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.

silent25 wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

the fact that 40k has "sorcery", and essentially "magic" precludes it from having anything other than a veneer of sci-fi about it. Quite a lot of sci-fi is grounded in hard reality (hard sci-fi) buit for the most part, the entire genre-whilst imaginary, it is fundamentally plausable and rational to some lesser or greater degree. this hardly apply to 40k. bar a veneer, 40k is essentially a fantasy setting, with some sci fi/space opera dressings. which is fine! there is nothing wrong with fantasy. Regarding sci-fi, in my ind games like dropzone commander, and infinity epitomise sci-fi.

By that definition, Star Wars isn't Sci-fi either, even though it is considered one of the penultimate Scif-Fi movies ever. The force is essentially "magic" as well.

Actually, Star Wars is often referred to as the seminal work of science fantasy.

Not saying that in a pejorative way, but it's instructive when one compares the two stars: Star Wars versus Star Trek.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Well, if you think of it this way:

You're getting one model and 2 Dreadnoughts.

20 pounds (SM dreadnought) + 20 pounds (SM dreadnought) + 12 pounds (plastic Chaos Aspiring Champion) = 52 pounds = NZ$102.235. Ok, you're not getting all the upgrades and stuff you get in the Dreadnought kit, but that's something to consider.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus you get everything you need to start playing (quickstart rules and model profiles). Does GW do that with their paint sets or their battleforces?

Yes, but like I said before, a lot of people do NOT want to play with three models in their army. To some, skirmish games are just uninspiring. I for one don't mind having to buy a few battleforces to get my army going, at least it's more then 3-10 figs...

silent25 wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

the fact that 40k has "sorcery", and essentially "magic" precludes it from having anything other than a veneer of sci-fi about it. Quite a lot of sci-fi is grounded in hard reality (hard sci-fi) buit for the most part, the entire genre-whilst imaginary, it is fundamentally plausable and rational to some lesser or greater degree. this hardly apply to 40k. bar a veneer, 40k is essentially a fantasy setting, with some sci fi/space opera dressings. which is fine! there is nothing wrong with fantasy. Regarding sci-fi, in my ind games like dropzone commander, and infinity epitomise sci-fi.

By that definition, Star Wars isn't Sci-fi either, even though it is considered one of the penultimate Scif-Fi movies ever. The force is essentially "magic" as well.

On an interesting note, a couple people have commented to me that Warmachine isn't steampunk, but industrial sci-fi. I agree slightly with that since I don't recall seeing one of signature traits of steam-punk like dirigibles and a Victorian style setting. People more familiar with the WMH setting can correct me if wrong and those elements are there. Thought that I had given we were disputing genres.

It's sort of Medieval Steam Punk, if that makes sense. The setting draws a lot from typical fantasy but with robots and guns.

 Surtur wrote:


It's sort of Medieval Steam Punk, if that makes sense. The setting draws a lot from typical fantasy but with robots and guns.

I think what these people were taking issue with was that the Victorian style setting is an integral part of what defines steam punk. WMH doesn't have that and thus they refer to it as industrial fantasy/sci-fi. Also WHM doesn't have a aviation element to it (not game, but world) and that is also a common theme in steam punk.

Having been to a couple steam punk events, the Victorian element seems to be very central to it. At least in the fashion.

Regardless, the WMH world was a nice departure from most typical fantasy/scifi. Especially given the bizarre phobia some fantasy works have towards guns in a fantasy setting.

silent25 wrote:

On an interesting note, a couple people have commented to me that Warmachine isn't steampunk, but industrial sci-fi. I agree slightly with that since I don't recall seeing one of signature traits of steam-punk like dirigibles and a Victorian style setting. People more familiar with the WMH setting can correct me if wrong and those elements are there. Thought that I had given we were disputing genres.

The closest thing they have (only in the background) is the Balloon Vinter Raelthorne used to cross over into where the Skorne are. WM is either a case of "Our Steampunk is different" or veering right to the other end of WM's tagline of "full metal fantasy" is what "grimdark" is to 40k.

silent25 wrote:

By that definition, Star Wars isn't Sci-fi either, even though it is considered one of the penultimate Scif-Fi movies ever. The force is essentially "magic" as well.

On an interesting note, a couple people have commented to me that Warmachine isn't steampunk, but industrial sci-fi. I agree slightly with that since I don't recall seeing one of signature traits of steam-punk like dirigibles and a Victorian style setting. People more familiar with the WMH setting can correct me if wrong and those elements are there. Thought that I had given we were disputing genres.

i more often hear of star wars being described as a western in theme than as a sci fi by pundits of the genres. to be fair, its more fantasy than sci fi (and even then, only the quasi-mythos of "mytochlorians" gives "the force" any sense of grouding in real, quantifiable (if rational, and even slighly plausible) physics.

as i've said though with regard to warmachine, it has elements of stempunk (ie steam powered combat!) but beyond that, it lacks the victorianesque architechture, and the anachronistic technology. it is, essentially a fantasy setting (gods, monsters, magic etc) undergoing an industrial revolution. heck, even warjacks can be seen as an industrial revolution verson of DnD rock/wood and metal golems. basically, it is nothing more than a "twist" on a standard trope, but it does it in a unique enough way that it can call what it does its own.

All science fiction is technically based on the Western. As for the differenct sub-genras of Science Fiction, consider the following:

Star Wars is space opera.
Star Trek (classic) is science fiction.
TNG is barely science fiction and often becomes science fantasy.
DS9 and Voyager are purely science fantasy.
Total Recall (Arnold versior) is space opera.
Blade Runner is science fiction although it has a lot of nods to space opera in the dialogue (offworld colonies, c-beams, etc.)
Avatar starts off as science fiction but turns into science fantasy/pure fantasy real quick.
Looper is action/adventure based on a science fiction premis but isn't actually science fiction.
Most superhero movies are science fantasy.

That help?

 Breotan wrote:
All science fiction is technically based on the Western. As for the differenct sub-genras of Science Fiction, consider the following:

Star Wars is space opera.
Star Trek (classic) is science fiction.
TNG is barely science fiction and often becomes science fantasy.
DS9 and Voyager are purely science fantasy.
Total Recall (Arnold versior) is space opera.
Blade Runner is science fiction although it has a lot of nods to space opera in the dialogue (offworld colonies, c-beams, etc.)
Avatar starts off as science fiction but turns into science fantasy/pure fantasy real quick.
Looper is action/adventure based on a science fiction premis but isn't actually science fiction.
Most superhero movies are science fantasy.

That help?

What about 5th Element? you forgot it

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
All science fiction is technically based on the Western. As for the differenct sub-genras of Science Fiction, consider the following:

Star Wars is space opera.
Star Trek (classic) is science fiction.
TNG is barely science fiction and often becomes science fantasy.
DS9 and Voyager are purely science fantasy.
Total Recall (Arnold versior) is space opera.
Blade Runner is science fiction although it has a lot of nods to space opera in the dialogue (offworld colonies, c-beams, etc.)
Avatar starts off as science fiction but turns into science fantasy/pure fantasy real quick.
Looper is action/adventure based on a science fiction premis but isn't actually science fiction.
Most superhero movies are science fantasy.

That help?

What about 5th Element? you forgot it

5th Element is ruined by Chris Tucker.

Happy?

 Surtur wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
All science fiction is technically based on the Western. As for the differenct sub-genras of Science Fiction, consider the following:

Star Wars is space opera.
Star Trek (classic) is science fiction.
TNG is barely science fiction and often becomes science fantasy.
DS9 and Voyager are purely science fantasy.
Total Recall (Arnold versior) is space opera.
Blade Runner is science fiction although it has a lot of nods to space opera in the dialogue (offworld colonies, c-beams, etc.)
Avatar starts off as science fiction but turns into science fantasy/pure fantasy real quick.
Looper is action/adventure based on a science fiction premis but isn't actually science fiction.
Most superhero movies are science fantasy.

That help?

What about 5th Element? you forgot it

5th Element is made more awesome by Chris Tucker.

Happy?

Fixed that for you.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Surtur wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
All science fiction is technically based on the Western. As for the differenct sub-genras of Science Fiction, consider the following:

Star Wars is space opera.
Star Trek (classic) is science fiction.
TNG is barely science fiction and often becomes science fantasy.
DS9 and Voyager are purely science fantasy.
Total Recall (Arnold versior) is space opera.
Blade Runner is science fiction although it has a lot of nods to space opera in the dialogue (offworld colonies, c-beams, etc.)
Avatar starts off as science fiction but turns into science fantasy/pure fantasy real quick.
Looper is action/adventure based on a science fiction premis but isn't actually science fiction.
Most superhero movies are science fantasy.

That help?

What about 5th Element? you forgot it

5th Element is made more awesome by Chris Tucker.

Happy?

Fixed that for you.

Oh it's on, NERD FIGHT!

 keezus wrote:
1. It doesn't advance. It's always the same thing all the time.
2. The depth of fluff accompanying the game is much reduced. Once, there was more emphasis on background and theme lists. The world was dark with ambiguity. These days, the feel of the setting has been distiled down to "IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE, THERE IS ONLY WAR". For example: Old fluff would go in depth into the motivations of the Chaos Legions. These days, their motivations have been pared down to the oft quoted "KILL MAIM BURN".
3. 40k appears neither to have a "Style Bible" nor a "Continuity Bible", leading to sloppy retcons (i.e. Necrons), contradictory equipment descriptions (MULTILAZORS) and disjointed fluff in general. This is generally exacerbated by the Black Library publications - which vary greatly in quality, and sometimes outright contradict previously established storylines.
4. Over-reliance on rule of cool. Bigger explosions, huger weapon yields. Giant armies. The nuanced fluff of the old days has been replaced by a Michael Bayish bigger = epic mentality designed to cater to 12 year olds.
5. GW's protectionist stance on their IP stifles external innovation.

Every single one of these reasons is exactly why I moved onto the 40K RPG's (in every conceivable way - reading/playing/testing/writing). Every single problem listed above is essentially eliminated within the realm of the 40K RPG's. Yes, I'm coming back into 40K proper because 6th Ed is the first Edition since 2nd that I actually like, but I'd much rather play a game of Deathwatch or Dark Heresy than I would 40K.

silent25 wrote:

On an interesting note, a couple people have commented to me that Warmachine isn't steampunk, but industrial sci-fi. I agree slightly with that since I don't recall seeing one of signature traits of steam-punk like dirigibles and a Victorian style setting. People more familiar with the WMH setting can correct me if wrong and those elements are there. Thought that I had given we were disputing genres.

Admittedly, there's an undercurrent of concerns about what Steampunk is to begin with. WM seems a bit outside the norm, but there's already Steampunk curmudgeons who rail against the newer crowd who thinks anything is Steampunk if you wear goggles and glue some gears on it. "Magitek" is probably more accurate (Stollen from FFIII US) as it's basically jsut fantasy with a little bit of a veneer of mechanical work.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 keezus wrote:
1. It doesn't advance. It's always the same thing all the time.
2. The depth of fluff accompanying the game is much reduced. Once, there was more emphasis on background and theme lists. The world was dark with ambiguity. These days, the feel of the setting has been distiled down to "IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE, THERE IS ONLY WAR". For example: Old fluff would go in depth into the motivations of the Chaos Legions. These days, their motivations have been pared down to the oft quoted "KILL MAIM BURN".
3. 40k appears neither to have a "Style Bible" nor a "Continuity Bible", leading to sloppy retcons (i.e. Necrons), contradictory equipment descriptions (MULTILAZORS) and disjointed fluff in general. This is generally exacerbated by the Black Library publications - which vary greatly in quality, and sometimes outright contradict previously established storylines.
4. Over-reliance on rule of cool. Bigger explosions, huger weapon yields. Giant armies. The nuanced fluff of the old days has been replaced by a Michael Bayish bigger = epic mentality designed to cater to 12 year olds.
5. GW's protectionist stance on their IP stifles external innovation.

Every single one of these reasons is exactly why I moved onto the 40K RPG's (in every conceivable way - reading/playing/testing/writing). Every single problem listed above is essentially eliminated within the realm of the 40K RPG's. Yes, I'm coming back into 40K proper because 6th Ed is the first Edition since 2nd that I actually like, but I'd much rather play a game of Deathwatch or Dark Heresy than I would 40K.

So what sound DOES a Lasgun make?

Frem

pewpew?

Mattman154 wrote:
So what sound DOES a Lasgun make?

I've always imagined a faint hum (from the power pack), followed by a very fast vwip-ZOT sound. Think the sound of the laser from Real Genius ratcheted up a few octaves due to the compactness of the design.

According to Abnett's writing, a lasgun pops and cracks.

My favourite tidbit about the lasgun is how supposedly, Guardsmen could recharge the powerpacks by throwing them in a fire, or by sunlight. Even if this process was 100% efficient, due to the laws of conservation of energy, the concept is IMHO laughable... especially when some zealous writers have lasguns performing feats like punching through power armor or vaporizing rock.

Can I try to drag this thread back towards the topic?

I like games to be consistant .
If its fantasy in space fine.
If its space opera, fine.
If its hard sci fi, fine.
If its middle age/steam punk scifi, fine.
If its neo moden sci fi hard edged with a theme of magic woven through, fine.

BUT , keep a synergy between the background and the game play, please!!!!
PP attempts to do this.And most other games companies do.

GW plc seems to be content to just chuck cool ideas into the hat,and let any inanne drivel fall out , as long as it sounds cool to a 13 year old boy. (Lets not worry about over complicating the rules , counter intuitive gameplay , and down right WTF moments all over the place shall we?)

Basicaly PP is a games company , that has a prime demoghraphic of gamers that like thier particular asthetic.
(Like all other games companies.)

GW plc is 'in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to children'.
Its prime demoghaphic is NOT GAMERS BUT COLLECTORS.(According to Tom Kirby and Jervis Johnson, 'company chairman' and 'lead games devloper.')

This is the main difference, between PP and GW.

Where did you find the JJ and Tom Kirby quote?

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Where did you find the JJ and Tom Kirby quote?

Kirby I have no idea but JJ's is a paraphrasing of his column in last months WD.

There's a statement in the last bi-annual release by either Kirby or the CFO that states they are a modeling company, and something along the lines of 'wish we could remove the Games from the Games Workshop tag'.

And that's why they completely miss the boat; without the GAME component of GW, there's minimal demand for their product.

Lanrak wrote:
GW plc is 'in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to children'.
Its prime demoghaphic is NOT GAMERS BUT COLLECTORS.(According to Tom Kirby and Jervis Johnson, 'company chairman' and 'lead games devloper.')

If GW is marketing to collectors... they've got a problem - because IMHO, their products aren't really collectables! They are mass produced model kit / gaming aid that doesn't offer any incentives to collect outside of their already captive fanbase.

GW products lack a lot of the properties that other "collectable items" exhibit:

(1) Limited Run - i.e. one-and-done releases such as many collectable statues, stamps, coins, certain toys etc.
(2) Rarity Fixed - i.e. packaged with fixed rarity ratios such as MTG and it's ilk, and random packed toys etc. Even Cabbage Patch Kids, made their mass produced dolls unique (read collectable) by adding the unique certificates.
(3) Are not unique - i.e. like handcrafted goods, antiques, movie props etc.

Any uniqueness that the models acquire is added by the previous owner - Unfortunately, this leads to:

(4) Little to no resale value. Most of the range depreciates immediately on the secondary market, whether it is in production or OOP. Only the rarest models hold any value, and only to the aforementioned captive fanbase.

Sad to say, but resale and appreciation of value is another reason why people "collect".

 keezus wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
GW plc is 'in the buisness of selling toy soldiers to children'.
Its prime demoghaphic is NOT GAMERS BUT COLLECTORS.(According to Tom Kirby and Jervis Johnson, 'company chairman' and 'lead games devloper.')

If GW is marketing to collectors... they've got a problem - because IMHO, their products aren't really collectables! They are mass produced model kit / gaming aid that doesn't offer any incentives to collect outside of their already captive fanbase.

GW products lack a lot of the properties that other "collectable items" exhibit:

(1) Limited Run - i.e. one-and-done releases such as many collectable statues, stamps, coins, certain toys etc.
(2) Rarity Fixed - i.e. packaged with fixed rarity ratios such as MTG and it's ilk, and random packed toys etc. Even Cabbage Patch Kids, made their mass produced dolls unique (read collectable) by adding the unique certificates.
(3) Are not unique - i.e. like handcrafted goods, antiques, movie props etc.

Any uniqueness that the models acquire is added by the previous owner - Unfortunately, this leads to:

(4) Little to no resale value. Most of the range depreciates immediately on the secondary market, whether it is in production or OOP. Only the rarest models hold any value, and only to the aforementioned captive fanbase.

Sad to say, but resale and appreciation of value is another reason why people "collect".

If you keep GW stuff long enough it will increase in value due to crazy price hikes I've got a few GW kits that I bought awhile ago that are very expensive now. I have to keep checking the stupid prices before I trade them

@Bat Manuel> YMMV. You may get good returns in trades with other members of the "captive fanbase", but in general, the secondary market for unopened kits sell for below MSRP on the open market and assembled+painted kits sell for significantly below MSRP unless brilliantly assembled and painted (where upon they fall into the "collectable handcrafted goods" category, and not the broad category of "collectable" that GW thinks they cater to). I don't know what the secondary market is like for FINECAST, but I personally would never buy it secondhand as I don't think it can be refurbished like metals and plastic kits can, making its value to me, essentially zero.

Granted PP has the same issues in this regard, but at least they treat their toy soldiers as toy soldiers.

 Humaniora wrote:

Anyway add another torso to him and the 5 meters long horn, I might still like it. Looking at William Blake's pictures people see a lot of anatomical errors, I don't. I see the countnance, the meaning, the depth. Don't now why maybe it's amaeurish or sth, don't really care. Also 40k is the last place to nitpick on anatomy imo especialy if the topic is an alien beast that is hardly explained, also there are orks talking like footbal hooligans who have engineering written in genome and are really fungus, I mean wtf. The universe is grimdark serious and its own parody the same time, also go to the rules everyone has 1/6 of a chance to survive direct Lascanon hit. I don't care whether the tank could work, where is the crew, where do they keep ammo etc, wrong place for such questions. Looks like a tank and awesome for me so I'm fine with it.

That's intellectually lazy and leads to the designers of this game making gak models because they get a free pass. If something looks bad because of history (like the dreadnaught or leman russ) that is one thing. If the proportions are bad because the entire line has always had bad proportions and it's impractical for them to update 100% of their lines to realistic proportions that's one thing. Saying "It doesn't matter because things are already goofy" isn't a good excuse. This community is already permissive enough and GW already rapes his customers for every last penny while delivering bad games because of it. When people don't even expect quality from their art of models that's pretty telling of the way the 40k community wants to be treated.

There are standards to be met but just not realistic or technical ones. Rule of Cool is more restrained than you think, imo that they don't design with a technical schemes in hand doesn't mean they can do whatever they want to. Example is Dreadknight that is technicaly fine but is harshly criticised nonetheless and it's rule of cool that it has troubles with.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Two questions

Do you know any foreign language?

Now, go discuss art in that language. How was it?

My dictionary is lacking. Also at times especialy when drunk, hangovered or sleep deprived I'm not even certain whether I'm readable or not.

Than you should probably take better care to point out that your terminology is questionable because it's unfamiliar. What you've been doing is expressing opinions, implying their dominant, but refusing to back them up. You can't say "I'm right", which you have been doing, and without explaining why. Whether the reasoning is couched in artistic terminology or not it still needs to exist.

You see the poster I was reffering too was asking me to discuss artistic styles. I really thought for a moment that it's going to require sentences like "I am flushed with overriding sense of impermanence with this piece that is eclectic and monumental, a bit conceptual and rusticaly chaotic despite geometric exactness. It flourishies while naked in its rabid exhibitionism, it really is a great kitchen table" where I wouldn't really feel confident because such areas is where the language barrier gets thickier. No terms I used so far require pointing out that they're questionable, imo.

If I knew talking artistic styles means saying Gigeresque instead of "the alien ripoff" (btw the latter fits GW method of works much better), I wouldn't bother with that response tbh.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:


You say things like that, you say the tank is awesome. Why do you find it awesome? I find the Archangel awesome (a model for an army I dislike because I don't like the mutated aspect and "we're dark evil like elves", but the Archangel is my favorite model in the range because it's awesome. Why is it awesome? The height of the model and the length of the wings accurately portray the scope of a Gargantuan. The reptilian features are very distinctly draconic (having aspects of dragons), and it properly shows just how large dragons are in the Iron Kingdoms world, and represents an imposing figure on the battlefield.

All of which is completely subjective. As fun as it is that you and ShumaGorath have made this your personal gak on GW thread, no-one but you is faulting anyone else for being unable to convince you that models you don't like are actually really good. Just like you aren't going to convince anyone that doesn't like the Archangel that it's actually really good just because you write a grade school English class paper explaining your opinion in a way that you apparently feel makes it more objective.

I just want people to justify their reasoning, as soon as you guys start justifying your opinions in any way at all beyond simple fandom...

My week old post from one of the csm threads http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/480003.page?userfilterid=60506

Plumbumbarum wrote:This is something that is just unbelievable, pay 50$ for a book with marketing tricks and nerfing beyond the point of uselesslness. It's shameless, impudent crap that shows their absolute lack of respect for their consumers - how did they manage to tame their playerbase like that, no idea. Anyway I'm out from buying new models or codieces, Dark Vengenance is hopefuly my last purchase for a long time.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
...and personal preference

I'm not really sure what you are trying to achieve here, establish the objective method of judging models?. You won't prove to me that a Dreadnought is bad/ stupid/ cheap/ whatever, I don't wan't to prove to you that Archangel is bad, what's the point. Also objective analysis of the commercial pulp fantasy/sf models is shooting flies with Abrams, not to mention stating bland personal preference helps avoiding cuting on other peoples tastes.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
It'll stop being our personal whatever thread. As for gaking on GW, I'm not. I'm just trying to get you people to act like adults who have reasons for their opinions. The first thing they teach you in art class is to understand composition, color, and artistic intent. To express what about and why you like something.

The artistic intent of a tank in 40k, if that's not obvious I don't know what is. The intent is a grimdark tank that fits the overall design of the army - more crude in case of IG, a tad more sleek in case of SM, tank from hell with CSM etc.

The artistic intent of a Carnifex is a grimdark scary Alien ripoff (sorry I meant a beast inspired by Giger artwork but differentiated from ones existing before) creature, this one particularly a "living battering ram" as is one-dimensionaly stated in the codex. That's another obvious one I'd say.

Not to mention you can judge art outside of artistic intent, at least that's what I thought. A 100 page analysis of PP Archangel with elaborate explanation what it is is irrelevent to my judgement of it, because it takes one look for me to subjectively see that:

Plumbumbarum wrote: those muscular arms, dragon wings and wolf nose just don't fit together aestheticaly, for me.

There is no real objective reason, it's fantasy. If you like flying blind wolves with muscular humanoid hands and monkey proportions, I'm fine with it and can't use any of that as an objective argument against the model. I just personaly don't like it, I prefer impossible tanks, boxy walking coffins and usless iron sights. You can't really throw an "Warmachine" models make more sense than 40k " argument here, wrong genre imo.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
When you throw your hands up and say that "I like it because I like it and that's all I gotta say" it's juvenile. It's a bad excuse, especially when expressing a preference of one thing over the other like Plumbumbbarum has done repetitiously.

I would say your explanations are no more elaborate or constructive than mine, examples:

Carnifex: "They take a lot of work to make look not dumb. It's doable, but it's hard." and how the beast is out of balance. Funny btw how Relic took it as it is only animated and Fex on the move is one of the most impressive sights I've ever seen as far as fictional beasts are concerned (and don't forget to demand explanation of why is it impressive, who would guess it's because it's an alien exoskeletal dinosaur monster with sick posture, scythes for arms and buglike chitin armour roaming the future battlefield in only war universe).

Vendetta: "two jets that would burn their own tails off and can't turn" "one of the worst aircraft designs I had seen in my life".

All you do is nitpicking on technical side of things, which just as nitpicking on anatomy is out of place imo because of, funnily enough, it doesn't fit artistic intent of 40k, at least as I understand it.

I believe the recent attempt to rebrand as collectables rather than game pieces is part of their legal strategy in the case vs Chapterhouse having to do with what their stuff is classified as and how that relates to copyrights and trademarks and stuff.

 BrookM wrote:
According to Abnett's writing, a lasgun pops and cracks.

Don't forget those 'snaps' as well.

 sourclams wrote:
There's a statement in the last bi-annual release by either Kirby or the CFO that states they are a modeling company, and something along the lines of 'wish we could remove the Games from the Games Workshop tag'.

That's stupid beyond comprehension. Maybe it's time for them to bankrupt, they're too old for this apparently (JJ).

 sourclams wrote:
And that's why they completely miss the boat; without the GAME component of GW, there's minimal demand for their product.

Yes you have to be disconnected from reality to not see this. Collectible 60 hormagaunts, or 35 genestealers, or 50 marines