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.

lol, you know what? I took the bait, and looked. There's one detail shot (the first one) that's symmetrical, but then there's an asymmetrical "head"; one giant arm and one tiny arm; and some orbs on only one side of a torso, with embellishment that's also asymmetrical.

This argument is aggravating, as, as far as I can tell, we're both only seeing what we want to (yes, there are some deco elements but I feel that the whole is not at all deco; and you seem to think the opposite).

Peace, I'm done with this nonsense...

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
lol, you know what? I took the bait, and looked. There's one detail shot (the first one) that's symmetrical, but then there's an asymmetrical "head"; one giant arm and one tiny arm; and some orbs on only one side of a torso, with embellishment that's also asymmetrical.

It wasn't bait, is was "evidence". Those pictures have a ton of symmetry in them. If you look at the body, upper arms, lower arms they are all symmetrical.

You are seeing only what you want to see.

This argument is aggravating, as, as far as I can tell, we're both only seeing what we want to (yes, there are some deco elements but I feel that the whole is not at all deco; and you seem to think the opposite).

Nice to see you've finally come around and seen what is right in front of you.

Peace, I'm done with this nonsense...

Because you are incorrect, that's why you are done.

Wow, I was trying to say "Let's agree to disagree", but you took the high road with "Nyah nyah, yeah, you're a quitter because you're wrong!"

God, I love the option to make my life a little better with the Ignore button.

I'll just hand over my credit card to PP now.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wonder how many people will start making a Adeptus Mechanicus army from this...

The mechanics and the playstyle sounds cool. That doesn't really help the God awful models, though.

 angel of ecstasy wrote:
The mechanics and the playstyle sounds cool. That doesn't really help the God awful models, though.

Careful seems almost any board you post this on you will get Ripped by the playerbase



After seeing these this morning feeling so out of place i couldnt put my finger on it.

To me it feels they are targeting the Games Workshop 40k crowd with this new Space like army.

I disagree. As a 40k player, I think that Cyriss is distinct and unique. I also think that the design elements have been there all along. Consider the Cult of Cyriss's symbol, which has been a part if this property since the IK RPG was a d20 supplement. I think that these models show a clear connection to Cyriss's symbol.

 ProtoClone wrote:
Do we have any more background info on Cyriss?

How did they get to be a faction without notice?

They're in the rpg. I'm not too familiar with much else, though.

 Spyder68 wrote:

 angel of ecstasy wrote:
The mechanics and the playstyle sounds cool. That doesn't really help the God awful models, though.

Careful seems almost any board you post this on you will get Ripped by the playerbase



After seeing these this morning feeling so out of place i couldnt put my finger on it.

To me it feels they are targeting the Games Workshop 40k crowd with this new Space like army.

I don't know if I'd really call it space-like. The Cult has always had a very clockwork futurism feel to it rather than the "goggles and boilers" steampunk of the rest of the world. I'm only sad they didn't include the rather insectile Clockwork Priests (as previously indicated). Either way, it should make for a rather interesting discussion this Wednesday up at the store.

 malfred wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:
Do we have any more background info on Cyriss?

How did they get to be a faction without notice?

They're in the rpg. I'm not too familiar with much else, though.

Mystical tech, underground cult, sciency religion, which seem like they run on similar geomantic principles as Circle and Retribution. In the Witchfire series (D&D 3.5),

 Spyder68 wrote:

 angel of ecstasy wrote:
The mechanics and the playstyle sounds cool. That doesn't really help the God awful models, though.

Careful seems almost any board you post this on you will get Ripped by the playerbase

Yes, by my fellow hardcore Warmachine players "You wanna go, brah? Page 5, baby! Page 5!"

Seriously, I am interested in this faction. I don't want to own them myself (because I just don't like the look of them), but I'm excited to play against them.

 kenshin620 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I feel like it doesnt fit the rest of their range at all

Its the Retribution all over again!

They should just make every faction look like Khador but painted different colors, then there would be no more complaints.

 malfred wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:
Do we have any more background info on Cyriss?

How did they get to be a faction without notice?

They're in the rpg. I'm not too familiar with much else, though.

Cult of Cyriss, rather. Cyriss is the Clockwork Goddess, and has been apparently planning to transfer a portion of her divine self into a mechanikal vessel on Caen. The Cult has been building various temples along leylines to facilitate this, along with apparently working on said vessel. Once the Great Work is completed and Cyriss is on Caen, her disciples will all ascend, transferring their souls to clockwork bodies. By the fact that we haven't seen a fleshbag yet, this may have happened already (speculation).

Dammit, there's a couple of other games I want to try, but here comes Privateer Press with some more frigging awesome models with seemingly awesome fluff and seemingly awesome rules.


I might as well just give them direct access to my bank account for all eternity and they can just send me tons of models directly.

I do generally feel curious what kind of fluff the book will have since it will be exploring the Convergence in detail

 Sidstyler wrote:

 kenshin620 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I feel like it doesnt fit the rest of their range at all

Its the Retribution all over again!

They should just make every faction look like Khador but painted different colors, then there would be no more complaints.

As you see here, the blue khadorians really like lightning while the green ones prefer to use death magiks....

The only problem I have with these models is there aren't enough gears for my liking.

Interesting. For whatever reason, the first thing I thought when I saw the video was 'Necrons for Warmachine'.

 Sarigar wrote:
Interesting. For whatever reason, the first thing I thought when I saw the video was 'Necrons for Warmachine'.

Same here, man. But I dreaded pointing it out

Heh. Even more so when you realise they're clockwork bodies with souls shoved in them.

 angel of ecstasy wrote:

 Sarigar wrote:
Interesting. For whatever reason, the first thing I thought when I saw the video was 'Necrons for Warmachine'.

Same here, man. But I dreaded pointing it out

Oh, definitely, the guys with shields and extend-o weapons could probably be subbed in-out for Lychguard, though far less Egyptian in style. I do hope that the Angels will be in the opening salvo of releases, as they look a good deal more unique to the faction/setting.

All that said, let's remember there is (presumably) a great deal more to the faction then what we have seen so far (they are at least getting a battle engine at release, I think it was said), so it's probably a bit early to have nailed down exactly what everything is going to look like (the concept art has some very interesting concepts in it).

prplehippo wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
lol, you know what? I took the bait, and looked. There's one detail shot (the first one) that's symmetrical, but then there's an asymmetrical "head"; one giant arm and one tiny arm; and some orbs on only one side of a torso, with embellishment that's also asymmetrical.

It wasn't bait, is was "evidence". Those pictures have a ton of symmetry in them. If you look at the body, upper arms, lower arms they are all symmetrical.

You are seeing only what you want to see.

This argument is aggravating, as, as far as I can tell, we're both only seeing what we want to (yes, there are some deco elements but I feel that the whole is not at all deco; and you seem to think the opposite).

Nice to see you've finally come around and seen what is right in front of you.

Peace, I'm done with this nonsense...

Because you are incorrect, that's why you are done.

You would be the one that is incorrect my friend. I HAVE studied deco, and nouveau, and bauhaus, and streamline moderne, and futurism, and just about every major (and many minor) art style,s in the period between 1850 and 1950. This is NOT deco. What this is is an attempt at deco based on only a casual understanding of the various prevalent styles of the time, which are commonly confused for Deco but are NOT deco.

Deco is defined by(amongst other things):
Symmetry
Rectilinear lines
Geometric shapes

These models are:
Mostly asymmetric
Largely curvilinear
Feature heavily with organic shapes

Even the strongest links to Art Deco (faceplate on a couple models) aren't actually art deco, just confused by it. Fritz Lang and Metropolis are examples of futurism, a closely related but entirely distinct style.

These models are not Art Deco. They are a marriage of Nouveau, Futurist, and Bauhaus with a dash of Streamline moderne and a slightly Art Deco color palette.

chaos0xomega wrote:


You would be the one that is incorrect my friend. I HAVE studied deco, and nouveau, and bauhaus, and streamline moderne, and futurism, and just about every major (and many minor) art style,s in the period between 1850 and 1950. This is NOT deco. What this is is an attempt at deco based on only a casual understanding of the various prevalent styles of the time, which are commonly confused for Deco but are NOT deco.

Deco is defined by(amongst other things):
Symmetry
Rectilinear lines
Geometric shapes

These models are:
Mostly asymmetric
Largely curvilinear
Feature heavily with organic shapes

Even the strongest links to Art Deco (faceplate on a couple models) aren't actually art deco, just confused by it. Fritz Lang and Metropolis are examples of futurism, a closely related but entirely distinct style.

These models are not Art Deco. They are a marriage of Nouveau, Futurist, and Bauhaus with a dash of Streamline moderne and a slightly Art Deco color palette.

I doubt you studied art deco or EVERY major art style between 1850 and 1950, there are far too many styles during that very long period, more like Googled a Wiki page since much of what you just posted is detailed within the Wiki page for art deco.

And in case you haven't looked at all of the pics available online, there is a tremendous amount of symmetry in these models. There are a few small details that are asymmetrical, but overall their bodies, legs, arms etc are all symmetrical.

Having small details, like the shperes, in an asymetrical position still does not change the fact that much of the bulk models are symmetrical.

I don't like the random glowing lights on some of the best parts of the models, but i'll deal >.>

The iron mother is the only figure in the set that is close to art deco and that is the body only. None of the other figures have the clean lines or simple geometric shapes that are part of art deco. Art deco wasn't just defined by symmetry, but also a clean aerodynamic look and feel.

Heck there isn't a single chevron on any fig and that was one of the quintessential shapes used in art deco.

Shame, Matt Wilson lives in Los Angeles and there are a number of wonderful art deco style buildings. The LA Conservancy has a number of wonderful tours that I have been on showing off some of the beautify art deco styles hidden around downtown LA.

This feels like the designers watched Metropolis and called it a day.

*edit* chaos0xomega posted while I was writing and summed up better what I was talking about.

chaos0xomega wrote:
<stuff>

These models are not Art Deco. They are a marriage of Nouveau, Futurist, and Bauhaus with a dash of Streamline moderne and a slightly Art Deco color palette.

Oish... No they are not. These models are "an entire faction of Big, Awesome Robots." They were "influenced by art deco in an attempt to make these look like the giant robots that came out of the golden age of science fiction."

The degree of exegesis going on here is inappropriate a) to the claims actually being made and b) to the subject matter.

Put another way, if one were to say to the designers "how dare you say you were inspired by art deco, have you noted the many ways that they are failing to follow the definition of the style?!" who would care to wager the response would be something along the lines of "yeah... we know. We don't care, but we know."

Big. Awesome. Robots.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
exegesis

Damn.

Point to you Buzzsaw, I actually had to look that word up as I had never heard it before.

Whatever. I think they are cool.

Saying inspired by art deco (they are) is very different from saying they are art deco (which is what is being claimed).

And I did actually STUDY the various styles, perhaps not every but certainly many, its actually semi-required in my current job to know the differences and I actually have to deal with true professionals that have degrees in this stuff on a regular basis.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Saying inspired by art deco (they are) is very different from saying they are art deco (which is what is being claimed).

And I did actually STUDY the various styles, perhaps not every but certainly many, its actually semi-required in my current job to know the differences and I actually have to deal with true professionals that have degrees in this stuff on a regular basis.

Funny, my job requires that too.

I did assert they were inspired by art deco, another poster claimed they did not in any way have art deco features which prompted my replies.

I still assert they are a mix of art deco and art nouveau with 1950's era futurism mixed in.

Mattman154 wrote:

 Goldshield wrote:

My hopes for some crazy Orgoth-style Remnant crushed again (hopefully Hordes)

The thing I am curious about is since WM factions represent the backings of industrial powers with actual established nations, then where is Cyriss going to be based? They got some other province that Cygnar did not want out in nowhere?

Underground. Same as the Cephalyx I imagine.

I guess we will just have to wait for Saint Seacat of the Fluff to grace us with explanations with how large the Cult of Cyriss actually is and their power base when the book comes out.

Also, I am noticing the Cyriss vs. Cygnar art in just what we are seeing. Poor trenchers... but this may make some interesting pieces of fluff with Nemo's reactions and maybe even questions of allegiance.

And lastly... does anyone think this might be PP's answer to complaints about "Infantrymachine"?