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.
2020/03/13 14:28:56
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/03/13 15:12:58
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
The character isn't but the unit was a End- Times unit, the wrathmongers.
The Skullgrinder (i.e., the guy with the anvil) was released in September 2015, a couple of months after Age of Sigmar dropped in July. You are correct on the Wrathmongers, which dropped alongside the End Times: Archaon book.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2020/03/13 15:17:01
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
Tamwulf wrote: Anyone else kinda disapointed in no new models for the Seraphon besides a terrain piece of dubious use?
Same argument can be said for a lot of races. It mostly highlights how much GW had ignored the game.
However it also highlights how far GW has come in quite a short span of time; especially with regard to their plastics. Don't forget it wasn't that long ago that models like the new Greater Demons in plastic were impossible; that heroes and leaders in anything but metal wasn't economically viable and that plastic really lagged behind metal in detailing potential.
AoS has a lot of legacy models in a lot of armies. There is ample room for GW to update almost every single army that wasn't released after AoS started; and of those new armies only Stormcast have a massive roster. Armies like KO and Idoneth are quite small in comparison to armies in the past and comparable armies like Stormcast. Meanwhile forces like Skaven - big and full of choices; are chock full of old stuff even back to the metal era.
In one way its a shame, but in another its a sign of just how much there is sitll to come for AoS. Plus along the way we get releases like Ossiarchs adding totally fresh forces and ideas. In time I'm sure most armies will get a "Gloomspite" level release that updates them.
Kanluwen wrote: It's three strings, with three separate anchoring points up top and a single anchoring point at the bottom.
You can actually tell fairly easily from this shot:
Spoiler:
I think the thing that bugs me most is that the upper and lower halves of the bow have such different designs and aesthetics.
It looks like the elf cut two different bows in half and then glued them together.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2020/03/13 17:35:39
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
Tamwulf wrote: Anyone else kinda disapointed in no new models for the Seraphon besides a terrain piece of dubious use?
A bit, but not particularly surprised.
I know they don't really like replacing plastics, even when they really need it (like the saurus warriors- that kit is looking really dated at this point), but this would have been a good time to get rid of the last of the resin/metal kits- the chameleons, Kroxigor, razordon and salamander. Especially since they were the first army officially migrated to AoS and got nothing that time either.
At some point GW needs to transition back from a book supplement company to a model company and start finishing off these ranges in plastic.
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2020/03/13 22:13:12
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
Alpharius wrote: As much as AoS is over the top at times, I don't think WFB can be correctly categorized as 'low fantasy'.
No, I am pretty sure either the Thirty Years War or War of the Roses had steam tanks and helicopters.
According to my experience arguing the merits of AoS the last four years, "low fantasy" is "any fantasy setting that I like because I apparently ignore everything that's over the top if I like the setting." I wonder if these people realize that Lord of the Rings is high fantasy according to most literary scholars.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
2020/03/14 05:27:15
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
The definitions are arbitrary, relative, and have no inherent good or bad quality. Yet they are frequently used as strange pseudo-criticisms in a manner I find deeply fascinating.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The definitions are arbitrary, relative, and have no inherent good or bad quality. Yet they are frequently used as strange pseudo-criticisms in a manner I find deeply fascinating.
I don’t think so. I think the terms are simply used to state a preference. However, it’s true that people are usually misusing the terms when they do that. The actual definitions of low and high fantasy are very specific, but their misuse has become so common, it’s rare to actually see then used correctly these days.
2020/03/14 09:30:41
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
Alpharius wrote: As much as AoS is over the top at times, I don't think WFB can be correctly categorized as 'low fantasy'.
No, I am pretty sure either the Thirty Years War or War of the Roses had steam tanks and helicopters.
According to my experience arguing the merits of AoS the last four years, "low fantasy" is "any fantasy setting that I like because I apparently ignore everything that's over the top if I like the setting." I wonder if these people realize that Lord of the Rings is high fantasy according to most literary scholars.
Maybe people should be using "high fantasy" for Lord of the Rings, and "the-writing-staff-are-too-high fantasy" for Age of Silliness?
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2020/03/14 10:01:06
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
Alpharius wrote: As much as AoS is over the top at times, I don't think WFB can be correctly categorized as 'low fantasy'.
No, I am pretty sure either the Thirty Years War or War of the Roses had steam tanks and helicopters.
According to my experience arguing the merits of AoS the last four years, "low fantasy" is "any fantasy setting that I like because I apparently ignore everything that's over the top if I like the setting." I wonder if these people realize that Lord of the Rings is high fantasy according to most literary scholars.
Maybe people should be using "high fantasy" for Lord of the Rings, and "the-writing-staff-are-too-high fantasy" for Age of Silliness?
Well, the idea that there are degrees of “highness” in fantasy comes from the now almost ubiquitous misuse of the term. To clarify, when the terms were coined, low fantasy referred to stories set in our real world but with added fantastical elements, high fantasy stories are set in fictional, imaginary worlds.
2020/03/14 10:20:44
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
Alpharius wrote: As much as AoS is over the top at times, I don't think WFB can be correctly categorized as 'low fantasy'.
No, I am pretty sure either the Thirty Years War or War of the Roses had steam tanks and helicopters.
According to my experience arguing the merits of AoS the last four years, "low fantasy" is "any fantasy setting that I like because I apparently ignore everything that's over the top if I like the setting." I wonder if these people realize that Lord of the Rings is high fantasy according to most literary scholars.
Maybe people should be using "high fantasy" for Lord of the Rings, and "the-writing-staff-are-too-high fantasy" for Age of Silliness?
Well, the idea that there are degrees of “highness” in fantasy comes from the now almost ubiquitous misuse of the term. To clarify, when the terms were coined, low fantasy referred to stories set in our real world but with added fantastical elements, high fantasy stories are set in fictional, imaginary worlds.
Then by that definition LotR and the whole Silmarillion Cycle should be classed as Medium Fantasy; yes they are set in a fictional world but it’s also supposedly our real world as it was in the Time Before. Tolkien’s own writings occasionally even imply that he was told the stories by an actual, living Hobbit and he was merely the translator/transcriber.
"Three months? I'm going to go crazy …and I'm taking you with me!"
— Vala Mal Doran
2020/03/14 10:34:02
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
Most terms relating to books are general guidelines at best.
Heck take the "romance" section of most book stores - they are equally as full of romance stories as they are stories with werewolves and vampires which would technically be fantasy.
Meanwhile you've got things like the Dragonriders of Pern novels which many would class as fantasy yet are technically all sci-fi stories. etc...
They are rough guidelines and best left at that. They convey a general theme or idea and concept to potential readers. If someone says low fantasy to you you'd not expect wall to wall demons and monsters and dragons and wizards throwing mountains at each other. Just as if you got told something was high fantasy then a classic Arthurian style story with Merlin being about the only wizard and even then half his stuff being on the boundary between magic and science - would be quite a disappointment.
Alpharius wrote: As much as AoS is over the top at times, I don't think WFB can be correctly categorized as 'low fantasy'.
No, I am pretty sure either the Thirty Years War or War of the Roses had steam tanks and helicopters.
According to my experience arguing the merits of AoS the last four years, "low fantasy" is "any fantasy setting that I like because I apparently ignore everything that's over the top if I like the setting." I wonder if these people realize that Lord of the Rings is high fantasy according to most literary scholars.
Maybe people should be using "high fantasy" for Lord of the Rings, and "the-writing-staff-are-too-high fantasy" for Age of Silliness?
Well, the idea that there are degrees of “highness” in fantasy comes from the now almost ubiquitous misuse of the term. To clarify, when the terms were coined, low fantasy referred to stories set in our real world but with added fantastical elements, high fantasy stories are set in fictional, imaginary worlds.
Then by that definition LotR and the whole Silmarillion Cycle should be classed as Medium Fantasy; yes they are set in a fictional world but it’s also supposedly our real world as it was in the Time Before. Tolkien’s own writings occasionally even imply that he was told the stories by an actual, living Hobbit and he was merely the translator/transcriber.
Indeed, that’s where the waters get muddied. LotR is generally considered a High Fantasy because, although it is meant to be our world thousands of years ago(?), the geography and peoples of Middle Earth are totally invented.
2020/03/14 13:31:17
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The definitions are arbitrary, relative, and have no inherent good or bad quality. Yet they are frequently used as strange pseudo-criticisms in a manner I find deeply fascinating.
I don’t think so. I think the terms are simply used to state a preference. However, it’s true that people are usually misusing the terms when they do that. The actual definitions of low and high fantasy are very specific, but their misuse has become so common, it’s rare to actually see then used correctly these days.
The terms do have a specific meaning in the literary world. However, like the term skirmish, it has also taken on a different meaning in tabletop gaming culture though not nearly as well defined. So I am not going to poke the bear too much on it.
I find the idea of someone preferring the Old World and referring to it as low fantasy kinda funny though. I remember way back in the late 80's/early 90's the old gray beards saying the exact same thing about AD&D 2nd which the games I played in felt far less fantastical that of Warhammer Fantasy Battles. So I am somewhat entertained by those who scoff at AoS level of fantasy when I could have heard the same thing level at WFB from the Chainmail crowd.
I find it just as hilarious as I look over to my army Warriors and Knights which have practically nothing fantastical about them save being a tad on the Black Knight/army of baddies and way bigger than a human ought to be. Age of Sigmar is a huge, huge setting that has entire stretches devoid of anything fantastic if a person wants that sort of thing. It is just the focus is on the crazier, over-the-top elements which I think is more a reflection of modern fantasy settings preferences (as well as a heapin' pile of IP protection). We are well past the 1980s/1990s and fantasy has evolved some since then. I know, I don't like being reminded that that I am getting old too. A person might not like the direction it has taken, but I would hope they can avoid becoming those cranky, old Chainmail and historical players that looked down their noses at everything that isn't what they liked. Miniatures war gaming really doesn't need a new generation of that kind of grognard saying how their games are better than what the kids are doing these days.
2020/03/14 14:00:31
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The definitions are arbitrary, relative, and have no inherent good or bad quality. Yet they are frequently used as strange pseudo-criticisms in a manner I find deeply fascinating.
I don’t think so. I think the terms are simply used to state a preference. However, it’s true that people are usually misusing the terms when they do that. The actual definitions of low and high fantasy are very specific, but their misuse has become so common, it’s rare to actually see then used correctly these days.
The terms do have a specific meaning in the literary world. However, like the term skirmish, it has also taken on a different meaning in tabletop gaming culture though not nearly as well defined. So I am not going to poke the bear too much on it.
I find the idea of someone preferring the Old World and referring to it as low fantasy kinda funny though. I remember way back in the late 80's/early 90's the old gray beards saying the exact same thing about AD&D 2nd which the games I played in felt far less fantastical that of Warhammer Fantasy Battles. So I am somewhat entertained by those who scoff at AoS level of fantasy when I could have heard the same thing level at WFB from the Chainmail crowd.
I find it just as hilarious as I look over to my army Warriors and Knights which have practically nothing fantastical about them save being a tad on the Black Knight/army of baddies and way bigger than a human ought to be. Age of Sigmar is a huge, huge setting that has entire stretches devoid of anything fantastic if a person wants that sort of thing. It is just the focus is on the crazier, over-the-top elements which I think is more a reflection of modern fantasy settings preferences (as well as a heapin' pile of IP protection). We are well past the 1980s/1990s and fantasy has evolved some since then. I know, I don't like being reminded that that I am getting old too. A person might not like the direction it has taken, but I would hope they can avoid becoming those cranky, old Chainmail and historical players that looked down their noses at everything that isn't what they liked. Miniatures war gaming really doesn't need a new generation of that kind of grognard saying how their games are better than what the kids are doing these days.
I pretty much agree with most of what you’ve said here. However, I think it’s too easy though to equate somebody saying they don’t like something with looking down their noses, as you put it.
As a child in the 70s and 80s I was obsessed with fantasy as a genre, far more than any other. That’s no longer the case. As you say, fantasy has evolved because just like everything else, there are changes in taste and fashion over time. The style of fantasy I enjoy just isn’t mainstream anymore. Age of Sigmar just doesn’t appeal to me at all, neither did the Warhammer Old World for that matter. Fantasy has moved away from what I enjoy, so I’ve moved on to sci fi, which I enjoy far more these days.
This doesn’t mean that I look down on modern fantasy, Age of Sigmar or anything else. It’s just not for me. The things I enjoy are just different, not intrinsically better. If anything, I’m actually a bit envious of the people who do like it because they have a mainstream fantasy miniatures game they enjoy.
2020/03/14 16:21:14
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
I pretty much agree with most of what you’ve said here. However, I think it’s too easy though to equate somebody saying they don’t like something with looking down their noses, as you put it.
As a child in the 70s and 80s I was obsessed with fantasy as a genre, far more than any other. That’s no longer the case. As you say, fantasy has evolved because just like everything else, there are changes in taste and fashion over time. The style of fantasy I enjoy just isn’t mainstream anymore. Age of Sigmar just doesn’t appeal to me at all, neither did the Warhammer Old World for that matter. Fantasy has moved away from what I enjoy, so I’ve moved on to sci fi, which I enjoy far more these days.
This doesn’t mean that I look down on modern fantasy, Age of Sigmar or anything else. It’s just not for me. The things I enjoy are just different, not intrinsically better. If anything, I’m actually a bit envious of the people who do like it because they have a mainstream fantasy miniatures game they enjoy.
Which having different tastes and preferences is fine. I just don't think there is much to be gained dropping posts like '3-stringed bows look like crap.' end post. There is a good deal of things in Age of Sigmar that don't suit my tastes and preferences. At least locally, more than a few people do like those things. So I am not going to make comments the are little more than getting something off my chest. It doesn't make them feel good about what they like and doesn't change the fact that it exists. I see that as a lose-lose.
2020/03/14 16:35:07
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
I pretty much agree with most of what you’ve said here. However, I think it’s too easy though to equate somebody saying they don’t like something with looking down their noses, as you put it.
As a child in the 70s and 80s I was obsessed with fantasy as a genre, far more than any other. That’s no longer the case. As you say, fantasy has evolved because just like everything else, there are changes in taste and fashion over time. The style of fantasy I enjoy just isn’t mainstream anymore. Age of Sigmar just doesn’t appeal to me at all, neither did the Warhammer Old World for that matter. Fantasy has moved away from what I enjoy, so I’ve moved on to sci fi, which I enjoy far more these days.
This doesn’t mean that I look down on modern fantasy, Age of Sigmar or anything else. It’s just not for me. The things I enjoy are just different, not intrinsically better. If anything, I’m actually a bit envious of the people who do like it because they have a mainstream fantasy miniatures game they enjoy.
Which having different tastes and preferences is fine. I just don't think there is much to be gained dropping posts like '3-stringed bows look like crap.' end post. There is a good deal of things in Age of Sigmar that don't suit my tastes and preferences. At least locally, more than a few people do like those things. So I am not going to make comments the are little more than getting something off my chest. It doesn't make them feel good about what they like and doesn't change the fact that it exists. I see that as a lose-lose.
While I sort of agree, you go down that road and you end up asking what’s the point of anyone expressing their opinion of everything. Saying, “I hate this mini” really adds nothing to discussion of news items. On the other hand saying, “I love this mini”, adds nothing either. I tend to find that people only complain about the negative posts though
2020/03/14 16:43:56
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
I pretty much agree with most of what you’ve said here. However, I think it’s too easy though to equate somebody saying they don’t like something with looking down their noses, as you put it.
As a child in the 70s and 80s I was obsessed with fantasy as a genre, far more than any other. That’s no longer the case. As you say, fantasy has evolved because just like everything else, there are changes in taste and fashion over time. The style of fantasy I enjoy just isn’t mainstream anymore. Age of Sigmar just doesn’t appeal to me at all, neither did the Warhammer Old World for that matter. Fantasy has moved away from what I enjoy, so I’ve moved on to sci fi, which I enjoy far more these days.
This doesn’t mean that I look down on modern fantasy, Age of Sigmar or anything else. It’s just not for me. The things I enjoy are just different, not intrinsically better. If anything, I’m actually a bit envious of the people who do like it because they have a mainstream fantasy miniatures game they enjoy.
Which having different tastes and preferences is fine. I just don't think there is much to be gained dropping posts like '3-stringed bows look like crap.' end post. There is a good deal of things in Age of Sigmar that don't suit my tastes and preferences. At least locally, more than a few people do like those things. So I am not going to make comments the are little more than getting something off my chest. It doesn't make them feel good about what they like and doesn't change the fact that it exists. I see that as a lose-lose.
While I sort of agree, you go down that road and you end up asking what’s the point of anyone expressing their opinion of everything. Saying, “I hate this mini” really adds nothing to discussion of news items. On the other hand saying, “I love this mini”, adds nothing either. I tend to find that people only complain about the negative posts though
That's because people enjoy their hobby and want to share that enjoyment with others and have that enjoyment reinforced. So comments like "I love that model" create a positive atmosphere environment people want to be a part of. It rewards those who agree with the viewpoint and has minimal effect on those who don't. However in contrast negative comments create more of a negative association and tend to be more personally taken by those who might disagree with them.
That's why negative comment get more pushback than positive ones. It's also why many try to encourage/force positive environments rather than negative ones.
I think online there's also a bit of a lean toward the negative. People tend to take less effort to post the positive which results in an increase in the negative. As a result you get more pushback; especially when a community has a bit of a habit of being slightly over critical/negative.
I pretty much agree with most of what you’ve said here. However, I think it’s too easy though to equate somebody saying they don’t like something with looking down their noses, as you put it.
As a child in the 70s and 80s I was obsessed with fantasy as a genre, far more than any other. That’s no longer the case. As you say, fantasy has evolved because just like everything else, there are changes in taste and fashion over time. The style of fantasy I enjoy just isn’t mainstream anymore. Age of Sigmar just doesn’t appeal to me at all, neither did the Warhammer Old World for that matter. Fantasy has moved away from what I enjoy, so I’ve moved on to sci fi, which I enjoy far more these days.
This doesn’t mean that I look down on modern fantasy, Age of Sigmar or anything else. It’s just not for me. The things I enjoy are just different, not intrinsically better. If anything, I’m actually a bit envious of the people who do like it because they have a mainstream fantasy miniatures game they enjoy.
Which having different tastes and preferences is fine. I just don't think there is much to be gained dropping posts like '3-stringed bows look like crap.' end post. There is a good deal of things in Age of Sigmar that don't suit my tastes and preferences. At least locally, more than a few people do like those things. So I am not going to make comments the are little more than getting something off my chest. It doesn't make them feel good about what they like and doesn't change the fact that it exists. I see that as a lose-lose.
While I sort of agree, you go down that road and you end up asking what’s the point of anyone expressing their opinion of everything. Saying, “I hate this mini” really adds nothing to discussion of news items. On the other hand saying, “I love this mini”, adds nothing either. I tend to find that people only complain about the negative posts though
That's because people enjoy their hobby and want to share that enjoyment with others and have that enjoyment reinforced. So comments like "I love that model" create a positive atmosphere environment people want to be a part of. It rewards those who agree with the viewpoint and has minimal effect on those who don't. However in contrast negative comments create more of a negative association and tend to be more personally taken by those who might disagree with them.
That's why negative comment get more pushback than positive ones. It's also why many try to encourage/force positive environments rather than negative ones.
I think online there's also a bit of a lean toward the negative. People tend to take less effort to post the positive which results in an increase in the negative. As a result you get more pushback; especially when a community has a bit of a habit of being slightly over critical/negative.
Personally I don’t find Dakka to be my go to place to have my enjoyment reinforced. That’s what Instagram is for.
2020/03/14 17:04:26
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
Personally I don’t find Dakka to be my go to place to have my enjoyment reinforced. That’s what Instagram is for.
Maybe it's a discussion for another topic but I'll ask anyway as it's something I've been contemplating recently and you've certainly touched on it here...
Are there alternatives to Facebook and other such nonsense for discussing wargaming in general these days? I'm from a perdiof of time where forums like Dakka were the go-to, forefront of discussions surrounding Wargaming of all stripes but with social media, which I've no personal interest in, this has long not been the case, I feel especially as it doesn't feel as lively as it used to be, though that could just as well be my own, incorrect, observations I suppose.
I guess what I'm really asking is; I wonder if there's anywhere like or alternative to Dakka out there on other platforms?
As for discussions surrounding subjective liking or disliking the latest miniature releases, especially GW, I've noticed an odd pattern where I tend to dislike what Dakka at large agrees are awesome plastic troopers and very much enjoy what is usually, on here anyway, denounced as total dross*. Each to their own!
*I welcome our new, precariously balanced, zen wizarding overlords!
2020/03/14 17:37:04
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
The problem I find with Facebook groups - at least general groups - is they are very impersonal. You might recognises people if you're super active an they are too; but if the groups large you get lost in the sea.
Furthermore because they are basically like a forum with a single subsection; posts get bumped down fast. You might get a few replies and then your post is lost and buried. So unlike forums where you might have multiple communities interacting and sharing and chatting; where threads are more easily sorted and displayed - FB is a bit of a mess.
FB's only gain is that so many people use it casually that its very easy to connect with a community. It's just a very impersonal connection that only works by you reinforcing it with personal friends.
Personally I don’t find Dakka to be my go to place to have my enjoyment reinforced. That’s what Instagram is for.
Maybe it's a discussion for another topic but I'll ask anyway as it's something I've been contemplating recently and you've certainly touched on it here...
Are there alternatives to Facebook and other such nonsense for discussing wargaming in general these days? I'm from a perdiof of time where forums like Dakka were the go-to, forefront of discussions surrounding Wargaming of all stripes but with social media, which I've no personal interest in, this has long not been the case, I feel especially as it doesn't feel as lively as it used to be, though that could just as well be my own, incorrect, observations I suppose.
I guess what I'm really asking is; I wonder if there's anywhere like or alternative to Dakka out there on other platforms?
As for discussions surrounding subjective liking or disliking the latest miniature releases, especially GW, I've noticed an odd pattern where I tend to dislike what Dakka at large agrees are awesome plastic troopers and very much enjoy what is usually, on here anyway, denounced as total dross*. Each to their own!
*I welcome our new, precariously balanced, zen wizarding overlords!
I don’t think you can beat an actual forum for discussion of a topic. I use Instagram to post photos of my miniatures and to follow other people’s work. In fact I deleted all of my photos from Dakka and only post them on Instagram now. It gives me far more control over what I see and I’ve found it to be a very positive place. I’m more of a collector and painter though. I can’t really speak about social media as a way of discussing rules/tactics etc.
2020/03/14 23:22:47
Subject: Age of Sigmar N & R. P.21 Seraphon, Lumineth P.26.
So getting into the Seraphon book; new fluff is good. The whole 'remembering' thing is gone and what's replaced it has more nuance and WAY more personality. I was not particularly bothered by the 1st edition fluff and generally abhor re-cons, but this was a good move in my eyes. It was both appropriate and artfully done by rolling the re-done older fluff into being legends and misconceptions. I have not gotten into unit details yet but still credit where credit is due to GW fluff writers for vastly improving things.
Matched play is totally imbalanced but it does open up a lot of options for casual players where before Seraphon were largely non-viable outside a narrow range of game breaking gimmicks. So, unlike the fluff, I would say the battletome is not well-written in a matched play sense but it IS a significant improvement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/03/15 02:36:38
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
