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.

-Loki- wrote:It's easy to miss - I only just realized it now, and I'm in the process of going back and fixing my Termagants.

Sorry, I'm still confused. There aren't any tyranid players nearby that I can look at either.

So is it that the "trigger" hand is fused in and the other hand is holding it, or that both arms are fused together with the gun?

In any case, I'd take your side with this. I don't think that tyranid guns are the most awkward thing. Well, the fact that there is a "clip" on the termagaunt guns is a LITTLE silly...

What? The grey thing? That's because I play the Death Korps, so I paint them grey.

 Ailaros wrote:

-Loki- wrote:It's easy to miss - I only just realized it now, and I'm in the process of going back and fixing my Termagants.

Sorry, I'm still confused. There aren't any tyranid players nearby that I can look at either.

So is it that the "trigger" hand is fused in and the other hand is holding it, or that both arms are fused together with the gun?

Yes, both hands are fused to the gun.

The hand where you would normally be holding the grip and trigger is simply melded to the gun, and the hand that would be supporting the barrel is plugged into the left side. There's not much on that side to show the hand fused to the gun - it's all on the side from the picture I linked. You can see the fingers and thumb, which would normally be under the barrel, are fused into the barrel, and you can see them protuding at certain points.

Basically, Termagants had hands at one point, but when the Fleshborer, a separate organism, is grown onto the Termagant, the hands are fused to the gun.

 Ailaros wrote:
In any case, I'd take your side with this. I don't think that tyranid guns are the most awkward thing. Well, the fact that there is a "clip" on the termagaunt guns is a LITTLE silly...

It is - the other Termagant weapons have different ammo methods. Spinefists seem to generate ammo within the fist itself - there's no external ammo supply. Devourers have the hands similarly fused to the gun, but have an ammo tube running up the length of the arm into the shoulder, suggesting the ammo is stored within the Termagant itself.

I guess you could say the 'clip' on the Fleshborer is just a breeding capsule for Fleshborer beetles. It's, again, just there to make it look more like a gun for ease of recognition for the Tyranid opponent.

Small bug with separate hands with no gun? Termagant with Spinefists.
Small bug with separate hands ending in blades? Hormagaunt.
Small bug with rifle-like weapon with a cone shaped front? Termagant with Devourer.
Small bug with rifle-like weapon with a clip? Termagant with Fleshborer.

You can see where ease of recognition breaks down when they try to meld the weapon too far to the Tyranid itself with Raveners. Spinefists and Devourers mounted in the thorax look incredibly similar, and Deathspitters only look different due to them basically having a vagina in their chest. The only ease of recognition with Raveners is two pairs of Scything Talons or one pair and a pair of Rending Claws.

-Loki- wrote:Basically, Termagants had hands at one point, but when the Fleshborer, a separate organism, is grown onto the Termagant, the hands are fused to the gun.

Oh.

That's kind of neat, actually.

Daemons, had such potential, just look meh to me.

The Great Unclean One is pretty ugly.

Every basic troop model for GW armies in 40k look like they're constipated. Every release for an army I hope they don't do the whole legs-far-apart thing and update their stuff, but no. No matter how cool the army, if their basic troop choice looks like they're having an excellent dump mid-combat, I just can't bear it.

 Tappers wrote:
Every basic troop model for GW armies in 40k look like they're constipated. Every release for an army I hope they don't do the whole legs-far-apart thing and update their stuff, but no. No matter how cool the army, if their basic troop choice looks like they're having an excellent dump mid-combat, I just can't bear it.

Spoiler:

Cannot unsee.

 AtomicEngineer wrote:
Personally what is your least liked army in style? The army that just looks bland, boring or out of place?

For me im going with Slaanesh, they used to have such beautiful models, that reminded me of greek mythology style female demons. Now they are seriously ugly cross dressers with some very boring units like the Farming equipment sorry I mean Seeker Chariots. They just feel and look uninspired and boringly safe. I understand that GW is aiming for a younger demographic now but boobs = bad? come on guys its the 40k!
You play it safe for Slaanesh and you have lost the whole point of the chaos god.

i completely agree. the old daemonettes we so much better

300Spartans1cup wrote:

 AtomicEngineer wrote:
Personally what is your least liked army in style? The army that just looks bland, boring or out of place?

For me im going with Slaanesh, they used to have such beautiful models, that reminded me of greek mythology style female demons. Now they are seriously ugly cross dressers with some very boring units like the Farming equipment sorry I mean Seeker Chariots. They just feel and look uninspired and boringly safe. I understand that GW is aiming for a younger demographic now but boobs = bad? come on guys its the 40k!
You play it safe for Slaanesh and you have lost the whole point of the chaos god.

i completely agree. the old daemonettes we so much better

Was it just for the exposed boobies?

Be honest now.

The worst looking army to me has got to be GW's plastic IG lines.

Cadians wouldn't be so bad if their faces looked like something other than strained constipation (the infantry actually are fine if the heads are swapped)

The Catachans are just...awful, they should have been left to rot in the 90's where their nauseating take GI-Joe/Rambo 80's nostalgia belonged.

I have to say, as much as I'm not a fan of some of the other lines (BA Assault Nipples, Daemons in general) most aren't awful models, they just don't really inspire me.

 Evileyes wrote:
I preferr the new look of daemonettes, we diddn't need more supermodel women in the game, and making them horrific monsters and female to boot, to me made it seem more mature, not less.

Personally, i'm not a fan of the look of Thousand suns, the crazy headcrests just don't do it for me, and I love tzeentch, so having the cult troops not look tzeentchy in my mind, is a bummer.

Agreed. weird pseudo egyptian nonsense? what?
I don't know what Thousand Sons should look like, but certainly not like that.
Ahriman looks so cool! maybe the rest of the army should take a cue from him, I'm ok with curly-q horns and third eyes everywhere.

I personally like pictures that I've seen of the SoB models, but I've never seen one in person.

 Kain wrote:

300Spartans1cup wrote:

 AtomicEngineer wrote:
Personally what is your least liked army in style? The army that just looks bland, boring or out of place?

For me im going with Slaanesh, they used to have such beautiful models, that reminded me of greek mythology style female demons. Now they are seriously ugly cross dressers with some very boring units like the Farming equipment sorry I mean Seeker Chariots. They just feel and look uninspired and boringly safe. I understand that GW is aiming for a younger demographic now but boobs = bad? come on guys its the 40k!
You play it safe for Slaanesh and you have lost the whole point of the chaos god.

i completely agree. the old daemonettes we so much better

Was it just for the exposed boobies?

Be honest now.

Nah they just like outright goofy to me. the only decent model is the head with the crazy hair that goes everywhere imo.

Sisters look pretty terrible too. They dont need to be supermodel but they also don't need to look like butch russian woman stereotype face.

I think the best is Tyranids, they look like stuff out of nightmares. They are like the Zerg but 10x scarier, both in fluff and in look.

Space Marines are pretty bland until you start getting into the different factiosn that have a specific style to them. I do also like the new Necon Models. Especially the new wraiths.

I also really enjoy Tau but that's the just mech lover in me. I plan on making a Black Knights themed Tau army. (Code Geass)

 Kain wrote:

300Spartans1cup wrote:

 AtomicEngineer wrote:
Personally what is your least liked army in style? The army that just looks bland, boring or out of place?

For me im going with Slaanesh, they used to have such beautiful models, that reminded me of greek mythology style female demons. Now they are seriously ugly cross dressers with some very boring units like the Farming equipment sorry I mean Seeker Chariots. They just feel and look uninspired and boringly safe. I understand that GW is aiming for a younger demographic now but boobs = bad? come on guys its the 40k!
You play it safe for Slaanesh and you have lost the whole point of the chaos god.

i completely agree. the old daemonettes we so much better

Was it just for the exposed boobies?

Be honest now.

Yes. Because Daemonettes are the the aspects of pleasure, pain and excess. Pleasure to look at. Leather, thongs and knives for pain. Excessive boobies.

The new ones are Pleasure to avoid buying. Painful to look at. Excessively ugly.

There is only one way I can accept them.

Daemonettes are sexy and alluring until you get close. The old Diaz Daemonettes are the alluring beauties. The new ones are the one you see a moment before they gut you.

 Kain wrote:

 Tappers wrote:
Every basic troop model for GW armies in 40k look like they're constipated. Every release for an army I hope they don't do the whole legs-far-apart thing and update their stuff, but no. No matter how cool the army, if their basic troop choice looks like they're having an excellent dump mid-combat, I just can't bear it.

Spoiler:

Cannot unsee.

Yeah, thanks for ruining grimdark you .
Just kidding, that's hilarious

I really don't like IG models at all. With the exception of vehicles.

 Kain wrote:

300Spartans1cup wrote:

 AtomicEngineer wrote:
Personally what is your least liked army in style? The army that just looks bland, boring or out of place?

For me im going with Slaanesh, they used to have such beautiful models, that reminded me of greek mythology style female demons. Now they are seriously ugly cross dressers with some very boring units like the Farming equipment sorry I mean Seeker Chariots. They just feel and look uninspired and boringly safe. I understand that GW is aiming for a younger demographic now but boobs = bad? come on guys its the 40k!
You play it safe for Slaanesh and you have lost the whole point of the chaos god.

i completely agree. the old daemonettes we so much better

Was it just for the exposed boobies?

Be honest now.

No. Not for me.

It was also the more curvy, hyperfeminine figure. I should mention I used curvy there to refer to the natural curves of the female human form, rather than the more modern usage to refer to a heavier woman.

But, I'd feel really way too embarrassed about even ORDERING the Juan Diaz daemonettes, much less painting them, much less playing a game with them, much less playing a game with them with my mom.

The new plastics? The reduced sex appeal makes me a lot more comfortable owning them. : D

As for my opinion on worst looking army? Nurgle Daemons. No question. When the new models came out, I was looking at them in White Dwarf, and they made me sick to my stomach. Like, nauseous.

I think it's silly to say boobs and overtly feminine parts are the the only ways to represent lust and Slaanesh. I mean giant penises would be just as fitting as six breasts and just as gratuitous. Enforcing a male heterosexual only view on pleasure/lust onto the models is pretty exclusionary, maybe sexist, and very un-Slaaneshi. Besides, Slaanesh is only sex on the surface, it's more about insidious depravity, perfectionism, hedonism, and ultimatley self destruction.

The half-male half-female look of the new Daemonettes is much more in line with "broadening your horizons" which Slaanesh is all for, new expeiences and all that.

Besides the lack of extraneous mammaires the new Daemonettes are just as curvy but also have enough scary bits to remind you that they are soul-sucking demons too. Also I don't understand why people think the old Daemonettes were alluring: blank, noseless, fish-eyed faces; talons, crab claws, and 3 pairs of breasts are creepy and weird not erotic. Though Slaanesh should be creepy like eroticism gone wrong, which is exactly what the new ones do.

 asimo77 wrote:
I think it's silly to say boobs and overtly feminine parts are the the only ways to represent lust and Slaanesh. I mean giant penises would be just as fitting as six breasts and just as gratuitous. Enforcing a male heterosexual only view on pleasure/lust onto the models is pretty exclusionary, maybe sexist, and very un-Slaaneshi. Besides, Slaanesh is only sex on the surface, it's more about insidious depravity, perfectionism, hedonism, and ultimatley self destruction.

The half-male half-female look of the new Daemonettes is much more in line with "broadening your horizons" which Slaanesh is all for, new expeiences and all that.

Besides the lack of extraneous mammaires the new Daemonettes are just as curvy but also have enough scary bits to remind you that they are soul-sucking demons too. Also I don't understand why people think the old Daemonettes were alluring: blank, noseless, fish-eyed faces; talons, crab claws, and 3 pairs of breasts are creepy and weird not erotic. Though Slaanesh should be creepy like eroticism gone wrong, which is exactly what the new ones do.

I actually like the new Daemonette models. I have a Slaaneshi Daemons army on the shelf composed entirely of the new plastics (and a metal Masque I got before I understood). ^^

And... Well, you're talking to a guy who, ahem, enjoys artwork of animal people. Juan Diaz Daemonettes don't even come close to that. Even the newer daemonettes aren't as weird and creepy as some of the other stuff I've seen and sometimes enjoyed.

I still think Nurgle looks worse. But that's based on my stomach turning when I look at their models. But then, that's their entire premise, so maybe job well done.

Oh my post wasn't necessarily directed at you, just musings on the Daemonette dilemma in general.

Necrons = boring to me, the worst by far.

Nurgle daemons just look bad. I don't think they do justice for that they're supposed to be. They have so much potential to be a lot scarier.

It's Necrons for me as well. Just look boring, really can't see myself ever wanting to collect them.

I dunno, I don't like new daemonettes, but the Bloodletters just look fun to me.
I agree with the gorilla butt Orks, so bad!! This might just be me, but I wish orks were just a tiny bit more intimidating/stood tall. They are supposed to be bigger or as big as Space Marines, but they look the size of IG.

I think that with a new update the new Tyranid models there will be :
- big models, it seems to be ascending with 40K new releases (Daemon Engine CSM, shrine thingies (Daemons), floating pope mobile (DA), Riptide (Tau) and Wraithknight (Eldar)
- very spiky

Although I like and play necrons, I think the Necrons Warriors need a little individuality, or at least every pack came with a Sergeant/lord that looked different.

However my most hated model will probably be generic CSM and cultists. While I like the idea of Chaos and most of the new models, the generic CSM dudes are too smooth and not Chaosey/spikey enough, and cultists all look the same...

P.S. fantasy: i prefer the old empire models that had their spears/halberds pointing up - makes a much better silhouette and the new models are so hard to bunch up

Catachans.



That is all.

 BryllCream wrote:
Catachans.



That is all.

Why when I see this, do I think of popeye? Give him a little pipe someone, please xD

it would actually be very easy to give him a little pipe and paint him in pop-eye colours. 100 internets to the first person to make an entire army of popeye catachans

I like 90% of every model range that isn't hideously outdated (100 for nids and crons) but if I had to pick on some one it would be slaneesh as they are pretty much the only race barring SOB that I don't own a single model for.

 BryllCream wrote:
Catachans.



That is all.

That's not bad. Also, any model range that includes this is auto-awesome.

 BryllCream wrote:
it would actually be very easy to give him a little pipe and paint him in pop-eye colours. 100 internets to the first person to make an entire army of popeye catachans

This must happen. Seriously.

"Carnifex? Oil beat'ya with me fists! A-gah-gah-gah-gah-gah-gah!"

Just a bunch of this model over and over, with a bunch of tin-can's scattered on the bases