction at the time but it is now pretty different.

You assert that purely on the basis that it helps your own argument . All the themes and stylistic elements which it shared with Tolkiens works were still there throughout the history of the Old World. Certainly the characters and stories are different, but the general themes, fantasy races, and even setting elements were the same. Not to mention all the inspiration it took from high magic fantasy such as DnD.

Swastakowey wrote:Well no, you learnt nothing from his post because it was not true... you learnt from my post which was true.

That's incredibly arrogant of you. If Sqogar hadn't made those comparisons then the topic would have never would have been broached. The path to knowledge is as important as its results.

Swastakowey wrote:Im not insulting the people who like it, im insulting the people who made it.

If the people who make a product purely valued for its aesthetics are idiots, then what does that imply about those who appreciate it? If someone actually likes the design didn't you just imply they are a knuckle-dragger "bekuz uf dah skulz beeeein keeewl"?

Swastakowey wrote:If people criticising new seems like an insult to you, perhaps you need to take a deep breath and realize it's just someone elses opinion.

It was your opinion yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that, stretching all the way back to the start of AoS. I don't care that you don't like it. I care that you feel the need to gakpost, attack people, and derail threads because you don't like it.

Sqogar and Chazlikecake's posts were absolutely relevant to the discussion, as the Khorne skull fort is an insetting religious monument of war, the they compared it to a religious monument and a monument of war. You then came in here to correct a factual inaccuracy (which again, I do appreciate), and then go on to offhandedly argue with them on the basis that real religion and war monuments are good, therefore the skull fort is distasteful because you don't like it. Never mind its appropriateness to setting, it doesn't please you so any comparisons to monuments built from war trophies or skulls are now irrelevant.

Lizardmen are Tolkien? Of course, like in my example, the foundation of a house is still there even if you change the house to make it unique. Just like many themes from other works are present in GW works however that does not all of a sudden make all their stuff un creative. It just used other works as a basis and expanded on that (you cannot deny GW has not put in their own ideas too).

Well if he didn't post false information then people who read his comment without reading mine now are misinformed, so yes his post was useless.

When did I say those who like it are idiots? because I never said such a thing.

I never argued they where good, but that UNLIKE the skull fort these monuments had actual reasons for being the way they are. From where the materials came from, to how they got there and what their purpose was. The reason for the skull fort is and I quote the OP here

"They're bored"

So they somehow bred and grew thousands of humans, waited for them to be of a similar age and decapitated them to slowly build this fort because they were bored. See how different that is to a war celebration monument or a tomb that has been relocated etc. These examples they gave (which they tried to spin off as mindless lust for violence or gruesomeness by the way) are nothing like this fort. This forts fluff reasoning is "boredom" apparently, which, is lazy justification for a lazy design.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yes it is a recent phenomenon. GW has gone through a current phase of renaming their old work and upgrading their old work. This is, in my opinion, one of the least creative stages I have ever seen from GW. Their Fantasy Marines are their newest idea they have had in a long while. Does it matter the origins? Not really, that was a long time ago. My house has foundations like any other house, but that does not mean my house cannot end up unique eventually despite it's foundation. Likewise with GW, it may have been similar to other fiction at the time but it is now pretty different.

You assert that purely on the basis that it helps your own argument . All the themes and stylistic elements which it shared with Tolkiens works were still there throughout the history of the Old World. Certainly the characters and stories are different, but the general themes, fantasy races, and even setting elements were the same. Not to mention all the inspiration it took from high magic fantasy such as DnD.

Swastakowey wrote:Well no, you learnt nothing from his post because it was not true... you learnt from my post which was true.

That's incredibly arrogant of you. If Sqogar hadn't made those comparisons then the topic would have never would have been broached. The path to knowledge is as important as its results.

Swastakowey wrote:Im not insulting the people who like it, im insulting the people who made it.

If the people who make a product purely valued for its aesthetics are idiots, then what does that imply about those who appreciate it? If someone actually likes the design didn't you just imply they are a knuckle-dragger "bekuz uf dah skulz beeeein keeewl"?

Swastakowey wrote:If people criticising new seems like an insult to you, perhaps you need to take a deep breath and realize it's just someone elses opinion.

It was your opinion yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that, stretching all the way back to the start of AoS. I don't care that you don't like it. I care that you feel the need to gakpost, attack people, and derail threads because you don't like it.

Sqogar and Chazlikecake's posts were absolutely relevant to the discussion, as the Khorne skull fort is an insetting religious monument of war, the they compared it to a religious monument and a monument of war. You then came in here to correct a factual inaccuracy (which again, I do appreciate), and then go on to offhandedly argue with them on the basis that real religion and war monuments are good, therefore the skull fort is distasteful because you don't like it. Never mind its appropriateness to setting, it doesn't please you so any comparisons to monuments built from war trophies or skulls are now irrelevant.

Lizardmen are Tolkien? Of course, like in my example, the foundation of a house is still there even if you change the house to make it unique. Just like many themes from other works are present in GW works however that does not all of a sudden make all their stuff un creative. It just used other works as a basis and expanded on that (you cannot deny GW has not put in their own ideas too).

Well if he didn't post false information then people who read his comment without reading mine now are misinformed, so yes his post was useless.

When did I say those who like it are idiots? because I never said such a thing.

I never argued they where good, but that UNLIKE the skull fort these monuments had actual reasons for being the way they are. From where the materials came from, to how they got there and what their purpose was. The reason for the skull fort is and I quote the OP here

"They're bored"

So they somehow bred and grew thousands of humans, waited for them to be of a similar age and decapitated them to slowly build this fort because they were bored. See how different that is to a war celebration monument or a tomb that has been relocated etc. These examples they gave (which they tried to spin off as mindless lust for violence or gruesomeness by the way) are nothing like this fort. This forts fluff reasoning is "boredom" apparently, which, is lazy justification for a lazy design.