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.
Dai wrote: Cripes, I agree with Karol again. When it comes to sports definition anyway.
I'd agree, but not for the logic that the difference is that you can get "more hurt" with "sports" than non sports. Although its an interesting metric to consider, though it would probably put something like horse eventing WAY ahead of a lot of regular sports.
They probably are sports by strict definition, I just want the kids to get off the computers and go outside sometimes!
(So I can have a go on the console)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/28 12:50:49
Dai wrote: Cripes, I agree with Karol again. When it comes to sports definition anyway.
I'd agree, but not for the logic that the difference is that you can get "more hurt" with "sports" than non sports. Although its an interesting metric to consider, though it would probably put something like horse eventing WAY ahead of a lot of regular sports.
They probably are sports by strict definition, I just want the kids to get off the computers and go outside sometimes!
(So I can have a go on the console)
I personally draw the line at poker being a sport. In e-sports there is still an active physical component and muscle memory and mechanical skill are needed to even have a shot at playing pro. Teams are all investing in everything from dieticians to personal trainers for their players to get an edge over other teams.
Dai wrote: Cripes, I agree with Karol again. When it comes to sports definition anyway.
I'd agree, but not for the logic that the difference is that you can get "more hurt" with "sports" than non sports. Although its an interesting metric to consider, though it would probably put something like horse eventing WAY ahead of a lot of regular sports.
They probably are sports by strict definition, I just want the kids to get off the computers and go outside sometimes!
(So I can have a go on the console)
I personally draw the line at poker being a sport. In e-sports there is still an active physical component and muscle memory and mechanical skill are needed to even have a shot at playing pro. Teams are all investing in everything from dieticians to personal trainers for their players to get an edge over other teams.
What's even more ridiculous about professional poker is poker tournaments allowing stuff like sunglasses. The "skill" in poker is meant to be the ability to bluff and mask your reactions. A large part of that is in the eyes. Being allowed to hide them is just taking that away meaning that anyone who doesn't full on grimace or shake has basically the same "skill" as anyone else.
Which just makes it pure luck.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
mrFickle wrote: Do you think GW is trying to make the 40k universe a bit less dystopian? It always will be but I feel like they are trying to make it less grim and dark. The tau robots and battle suits have always looked a bit too utopian to me, probably bars on the other places you see this kinds of designs. The new primaris models, whilst being excellent, feel a bit GI joe in the 41st century. Now we’re getting Bandai action figures and all sorts of stuff. Are the slowly re engineering the setting in a attempt to appeal to..... happier people?
In my personal opinion, the answer is no. The grimdark is still there in spades.
However, I do get the impression that some aspects are being "sanitized" (for want of a better term) in the interests of marketing.
However, I do get the impression that some aspects are being "sanitized" (for want of a better term) in the interests of marketing.
Except for the fact people were complaining about the 'kiddifying' of GW for as long as I've been on this board, which was right around the transition of 3rd to 4th edition, and one of the old, long discarded setting details from my old, floppy, 'White Dwarf Presents: Warhammer 40,000" is the section on Imperial Robots, whose fluff states, 'During the Horus Heresy, both sides made heavy use of robots in order to limit human casualties.'
That also had the rules for determining vehicle move distance by calculating the arc of the turn if your tank didn't move in a straight line.
"-Nonsense, the Inquisitor and his retinue are our hounoured guests, of course we should invite them to celebrate Four-armed Emperor-day with us..." Thought for the Day - Never use the powerfist hand to wipe.
However, I do get the impression that some aspects are being "sanitized" (for want of a better term) in the interests of marketing.
Except for the fact people were complaining about the 'kiddifying' of GW for as long as I've been on this board, which was right around the transition of 3rd to 4th edition, and one of the old, long discarded setting details from my old, floppy, 'White Dwarf Presents: Warhammer 40,000" is the section on Imperial Robots, whose fluff states, 'During the Horus Heresy, both sides made heavy use of robots in order to limit human casualties.'
That also had the rules for determining vehicle move distance by calculating the arc of the turn if your tank didn't move in a straight line.
"Now what you're going to have to do is use the tangent - are you listening jimmy? - multiply the tangent of the turn arc from the central hub of the tank to the sidemost edge corner of the front track module..."
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
You thought that it was bad when you had a particularly fixated opponent double-checking your movement now...
"-Nonsense, the Inquisitor and his retinue are our hounoured guests, of course we should invite them to celebrate Four-armed Emperor-day with us..." Thought for the Day - Never use the powerfist hand to wipe.
jeff white wrote: One results in lasting skills that translate across media.
One does not.
CGI definitely gives the artists lasting skills that translate across media. I may not be the biggest fan of the overuse of CGI in recent years, but it is definitely a skill.
The difficulty is when CGI is used to substitute for skill. Movies that think they don't need a plot, or good acting, or dialogue, just so long as they have high-resolution explosions. Video games that insist on ever-more-elaborate methods of rendering dirty brown stuff is a substitute for gameplay, plot, or visual design. That kind of thing.
Those decisions often have precious little to do with the actual practitioner of the CGI implementation though. So not really the same. Good CGI still requires design, proportion, color, composition, lighting etc, which are all transferable skills to other disciplines like cinematography, illustration, etc. Often programming skills as well, depending on what you're doing.
Ummm... programming? Cinematography involving CGI. Ok.. anything not requiring a machine? Look, facts are that tech saves labor. Sure using tech involves skill. As much? I argue no. As transferable into other domains irl not requiring a specific tech? I argue no.
You don't think you can learn programming doing CGI? Authoring shaders, scripting tools, building animation rigs? Those are either programming adjacent or directly programming, depending on your tools/what you're doing.
Doing CGI can mean you're working the camera to render the scene/animation, you're going to be doing lighting, composition, considering camera movement etc. Those will be directly applicable to using a camera of any type, as well as traditional image-making where you might also be trying to evoke a mood or tell a story. Oftentimes the tech will allow you to iterate on composition/lighting/etc. faster, so you might learn more than you would with traditional drawing in less amount of time.
Tech saves some labor, tech also creates whole new branches of labor.
Saying tech doesn't involve as much skill as art is total BS. Both disciplines will take all the skill you put into them and will keep going. It's easier to do some things in one medium easier than the other, but that cuts both ways. To really do CGI or drawing/painting/sculpting well takes huge amounts of effort and practice.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Yeah, this whole "only physical art is TRUE artistry" mindset is incredibly reductive.
I ain't sure about that, because it is followed by claims like people playing League of Legends being sports men, and stuff like that.
E-sports are also sports.
I don't care if it's digital only, skill is skill. If I composed and performed purely through digital instruments, through MIDI and suchlike, would my music be less valid than someone who did the same work on pen and paper?
If my grand dad made an error durning scultping it could be 3 months of work down the drain. Someone working on digitial just clicks undo. They are not the same thing, but I don't doubt that people who do digital or e-sports love to think that they are doing the real thing.
Someone who plays a wrong note can just play a new one. An actor who misses his cue can come on the next, or reshoot. A painter can paint over an errant brush stroke.
Would you call dance a sport? Ballet, street, jazz and suchlike? Just curious.
A Town Called Malus wrote:What does ease of correcting mistakes have to do with whether something is art?
If a painter gets a bit of colour on the wrong part of their painting they can easily go over it. So does that mean that painting is "lesser" art compared to sculpture because it is easier to correct mistakes? Is music less of an art form because you can just do another take if someone messes up during recording? Or cinema?
Is diamond cutting now the pinnacle of art since not only can you not correct mistakes but you also cannot start again if you are working with a gemstone of extreme rarity (such as a massive natural diamond of very high purity and clarity)?
QFT - reducing art to "lesser" forms because they have a greater margin of error is ridiculously insulting.
Karol wrote:I don't know in what kind of c ountry does golf or darts count as a sport, or pool also.
Britain does. Not to mention golf is recognised by the Olympics as a sport.
Ah, is it time for the yearly "TAU ARE GOING TO RUIN 40K AND MAKE IT LESS GRIMDARK!", for the second decade in a row?
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
jeff white wrote: One results in lasting skills that translate across media.
One does not.
CGI definitely gives the artists lasting skills that translate across media. I may not be the biggest fan of the overuse of CGI in recent years, but it is definitely a skill.
The difficulty is when CGI is used to substitute for skill. Movies that think they don't need a plot, or good acting, or dialogue, just so long as they have high-resolution explosions. Video games that insist on ever-more-elaborate methods of rendering dirty brown stuff is a substitute for gameplay, plot, or visual design. That kind of thing.
Those decisions often have precious little to do with the actual practitioner of the CGI implementation though. So not really the same. Good CGI still requires design, proportion, color, composition, lighting etc, which are all transferable skills to other disciplines like cinematography, illustration, etc. Often programming skills as well, depending on what you're doing.
Ummm... programming? Cinematography involving CGI. Ok.. anything not requiring a machine? Look, facts are that tech saves labor. Sure using tech involves skill. As much? I argue no. As transferable into other domains irl not requiring a specific tech? I argue no.
You don't think you can learn programming doing CGI? Authoring shaders, scripting tools, building animation rigs? Those are either programming adjacent or directly programming, depending on your tools/what you're doing.
Doing CGI can mean you're working the camera to render the scene/animation, you're going to be doing lighting, composition, considering camera movement etc. Those will be directly applicable to using a camera of any type, as well as traditional image-making where you might also be trying to evoke a mood or tell a story. Oftentimes the tech will allow you to iterate on composition/lighting/etc. faster, so you might learn more than you would with traditional drawing in less amount of time.
Tech saves some labor, tech also creates whole new branches of labor.
Saying tech doesn't involve as much skill as art is total BS. Both disciplines will take all the skill you put into them and will keep going. It's easier to do some things in one medium easier than the other, but that cuts both ways. To really do CGI or drawing/painting/sculpting well takes huge amounts of effort and practice.
Yeah. And i see all that in the new computer art in the codices... yup. And still if the power goes put the cad guy is done for the day. Finally i maintain my position.
Consider horses vs cars. Keeping a horse to use for transport. Caring for the horse. Understanding the horse. That translates into empathic skills. Communication skills. Balance. Fitness. Life. Need and anticipation. Translates to all living thimgs. Cars? Sure. Machines of some sorts... painting? Media. Dry times. Brush materials. Base coats. Layers. Transparency. Flow. Blending. Much of this is simulated in computers. But computer interfaces ignore a lot too. Computers can erase. Delete. Transform. Redo endlessly. Many physical limitations disappear. It is easier for these reasons. And skills are trapped in computer land. More difficult to generalize.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/29 02:03:45
jeff white wrote: One results in lasting skills that translate across media.
One does not.
CGI definitely gives the artists lasting skills that translate across media. I may not be the biggest fan of the overuse of CGI in recent years, but it is definitely a skill.
The difficulty is when CGI is used to substitute for skill. Movies that think they don't need a plot, or good acting, or dialogue, just so long as they have high-resolution explosions. Video games that insist on ever-more-elaborate methods of rendering dirty brown stuff is a substitute for gameplay, plot, or visual design. That kind of thing.
Those decisions often have precious little to do with the actual practitioner of the CGI implementation though. So not really the same. Good CGI still requires design, proportion, color, composition, lighting etc, which are all transferable skills to other disciplines like cinematography, illustration, etc. Often programming skills as well, depending on what you're doing.
Ummm... programming? Cinematography involving CGI. Ok.. anything not requiring a machine? Look, facts are that tech saves labor. Sure using tech involves skill. As much? I argue no. As transferable into other domains irl not requiring a specific tech? I argue no.
You don't think you can learn programming doing CGI? Authoring shaders, scripting tools, building animation rigs? Those are either programming adjacent or directly programming, depending on your tools/what you're doing.
Doing CGI can mean you're working the camera to render the scene/animation, you're going to be doing lighting, composition, considering camera movement etc. Those will be directly applicable to using a camera of any type, as well as traditional image-making where you might also be trying to evoke a mood or tell a story. Oftentimes the tech will allow you to iterate on composition/lighting/etc. faster, so you might learn more than you would with traditional drawing in less amount of time.
Tech saves some labor, tech also creates whole new branches of labor.
Saying tech doesn't involve as much skill as art is total BS. Both disciplines will take all the skill you put into them and will keep going. It's easier to do some things in one medium easier than the other, but that cuts both ways. To really do CGI or drawing/painting/sculpting well takes huge amounts of effort and practice.
Yeah. And i see all that in the new computer art in the codices... yup. And still if the power goes put the cad guy is done for the day. Finally i maintain my position.
Consider horses vs cars. Keeping a horse to use for transport. Caring for the horse. Understanding the horse. That translates into empathic skills. Communication skills. Balance. Fitness. Life. Need and anticipation. Translates to all living thimgs. Cars? Sure. Machines of some sorts... painting? Media. Dry times. Brush materials. Base coats. Layers. Transparency. Flow. Blending. Much of this is simulated in computers. But computer interfaces ignore a lot too. Computers can erase. Delete. Transform. Redo endlessly. Many physical limitations disappear. It is easier for these reasons. And skills are trapped in computer land. More difficult to generalize.
The art in the codecies has zero to do with this. And what does a horse even have to do with anything?
Lacking physical limitations doesnt mean there arent limitations. Learn about how to squeeze fidelity out of your art so it works in a 3d game compatable on a phone from 5 years ago, or loads quickly in a browser using HTML5. Learn how to light effectively within the limitations of your engine. Author procedural landscape generators and coax out a chain for building a realistic environments to spec. Or through lack of limitations, learn how to keep discipline about camera movement so you can maintain effective immersion in your scene.
CG tools are just another set of tools, with their own pitfalls, limitations, techniques and paths to mastery.
Heck, if you want to impress me with "easy 3d skillz" try sculpting a nice jagged rock using Zbrush or similar tool, and then render it out with a nice shader. I'm not joking. Sculpt a rock, and then tell me your process.
I'm with Insectum7 here, most rocks in 3d games are trash.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
I don't think they are trying. I think they are just reflecting the times. The 80s lent to punk sci fi because of feared mutual destruction. It's been back and forth. Pop culture does this. I think Games Workshop is just taking itself less seriously and smartly expanding in different markets. I do think that the Primaris thing is too divergent though and breaks the lore (unless it turns out to be an alien ruse). Sorry, I see it as bad lore to sell cool models-just unnecessary.
"They don't know us. Robot tanks are no match for space marines." Sergeant Knox from Star Blazers
Eadartri wrote: I don't think they are trying. I think they are just reflecting the times. The 80s lent to punk sci fi because of feared mutual destruction. It's been back and forth. Pop culture does this. I think Games Workshop is just taking itself less seriously and smartly expanding in different markets. I do think that the Primaris thing is too divergent though and breaks the lore (unless it turns out to be an alien ruse). Sorry, I see it as bad lore to sell cool models-just unnecessary.
And people don't fear that right now? I guess it depends how far from specific countries you live.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
GW have been desperate to remove as much grimdark as possible from 40k and even AoS. The squatting of Slaanesh in AoS which was only reversed due to fan backlash is the prime example.
GW have been desperate to remove as much grimdark as possible from 40k and even AoS. The squatting of Slaanesh in AoS which was only reversed due to fan backlash is the prime example.
I know it’s a forum and everyone’s hot take is their opinion, but posts like this one really need a IMO prefix.
Primaris are miniatures even if that makes you salty, sorry.
Grimdark is here to stay. Plenty of it in miniatures and the lore. Must try harder. ;-)
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
GW have been desperate to remove as much grimdark as possible from 40k and even AoS. The squatting of Slaanesh in AoS which was only reversed due to fan backlash is the prime example.
Slaanesh was mentioned in nearly every chaos-related book from the beginning of AoS. I'd hardly call that "squatting".
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
BaconCatBug wrote: The squatting of Slaanesh in AoS which was only reversed due to fan backlash is the prime example.
Absolute rubbish.
The delay for the slaanesh rules/minis was entirely due to the extensive redesign of the greater daemon model and related models.
Nothing to do with any alleged fan backlash.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
imo, if grim dark is only defined by hopelessness, then maybe gw is moving away. I think the glimmer of hope offered by guilliman is less about moving away from grim dark and more about introducing a narrative element that can allow the introduction of new models. The situation is still hopeless. If anything, it's sadder because there's a new champion bashing his head against the wall trying to save it. It's not going to work. Mankind is beseiged and declining. Chaos is stronger than ever. The best case scenario might be to return things to how they were before rg came back.
Now, if the emperor gets revived, all the primarchs get rediscovered, the eye of terror closes, the tyrannids stop coming, the necrons go to sleep, and the Inquisition disbands, maybe we can stop calling the game grim dark.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/29 17:54:39
BaconCatBug wrote:Primaris are toys, not miniatures.
By all logical aspects, they're identical to every other miniature released.
Unless you're calling all GW models "toys", this is in no way a factual statement, beyond your opinion.
They do describe themselves as a games/toy company on Facebook.
I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with GW models being toys. I'm saying that calling some of them "toys" and others "miniatures" is purely a matter of subjective opinion, and isn't objective at all.
BaconCatBug wrote: The squatting of Slaanesh in AoS which was only reversed due to fan backlash is the prime example.
Absolute rubbish.
The delay for the slaanesh rules/minis was entirely due to the extensive redesign of the greater daemon model and related models.
Nothing to do with any alleged fan backlash.
Agreed. For some reason the new Slaanesh demon was more delayed than the others, but Slaanesh was always part of the AoS story. Even with the God entrapped there was still multiple stories of demons and demonettes at war across the Realms. If anything Slaanesh forces were more active with their leader imprisoned.
Slaanesh just isn't Khorne who got the lions share of attention in the early AoS days as the main/first antagonist against Stormcast.
Heck I wouldn't be surprised if there's a nice Slaanesh Mortals update somewhere on the cards down the line. Certainly at present Slaanesh is the only Chaos force in AoS without a strong mortal force of warriors and leaders; leaving ample room for a big expansion there.
BaconCatBug wrote: The squatting of Slaanesh in AoS which was only reversed due to fan backlash is the prime example.
Absolute rubbish.
The delay for the slaanesh rules/minis was entirely due to the extensive redesign of the greater daemon model and related models.
Nothing to do with any alleged fan backlash.
A convenient excuse. Why do you think the redesign was delayed? Because they had no plans to redesign them in the first place and had to scrabble to do so after the backlash.
It's good that GW actually listened to their customers for once though, so that's nice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/29 18:20:42
Again, Mr. RAW, nearly every chaos-related story from the beginning of AoS featured Slaaneshi forces. If GW planned on removing Slaanesh, their books sure did a poor job of it.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress 2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
It's also not like GW products take years of effort in planning, design and pre-production before they're released, without even going to details like release slots and faction priorities...
Slaanesh is and has been just fine and dandy, no conspiracies needed. Other products simply preceded their release for a time.
For a defender so adamant about whats written, as the ultimate facts about something, BCB, you surely love to take thin air and make "proven truths" out of it.
You have literally 0 proof of what you are saying about Slaanesh, and just looking at how GW operates proves the absurdity of your premise.
I'm not surprised, tought, you are nothing more than a slighly more intelligent troll.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/29 18:56:03
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.
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
