Orsino
-
Posts
234 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Orsino
-
-
12 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:
Which is copyright infringement.
im sorry but if you can’t afford/don’t want to buy the rules then you don’t get to play. It’s that simple.
necromundas release has been badly managed and they keep changing what they’re doing with it, but let’s be real, you only actually need the Rulebook/Dark Uprising and Gangs Of The Underhive (depending on the gang you want). Everything else is optional
I can understand that perspective, I'd generally agree with it, but in the case of necromunda the rules situation was such a clusterf...was such a mess that I feel comfortable with having used the compendium to get started, I don't feel like I'm ****** over GW too badly as it means I've spent a pretty significant sum on models rather than giving up on the game and not spending a penny. You are of course free to find that argument unconvincing.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Popisdead said:
I feel these issues arise from lack of personal control with finances and dislike you're getting older over actual prices. Pretty cheap hobby compared to say, hot rods, or gambling in Vegas or partying on the weekends.
Expense is all relative isn't it, it's a very expensive hobby compared to hiking or writing poetry. People have different priorities, different incomes, and different ways of hobbying. In my case I'm fortunate to be a slow painter and to enjoy scratch-building terrain which are two things that produce a favourable ratio of time spent to money spent. However if someone says they are disappointed by the price of something I would be inclined to take them at their word, rather than jumping to the conclusion that they lack self-control or are old and bitter, those don't seem like reasonable (or kind) things to assume.
-
7
-
3
-
-
9 hours ago, zilberfrid said:
For Necromunda, I got priced out when I calculated what I'd need in paper to play the game (the outside of the rulebook doesn't say you can't play the game with that book).
Then I spent that money in scenery (mostly trees) and models for Rangers of Shadowdeep. And purchased some Snotlings (blood bowl Ogre team) to make me happy.
It's not that I can't pay it, but I don't think it's worth it to pay GW that much for paper.
I like sets like the Necromunda sets which can be built a multitude of ways, while still being very detailed and dynamic. They are pricy per model, but I think they are worth it.
I don't think things like the Necromunda rulebook are worth it. For the price of that book (which is not enough to play the game), you can buy the Frostgrave rulebook and your whole warband. And you'd need no extra paper to play the game.
There is a compendium of all the Necromunda rules as a free PDF online. I won't share it here but a search for "necromunda rules compendium" should find it.
-
52 minutes ago, The Red King said:
Hey if it helps Mantics 40 quid giant is the same size as a Mega Gargant so if you want 5 megas for the price of one GW....
Oooh that's tempting. As long as you're not expecting to use it in GW stores this seems like a good option. And not spending such a big chunk of change on the thing would make me feel more comfortable doing some crazy conversion.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, michu said:
@Orsino So for Bretonnia - Moussillon?
Would that be stepping on FEC's mutilated toes?
With something like Bretonnia it seems fairly easy. They're aesthetically pretty different to anything in AoS. What I don't so much get is how it'll work with stuff like the elven or dwarven factions. A lot of Warhammer Fantasy sculpts are still in use in elven factions. Elves in the classic style and in the same scale wouldn't feel distinctively different from an AoS army.
That's why I kinda suspect it'll be a different scale, that would draw a clear line between the two games.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Beliman said:
It's a bit dificult to answer but here I go:
I remember that one of the Old World news was about that they wanted to explore "certain aspects of its classic lore and delve into them in greater detail than ever before" , so I think (pure speculation) that we are going to see the Empire, O&G, Dwarfs, etc... but from another point of view. We know that Kislev will "return" (if we take a White Dwarf Army as seriously...), but maybe this will open the door to things like Norsca, Waaagh Gorbad, Middenheim, karak kadrin, etc... being developed (and/or expanded) too.That's why I went with Norse Dwarfs.
Aye, I think some expansion make sense as long as it's rooted in extant Old World factions. Truly new stuff would seem a weird choice, I think it's gonna be a challenge to distinguish and delineate OW from AoS as it is, particularly if they're the same scale, and truly new factions would compound that issue.
-
On 10/1/2020 at 9:15 AM, Beliman said:
I really want to see Norse Dwarfs and I'm open to new armies too (not interested in empire/kislev really). Another thing that I'm really interested is the main rules because even if I'm happy with 6th edition, after playing some Conquest and Asoiaf games (imho) I can see some improvements that could be done.
Would genuinely new armies make sense here? I expect a new slant will be put on Old World factions but what would be the point of truly original armies?Wouldn't they want to keep their concepts for new armies for AoS and focus on nostalgia appeal with this game?
-
These look really neat, I'll be very interested to see how they come out.
-
Generally speaking I think if a rule doesn't get mentioned in a superseding book, such as with Mercenaries and GHB 2020, we're meant to understand this as the rule no longer being valid. But making it explicit is always helpful.
-
2 hours ago, Kadeton said:
Nah, just a fact.
So it's a fact...that everything is subjective. Think about that and tell me if you can see the problem.
2 hours ago, Kadeton said:My "claim" was that the thread was an open question on the topic. "Better" is completely subjective too, subject to personal preference. I think tea is better than coffee. You might think coffee is better than tea. Those are both opinions, and neither is right or wrong. If you get upset about people stating their opinions as objective facts then you're just failing to understand context, and how casual conversation works.
Making "arguments" is for high school debating. This is the real world, none of that stuff actually matters. People don't have to be consistent, or even coherent, in order for you or I to respect their opinions. We're having a conversation here, not a debate.
Tbh I'm not really interested in a dead-end epistemological discussion about subjectivity with someone who thinks consistency and coherence are just for high-schoolers. So I'll confine myself to saying the fact that you've so vociferously challenged the things I've said indicates you do believe that statements can be more or less true/valid, and your resort to "everything is subjective, I don't have to make sense" when the things you say are questioned is just self-serving. It also doesn't really leave any room for meaningful discussion so I think I'm done.
QuoteThat's a super cool model. Why not lead with that, rather than going off about semantics? That's a perfect example of the kind of thing that would enhance the game for me.
Thanks!
-
26 minutes ago, Kadeton said:
Yes, your problems with specific phrasing are well-documented in this thread. What we're trying to get you to do is get over the semantics and engage with the sentiment.
All standards are arbitrary. All meaning is subjective. However it's phrased, what people generally on this thread are saying is that they would feel happier if GW added more women to their games. If you choose to see that as a moral judgement, that's on you.
I'll try a different phrasing, see if that works for you: Which armies (if any) would you be happy to have women added to, and in what roles? Which armies or roles would you be angry or sad to see women added? I'm not talking about "people", I'm asking about you personally, and your own feelings on representation. That's where the interesting conversations happen, not in semantics.
Saying that all standards are arbitrary and all meaning subjective is the last refuge of someone without an argument. You claimed that the number of female miniatures is purely personal preference and there is no right or wrong, this is incompatible with your other claim that GW needs to "do better" at female representation. So which is it?
Incidentally this is why it's necessary to examine premises, even though you find it boring, because otherwise you end up making arguments that aren't even consistent with themselves, let alone consistent with reality.
As to my personal preferences on female miniatures, I've stated it a number of times. Accusing me of not engaging because you can't be bothered to read my answer is a little silly. I'll state it again for you: I enjoy my nearly all female CoS army (kitbashed Nomad Princess below), more models are always nice, I don't think there's any inherent limit on how many female minis you can have.
-
43 minutes ago, Kadeton said:
You seem to be having some kind of allergic reaction to the term "underrepresented". There's no "ratio" of representation that is objectively "correct". You just have to ask yourself whether you're satisfied with the diversity currently represented in the game. Personally, I would like to see more - hence, for me, women feel underrepresented. The yardstick against which it can be measured is whether or not I feel it's enough. You have your own such yardstick, and you seem to have chosen to calibrate it based on your knowledge of military history, but that's simply your subjective choice. Other people are free to make different choices which are no more or less correct, but will cause them to feel differently.
Rather than derailing by endlessly and pointlessly arguing the semantics of the statement "Women are underrepresented", perhaps you could engage with the topic of the thread, which is that Games Workshop could do better at representing women in its games. Do you agree with that? If so, where would you particularly like to see those improvements made?
At no point have I suggested people can't want or shouldn't have more female models, my problem is with the presentation of personal preference as some sort of moral issue or failure on the part of GW. You demonstrate this in your phrasing that GW need to "do better at representing women in its games" which presents the subjective preference of how many female miniatures you want to have as a failure to meet some standard of representation by GW, a standard which you've admitted is entirely arbitrary.
-
1 hour ago, Enoby said:
I don't think anyone's argued for a specific ratio (the OP mentioned the necessary work if we wanted a 50/50 split, but didn't advocate for it).
I believe the general argument for greater female representation does not aim for a specific ratio or try base itself off realism, but rather of the wants of the customer base. As seen in the previous posts, a few women have come out and said (or been referred to as saying) that they have been attracted to armies with more female representation.
If greater representation gets more people involved in AoS and certain groups enjoying it more, then is this not a good a good thing? Maleness isn't necessary for (m)any factions in AoS, and so including more female models shouldn't ruin the lore for anyone (and if it does, they should probably introspectively ask why).
I would argue we don't need a reference point or specific goal, just the general idea of having more as it does appeal to a real life demographic. I know some may accuse that of being pandering, but by that argument adding anything in the game could be pandering as it's designed to appeal to a particular market of their audience.
Saying that a group is underrepresented requires you to know what you think the correct level of representation is. And I suspect GW's market research is a truer indicator of the level of demand for female minatures than some anecdotes in this thread, GW is unlikely to say no to money so it's reasonable to assume that the number of female miniatures is broadly reflective of the level of demand, allowing of course for the fact that producing new models isn't a quick process.
-
11 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:
Good points. How fare those reasons in the different AoS cultures, with magical weapons/exotic beasts/unknown medical skills? That would be nice starting points to give relatable answers to the question where the women are in most armies, and how many, if any, should be there.
That was a bit of a historical sidenote, I'm not sure you really need to account for these realities in AoS lore, though it might add some nice depth.
-
18 minutes ago, Nos said:
The only possible objective reference point for armies fighting is between humans.
That dosent stop you cheerfully committing to a universe in which rats and lizards meet in battle.
You are presupposing an outside reality to do this. You have not and will not ever see it in real life. It is in total violation of the objective reference point you seem to feel is only applicable to one subject matter.
But no one is complaining that lizards are underepresented. Again, my point is not that there shouldn't be female models, it's that you can't say female models are underepresnted when, by the only available standard you could judge it on, they would be overepresented. You can choose not to use reality as a standard to measure, but you can't then argue women are underrepresented.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:
It’s just our rationality. We, as people living in the 21st century, know of (and thus can imagine easily) women that make talented fighters. Thus, it seems highly irrational to us that a culture should leave these capable fighters behind, just because they are women. There may be reasons, but we want to hear them.
Pretty sure that just 30 years ago people wouldn’t even have asked that question. But we do. Different rationality.
The reason the vast majority of fighting in history has been done by men is not because people in the past were irrational, prior to modern weaponry/vehicles/aircraft which reduce the importance of physical capabilities and prior to improvements in infant mortality which reduce the need for people to have lots of babies ot made sense to have all male armies. Which isn't to say all their reasons were pragmatic of course.
-
2 minutes ago, Beliman said:
That's not true. At least not in any creative project.
You chose "how much" of the reality you want to be based on (or use as reference, to copy or make a tribute), and how many will be transformed and changed to create your own product/project.If you want to create a product with only female armies based on a WWII, you can; if that's the best way to go, that's another point.
You can absolutely do that, but you can't also say "this group is undersrepresented in this game" because underepresented compared to what if not reality?
-
29 minutes ago, Nos said:
No, I very much have attempted to answer the question.
I've made a very convincing argument about why the military history of our planet is of vanishing significance as an inspiration and foundation to AOS and why therefore the participation or otherwise of women within that history is totally irrelevant in discussing their participation within a fantastical creation .
Within the wider and far more significant foundations which establishe the laws and structural integrity of AOS there is no reason why there should not be much greater female representation.
I'm glad you find your own argument convincing, and I agree that there's no reason you can't have more female models.
But when people talk about representation the implication is that fiction should be reflecting reality and that people are underepresented when fiction doesn't reflect reality. AoS is fantasy but our only possible objective reference point for male-female combat ratios is reality, and by that standard it's a vast over representaion, so talking about female models being underrepresented doesn't really work. Discussions of representation presuppose some outside reality that can be looked at to say "We're falling short of this". If you reject reality, which is the only reference point we have, from where are you deriving your standard for what the ratio should be?
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Nos said:
Again, you haven't attempted to answer the question there, what is your yardstick for deciding that there aren't enough female models if not reality?
-
2 hours ago, Nos said:
The existence of things which *do not exist* in a Universe made up 95% of *things which do not and have never existed* not only goes against combat history, it goes against any history, ever. But again, that's apparently no problem until women get involved.
You seem determined to argue with a straw man of your own creation. Again, my point is not that you can't have women in fantasy combat, my point is that you can't describe women as underrepresentated in AoS when they're statistically over-represented when compared to every real example of combat. So if you're not using reality as a reference how exactly have you decided what the "correct" ratio of male-female models should be in order to conclude that females are under-represented?
-
1
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Mattrulesok said:
All you appear to be interested in is shouting down anyone who would like to see better representation in our games of battle barbies.
I haven't shouted down anyone, I've sincerely engaged with what people have said and explained my thoughts. You've been deliberately disingenuous and just copy-pasted text. It just injects meaningless empty noise into an otherwise interesting discussion.
-
5 minutes ago, Mattrulesok said:
We're playing historical games now team, I'm throwing out my seraphon and stormcast and replacing them with the 1809 Austrian army. No historical inaccuracies or women in site!
2 hours ago, Mattrulesok said:The statistics demonstrate a far higher proportion of lizard leaders in AoS than pretty much any real army in history
I can hear people now getting ready to tell me "IT'S FANTASY" and yes it is but all fantasy has reference points in the real world. That's what gives fantasy a feeling of reality. All of our real world reference points for combat are human because almost all real world combat has been done by humans. Which is not to say that you can't have lizard combatants in a fantasy game, you can have as many as you like, it's only the idea that you must have more lizards that I take objection to, given that lizard combatants are actually grossly overrepesented in AoS rather than underrepresented.
The other argument that's made here for increasing the over-representation of lizards is that some people need their gaming pieces to be the same species as them or they won't want to play with them. As a human playing a nearly all-lizard Seraphon army I can't say I've ever felt alienated and excluded by my gaming pieces not having enough hot blood and it's hard not to see this need as little more than reptileism.
So yeah, more lizard models would be nice, more models are always nice, but the idea that it is some sort of fault or deficit of a game not to have parity doesn't make sense and the idea that creatures are being cruelly excluded by the species of their gaming pieces holds no weight for me.
Stop trolling, act like you're an adult, and then we can have a meaningful discussion.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Nos said:
No they arent.
History has *zero bearing* on AOS besides the fact that it is the only means by which we as humans can conceive of a plausible reality not entirely contemporary to our own.
That's not true at all, AoS takes an enormous amount from historicals and historical combat and it's setting, like all fantasy borrows heavily from history.
But that's sort of beside the point as I'm not suggesting historical reference points should preclude female miniatures, what I'm saying is the premise that the right level of representation should be 50-50 has no basis as it goes against all actual combat in history. That is to say, you can make it 50-50, but there's no particular reason it needs to be.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Kramer said:
You can make any argument sound stupid if you take it to extremes.
Nobody, in this thread at least nor have I seen it anywhere else, has argued that women are cruelly excluded. That's miles from the argument that more female inclusion in the models could lead to more female inclusion in the community. (and i'll happily follow that up with my favourite emoji
)
💁♀️ #hairflip
The argument that women are being excluded has been made several times, including on this very page.
And the idea that we must get more women playing AoS makes no sense to me. It's a niche hobby, not a proselytizing cult. People can play or not play and if it doesn't appeal then that's fine. I've worked in quite a few hospitals that had weekly knitting groups and would go and join in when I had the time. I was invariably the only man present. No one in a knitting circle wastes a moment of their time worrying that there aren't enough men knitting or wondering what they can do to bring in more men. Men were welcome to join in but any man who turned up and declared that there should be more masculine knitting patterns to appeal to them would have rightfully been met with bewilderment.
-
2
-
1
-
AoS 2 - Cities of Sigmar Discussion
in Cities of Sigmar
Posted · Edited by Orsino
You might find your Eternal Guard work better as a single unit of 20 due to the reach of their weapons and their difficulty being an effective roadblock in small units.
I really like the SotT aesthetically but I've always found them fantastically underwhelming on the table for their cost. How are you planning to use them? With a hurricanum and two battlemages it doesn't seem like you need them as casters.