Ranting

[Voice of Reason]

May 25, 2012 20:30:18 GMT Xantige said:

Let me just start this off by first saying that I understand that most of my rants would go away if I just learned to game better, or got myself a little annoying main opponent, and that I also don't expect all of this stuff to change just because it's giving me a hard time. Now onto the ranting!

look for a post in the Tactics forum - Xan's rant: some thoughts...

cause the rant may be a rant, but it seems to me more of a prolonged, subtle cry for help.

[Space is pretty big]

The little things:

Depending on how you look at it this might be an obvious statement, but I can't help think that attention to detail matters for 40k models.

Let me elaborate.

I was looking at the new Necron models recently and something about them kept bugging me. Mind you GW still seems to be the champ when it comes to miniatures, and I have a hard time even knowing of a brand that comes to their standard of excellence. Yet, while excellence remains in the execution, I can't help but dislike the concept of the new Necron models.

I don't like them because they have pilots.

In fact most of the new models in the 40k miniature range I don't like. Again, there is no insulting their casting quality, but their design, the image that the model makes is banal to me.

The dreadknight, the new necrons, Dark Eldar Archon, everything about them strikes me as either dumb, a dull reference to other people's art, or just awkward.

40k has always been aesthetically derivative. Derivation is not the issue, the issue is the choice and subsequent success of that derivation.
Before most of the marine models looked like they were some implausible derivation of medieval armor. You could call them silly, but there was something wonderfully novel about their grimy clunky aesthetic.

Now I see marine tanks that might as well be modern US military units with a couple of halloween skulls slapped around.

For the necrons I liked the sense of mystery, of not knowing how they functioned or even existed. They had magic power crystals, and robot spiders, and all sorts of weird soulless skeletal walking monsters.

Now with them piloting vehicles, their methods of thought and existence are suddenly recognizable. It's like an army of inspector gagets with novelty sized leavers and cranks.

Tyranids have suffered less so on this account, but there is still a homogenization of design. The Fex, tyrant, Tervigon, T-fex, are all interchangeable. This may be more of a personal gripe, but I miss the sense that each unit was based off of some uniquely varied gene pool, that was turned Tyranid. Instead it's an army of lizardy-dinosaurs.

This then I feel bleeds out into the design of the rules. So often units are a re-skin of another armies' units; or the sense of variation of play mechanics disappears when all armies depend on the strategy of troops take objective, heavy hitters kill enemy troops.

It's that attention to detail, from forgetting this or that rule issue in an FAQ update, to the never complete model ranges, to all sorts of flawed or poorly written text; that so often seems to congeal into a major source of headake for us gamers.

[Inquisitor Stingray]

Spaceisprettybig: A lot of people seem to dislike the new Necron models, which I fully understand. The whole mysterious feel about them has been exchanged with fully recognizable and apprehensible concepts, id est, Necrons piloting larger vehicles on a regular basis as opposed to the nighmarish Monolith that just seemed to move on its own.

That ninjabread comic comes to mind, really.

What I really didn't like about the new units in the Tyranid codex was how they were to specialised and mono-purpose. I guess it makes sense for the Hive Mind to build/create units with a single purpose, but gamewise it just ment that Lictors, Pyrovores and Harpies were mere one-trick ponies with no further use. What I really didn't like was how these new additions were merely counterparts to already existing units, id est, the Hive Guard and the Tyrant Guard, the Pyrovore and the Biovore, the Venomthrope and the Zoanthrope and so on.

The addition of the TyrannoFEX as a independent unit was just worth face-palming over. The fact that Cruddace added it as a seperate unit, rather than making the Carnifex more customizable was just dumb and unnecessary. Now, having released a model for it, things make a bit more sense, but back then in january 2010 there's was litteraly no good reason why he would draw a line between the T-fex and the regular Carnifex.

[cookies]

You know the stupidest, worst, most terrible, anti-fluff, retarted evil rule ever created about nids?

Our gaunts--they're weaker than a human wearing a BULLET PROOF VEST. WHAT THE (please do not swear) IS UP WITH THIS? WHY? WHY? WHY IS AN ALIEN CARAPACE WEAKER THAN A BULLET PROOF VEST???

And that's just one thing. Here are some other rants:

1. Our fluff indicates that psykers feel the effects of the Shadow int he Warp before the Hive Fleet has even landed. If this is true, why are enemy psykers not effected until they're less than the equivalent of about 30 feet away?

2. Tyrants fluff indicates they are as good at shooting as they are at assault. However, their stats indicate they are over twice as good at assault as they are at shooting (WS8 , BS 3)

3. Carnifexen's fluff says "The best way to survive a carnifex charge is to be elsewhere when it arrives." Not really. The best way to survive a charging carnifex is to have a powerfist and 10 expendable bodies, or have 4 lascannons/meltas/plasmas.

4. Why doesn't the mawloc just eat what it lands on? No matter how strong your tank is, its not going to survive having a giant snake burrowing under it, and knocking it into the air. And no guardsmen could survive a pit opening beneath him.

5. Why does a charging ork boy have as many attacks as a tyrant?

6. Why is it possible for 10 men (Super men, but still) with little swords to kill a big hulking monstrous creature of doom?

7. Why does a manticore cost the same as a carnifex?

8. Why does a medusa cost less than a carnifex?

I could say more and probably make a list up to 30 at least, but I think I've made my point.

[Davor]

Bulletproof vests don't piss me off. What pisses me off, is those IG just wearing T-shirts having a better armour save than our gaunts. Now if the Hive could make those T-Shirts LOL.

[Hive Carnithrope]

May 31, 2012 21:29:12 GMT Space is pretty big said:

The little things:

Depending on how you look at it this might be an obvious statement, but I can't help think that attention to detail matters for 40k models.

Let me elaborate.

I was looking at the new Necron models recently and something about them kept bugging me. Mind you GW still seems to be the champ when it comes to miniatures, and I have a hard time even knowing of a brand that comes to their standard of excellence. Yet, while excellence remains in the execution, I can't help but dislike the concept of the new Necron models.

I don't like them because they have pilots.

In fact most of the new models in the 40k miniature range I don't like. Again, there is no insulting their casting quality, but their design, the image that the model makes is banal to me.

The dreadknight, the new necrons, Dark Eldar Archon, everything about them strikes me as either dumb, a dull reference to other people's art, or just awkward.

40k has always been aesthetically derivative. Derivation is not the issue, the issue is the choice and subsequent success of that derivation.
Before most of the marine models looked like they were some implausible derivation of medieval armor. You could call them silly, but there was something wonderfully novel about their grimy clunky aesthetic.

Now I see marine tanks that might as well be modern US military units with a couple of halloween skulls slapped around.

For the necrons I liked the sense of mystery, of not knowing how they functioned or even existed. They had magic power crystals, and robot spiders, and all sorts of weird soulless skeletal walking monsters.

Now with them piloting vehicles, their methods of thought and existence are suddenly recognizable. It's like an army of inspector gagets with novelty sized leavers and cranks.

Tyranids have suffered less so on this account, but there is still a homogenization of design. The Fex, tyrant, Tervigon, T-fex, are all interchangeable. This may be more of a personal gripe, but I miss the sense that each unit was based off of some uniquely varied gene pool, that was turned Tyranid. Instead it's an army of lizardy-dinosaurs.

This then I feel bleeds out into the design of the rules. So often units are a re-skin of another armies' units; or the sense of variation of play mechanics disappears when all armies depend on the strategy of troops take objective, heavy hitters kill enemy troops.

It's that attention to detail, from forgetting this or that rule issue in an FAQ update, to the never complete model ranges, to all sorts of flawed or poorly written text; that so often seems to congeal into a major source of headake for us gamers.

Actually, I sort of agree with the Space Marine bit. The Rhino looks a lot like a modern day APC and the Valkyrie is pretty much just a gunship of some sort.

But I don't mind the idea of Necron pilots, but it is kinda unnecessary, fluff wise.

My rant: How 10 marines are meant to fit inside the tiny Rhino...

[reekon]

Firstly to say that the newer space marine tanks look like any modern day tank its just pointless. They have always done it that way look at the original landraider its just a British Mark V world war tank. They have to draw insiration from some where. But now they have adapted these original tanks to be similar but, not the same, using them as a template for the design insted of just a straight copy. So really as time goes on tanks will change concept as they do in real life.

You could say a lot about the concept of any of their models, not being futuristic at all, because 40,000 years into the future no man will even set foot on a battle field anyway. Everything will be automated, launch a missile into interstella space and strike an enemy from millions of miles away. The fact is they make the things look the way they do to allow us to have a game to play at all. If we went with what was actualy going to happen in future, we would just roll some dice and say thats how many thousand population of your planet, has just beed destroyed by my missiles. It doesnt make for much of a game that way. The whole concept is very out of date with a ww1/2 theme. Hell if we based it on even todays wars it would just be a bunch of planes bombing strategic points. Less and less ground action will actually take place the further into the future we go.

So to pull apart the way the models look is just silly. They work for the style of game. Should a marine really be carrying a bulky bolter to battle 40,000 years from now? No because they most likely wont even use bullets, or the wpns would be much smaller compact and automated. Built into the armour (shoulder mounted or something) to allow the marines hands to be free for other things.

I for 1 think the models look fantastic for the most part. Yeah sure some little things could be better set or placed on a model. But as a whole the concept is right and it works and is only going to progress to better looking models. All this could change but it will still be base around an old fashioned way of war so there is a game for us to play. Remove the soldiers off the gound and the game suddenly looks less fun. So again the design works well for looks, model quality and variaty. how can you play the game if you dont even like the models your using?

And as for the necrons, why so many ppl hate this is beyond me. So you dont like the pilot!!! oh its not keeping with the fluff, it should be automated not piloted. Take the damn cron out and fill the hole with green stuff then if you dont like it. Problem solved!!!

As for some of the scaling (the rhino) yeah some dont look like they can do what they say but, do you wanna add more plastic to an already expensive kit? cos am sure GW would like to extend the size of the model just so you the customer can pay more for it.

If you dont like the models asthetics, or the fact they use an old fashioned design, for some, but not all of their models, quite simply find a better table top game to play. This 1 is clearly not for you.

Cool thing about this game if you dont like something change it, put your own stamp on it, make it a bit more like how you would like to see it. It will make your force unique and stand out in a crowd. The games pretty much only limited by your own imagination.

[Space is pretty big]

They have always done it that way look at the original landraider its just a British Mark V world war tank.

Technically that means it's not actually a modern day tank....

If we went with what was actualy going to happen in future, we would just roll some dice and say thats how many thousand population of your planet

This has nothing at all to do with any of what I was saying... in fact I was asking for less realism, more fantasy.

So to pull apart the way the models look is just silly. They work for the style of game

Beco Baby Carrier Dreadknight just doesn't strike me with a sense of grimdark horror for some reason...

Should a marine really be carrying a bulky bolter to battle 40,000 years from now?

Again... I was looking for a lack of realism...

I for 1 think the models look fantastic for the most part

I think I said that somewhere... at the start in fact.

oh its not keeping with the fluff

um.... where did I mention the fluff? In fact I'm kinda famous around these parts for not caring about fluff...

Take the damn cron out and fill the hole with green stuff then if you dont like it.

Not always a feasible option for many, some times due to cost, some times due to tourny rules...

do you wanna add more plastic to an already expensive kit?

Sure, I can afford it.

cos am sure GW would like to extend the size of the model just so you the customer can pay more for it

Was that rhetorical? >.>

This 1 is clearly not for you.

I've been playing since third edition....

Cool thing about this game if you dont like something change it, put your own stamp on it, make it a bit more like how you would like to see it.

Again... not always an option... some can't afford it, some don't have the tallent, or even the time...

Plus it was suppose to be a comment on a greater issue of GW sloppiness across the board. A mention about how lack of paying attention to detail can affect the over all product. Corporate philosophy is a very real thing... GW's corporate philosophy has moved in directions that I have a hard time respecting...

[reekon]

You couldn't go much further, to make the game less real. A space marine already defies the laws of physics. Along with countless other things within the game (I won't list them all far too many). So they have done that part already how much less real do you want it? Planes that fly underground? I mean they have to keep with some of the laws or it just get silly. What kind of unrealism are you looking for?

I'd say tanks were a pretty modern thing, specially in say the case of relativity of the life of the planet say. V modern indeed. Tbh though they have taken an iconic tank and made it unrealistic with a more modern feel, what more do you want?

As for the Dreadknight, you don't have to like every model, but it also doesn't have to look scary for it to be a weapon of war either. I'm not scared at the sight of any wpns of war, stick 1 in my face its a different matter entirely. And tbh if it loomed over you on the battlefield am sure you would think differently.

GW like their fluff and its the fluff that makes SM so popular, hell the whole games based round it. So if you aint big on it, try ludo not much fluff behind that game. Its probably better suited to you.

As for necron things it might not be feasible for everyone, hell I can't cram a hole with green stuff well either... but you say you have the funds to do so, so change the models so you do like them. Does it matter that everyone else can't if your happy with your models?

Oh and if its a rhetorical question don't answer it.

When I said its not for you, and you said you've been playing since 3rd ed, it still doesn't mean you can't stop playing. I played through second ed, like it though games dragged on far too long. Then tried getting into 3rd n didn't like it. They managed to simplify it and speed it up to the detriment of the fun aspect of it. So I just collected and painted instead. Then got back into 4th n really started enjoying 5th. As 5th generally works for the best part, give it a few tweaks and it would be fine.

And lastly if you have a hard time respecting GWs ways, is this really the game for you? If you don't respect them, don't go pumping you cash into them. Just a thought.

Didn't wanna sound so harsh really but, for the most part you seemed a little disheartened by GW. They can't make everyone 100% happy with their product, and GW are as stubborn as the best of them when it comes to how they want things. We all have our qualms with it, I suppose its just a case of like it or get a job with them and change it.

[Space is pretty big]

You couldn't go much further, to make the game less real

You could by, say, not having pilots for the Necron vehicles... >.>

What kind of unrealism are you looking for?

This for example. I like it because there really so no logical reason for their design, but aesthetically speaking it's marvelous. There is a style factor there that gives one that fantasy-other worldly sense.

Tbh though they have taken an iconic tank and made it unrealistic with a more modern feel, what more do you want

An iconic tank with a less modern feel? That was kinda my point...

Medieval themes, early steam punk aesthetics, in fact much like how they design dreadnoughts. Dreadnoughts are a great example for me of strange over familiar. Mechs are inefficient, but man are they cool.

I'm not scared at the sight of any wpns of war, stick 1 in my face its a different matter entirely

Um... good for you? But that's kinda divorced from my point... The dreadknight doesn't have any pizazz, its design has little successes, like in the arms and proportionality; but there are little conceptual design flaws. Beco baby carrier for example... In other words certain details in concept and design, that could of been re worked or considered, had those little details been gone over or reconsidered.

GW like their fluff and it's the fluff that makes SM so popular

Well more so that it's the first army most people play....

So if you aint big on it, try ludo not much fluff behind that game

Huh? I guess you're saying don't play games based on fluff, which I agree on...

Does it matter that everyone else can't if your happy with your models?

I expect it might matter to them >.> ....

Oh and if its a rhetorical question don't answer it.

Technically I didn't >.> I made a sarcastic comment...

When I said its not for you, and you said you've been playing since 3rd ed, it still doesn't mean you can't stop playing

Would kinda suck though...

And lastly if you have a hard time respecting GWs ways, is this really the game for you? If you don't respect them, don't go pumping you cash into them. Just a thought.

I agree, which is why I don't buy GW models any more. That being said the community of players I still like, which is what I invest my time in the game, if not my money.

Didn't wanna sound so harsh really but, for the most part you seemed a little disheartened by GW

Err not actually harsh at all, that's pretty much the truth.

They can't make everyone 100% happy with their product

Yeah but 70-80% would be neat, instead they seem to stand near the 30-40% range.

I suppose its just a case of like it or get a job with them and change it.

Or band together as a consumer base, showing the supplier our product preferences, allowing the supplier to cater future products to outspoken demand.

Apple does it by finding which illegal aps are popular, shut them down, then ripping them off >.>

[Deathnid]

I just slapped Robin Crudace... nah, jokes. it was just a happy-gass dream.

Jun 2, 2012 7:26:35 GMT Space is pretty big said:

um.... where did I mention the fluff? In fact I'm kinda famous around these parts for not caring about fluff...

*GASP*, How many limbs does a tyranid have

Also Reekon, this is a rant thread. Not an argument thread.

Oh, and my rant:

Jun 2, 2012 6:31:38 GMT reekon said:

This 1 is clearly not for you.

That little "1" realy pissed me off... Aso carnifexes should be kooler. ;D

[reekon]

No not really an argument just trying to find out what he exactly wanted from the game. Seems to have pretty much covered it now. Plus ive learnt something about a fellow hiver mainly that hes not a fluffy person. should really try learning a little more about ppls personal feelings towards the game, before entering into strong debate really shouldnt I?

Also by taking pilots out of the vehicles wouldnt you just be making it more real, in a future sense? They have unmanned things already, they are working on more. I mean like, isnt that how they are trying to head with modern warfare anyway unmanned things? so by trying to be unrealistic youre being more realistic? Its getting a bit more gray this area now. Maybe the necron is just a host to actually make the vehicle work? like giant man like key for the ignition. that would be pretty unrealistic?

Id say I was in that bracket of about 80% maybe a bit more. So really we should run a poll and find out what the actual % is accross the board. Because you might be one of few in such a small bracket? most ppl might actually be in that 70-80%? Having said that I only play 40k now. My love for warhammer isnt so good, models are fantastic, but the rules with rank and file are really rubbish. Id have to use a full skirmish army.

And Deathnid, apologies for the "1" sometimes they just slip out. I have a new found love for the fex its ok, it plays as much as my trygon does now, depending on my oponent and the situation. Its not as good as it used to be but it works well enough.

[Priest]

I have many rants for GW:

Firstly, why do guants have such (please do not swear) saves,

Why don't hive tyrants have multi-lasers!

Why don't tyranids have land raiders!

Why cant hive guard fly!

Why don't carnifexes have jet-packs!

Why aren't tervigons strength 44!

And lastly WHY THE (please do not swear) DON'T RIPPERS HAVE POWER WEAPONS!?!?!?!?!

[Evex]

The price of all these models, the lack of models, the terrible pose of the Broodlord model, the Biovore's model (though it has been growing on me), the "meh" poses of the Lictor and Deathleaper models, and the horribly drawn Carnifex on the cover of our codex.

Also the hilarious typo in the Parasite of Mortrex's fluff.

[Space is pretty big]

Also by taking pilots out of the vehicles wouldnt you just be making it more real, in a future sense?

Well not if you imply the giant robot zombie alien spider was controlled by mystical spirits, instead of the terminator using a stick shift....

like giant man like key for the ignition

Actually that would be cool if it was like the Necron was an unwilling or less-than-willing battery, being painfully drained so that they larger robot could function.

So really we should run a poll and find out what the actual % is accross the board.

I'd say a 6 page thread decrying GWs many mistakes and flaws is a good indication of peoples disgruntlement.... >.>

-------

@priest.

And lastly WHY THE (please do not swear) DON'T RIPPERS HAVE POWER WEAPONS!?!?!?!?!

I know this is a joke, but back in third I think they did actually have rending I think >.>