Nos
-
Posts
1,164 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
13
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Nos
-
-
1 hour ago, EccentricCircle said:
I feel like the numbers largely back up what we all kind of know. And give some indications of what the key places where improvement could be made are.
Aelves are in a fairly good place, as they kind of always have been. We have a lot of mixed units in Idoneth and Idoneth, and good representation of male and female heroes. Daughters are clearly a mostly female army (although whether they are a good option for increasing female representation kind of depends about how you feel about chainmail bikinis). Sylvaneth are mostly female, but with a few male units, and a less divisive aesthetic (despite actually having fewer clothes than the daughters.) The old aelven armies in cities have less of a mix, but its not terrible.
The rest of Order is less balanced. Stormcast are rapidly improving, but still have a lot of older, male dominated units, and most of the human and dwarven factions are pretty much all male. I think there is definitely a lot of artistic space for women in the human armies, and that they can and should be developed. For cities I'd appreciate mixed units, where you have a similar balance to elves.
I'd like to see more female dwarves, but think that from an aesthetic view point it makes more sense to keep the units themselves segregated. So lets have some dwarven shieldmaidens, or female fyreslayers as their own things, but maybe not mix them in with the existing units which have always had a very iconically bearded aesthetic. You can absolutely introduce a lot of female sculpts in this way while still keeping the armies themes of tradition and patriarchy. Doing that would be no different to how the Daughters are female led, but have the odd male unit. (Although I actually converted my Doomfire Warlocks to be girls, to keep up the theme.)
Chaos mortals I think should have a more even gender split in the units, because basically anyone can fall to chaos and go on a mad rampage. The way the warcry bands have turned out has been pretty good in that respect. I'd like marauders and warriors to be similar, so you really get the feel of a barbarian tribe on the march. I think the same goes for beasts. There is no reason why a tribe of nomadic raiders should leave their ladyfolk back at camp, when their entire culture is as bestial and violent as the beast"men".
Death I feel is in a good place. If the inevitable vampires can have a solid Lahmian contingent and introduce a similar number of female sculpts to nighthaunt then I think it would really add a lot to the grand alliance, but on the whole a skeleton is a skeleton unless you measure the hips, and bonereapers aren't even anatomically correct anymore. Gender makes sense for the ghosts and vampires, and maybe the zombies if they ever give us a new kit for them. But on the whole I feel like things are ok as they stand.
That then brings us to the non humanoid races. I think Seraphon, Skaven etc are largely ok as they are, since its not as though you can really tell whether they are male or female, if such concepts even apply. I'd not object to female models for either faction, but I feel like there is less of a pressing need.
Introducing more trolls, ogres and giants could be cool. I'd love to see what they come up with, and I think there is a lot of potential for female goblins if they ever expand Gloomspite.
I'm not sure about the Orky factions. I think they are quite established as a parody of ultra macho masculinity at this point, and that they should probably stick that way.
I'll be happy with whatever they do though. I don't think there are or should be any sacred cows.
The fundamental issue I think is not what does or dosent need working on, I think in most instances it should (and will) continue to be an organic but overt evolutionary process.
The issue rather is that some members of the community panic and sqwark and protest about it for no justifiable or discernible reason, making something which should actually be very simple,fun and not at all a big deal into this tortuous battleground subject.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Orsino said:
So it's a fact...that everything is subjective. Think about that and tell me if you can see the problem.
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.
Thanks!
They were quoting a post of yours. They said that those things were subjective. Not "everything".
Consistency and coherence tend to attest to themselves. They do not tend to be met with reiteration, contradiction, absence of support and the need for clarification or the rules of language.
The existence of subjectivity does not preclude the existence of objectivity. That is an incredibly remedial understanding of the concept. Subjectivity is a means of explaining the importance of perception to collective human understanding and interaction and how our means of interacting with things is as much if not more fuelled by us as it is the thing itself. It does not suggest that nothing exists independently of it or that the basis for reality is opinion, which Is what you seem to be groping at.
If you're out for whatever reason that's fine, I just didnt want it to go unchallenged that the reason for your doing so lies in you being above the conversation or because people are being disengenous in their responses to you. You're not and they arent.
-
As a way of trying to ascertain people's opinions, let's try a hypothetical scenario:
John Blanche as creative director says that he feels there is a narrative and creative shortfall in AOS as it exists due to the fiction being primarily formed and depicted from a male perspective. He says that as a means of creating a fuller, better realised and even more exciting universe the creative teams should focus a considerable amount of their time and resources into fleshing this out and creating more lore and models which reflect amd explore other parts of the Universe as other genders encounter it.
It will not touch upon any of GWs scheduled flagship releases or other areas such as rules etc. It will simply provide more of everything to everything in AOS. More units, lore, models etc.
There is no ratio determining this, some factions might end up 70/30 male, or 50/50, or 65/35 female, or non binary etc, but this ratio will be arrived upon as a result of the existing creative process, not a pre determined criteria of representation:
If you think this would not be appropriate, *bearing in mind this instance is purely creative and will have guaranteed no bearing whatever on your ability to play and enjoy what you already enjoy in the hobby*, why is that?
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, shinros said:
So are you trying to say that I don't want female models? The point I'm making is designing something just tick something off the list stifiles creativity. I went through a large episode in the past trying to make sure I have xyz in my own stories. Until one day thanks to my job I get to talk with a lot of people and the females literally had to whisper to me that they are tired of reading about the "mordern day woman."
Soon as I put aside my concerns and I was more honest with myself I saw an improvement. The problem I have is how do you quantify, what is the image of the "strong" female? According to some DOK don't count, neither does the female stormcast or the sylvaneth.
I don't know what goes through the heads of the people who make the models. But I think they put their creativity first over whatever label people make in this thread and I see that in those two GSC models. Hence why they are so good. Heck, I actually think GW misses the mark sometimes with female models, but that's my opinion.
My problem in the thread is thus, the designers don't have to do anything. Because their creativity decides what we get. And its up to us whether we buy it or not. And I'm concerned that people want certain factions changed because it doesn't fit their image of what a woman should be.
I don't decide it, you don't, the designers do. That's my problem.
Nobody ever has any issue with narratives and stories with which they identify.
The issue with the concept of "Modern Day Woman" and I suspect the reason that women asked hated it as they identified it is that its utter garbage to suggest that stereotypes and generalisations are representative of an entire gender and that any woman should see themselves as represented in an natural composite archetype. Ditto the notion of The Strong Woman.
Creatives should focus on creating characters, with personalities. People are drawn to people and people are unique. Creatives who want to add a Strong Woman to a story without knowing who that person is or why are just ticking boxes.
That is not an excuse to write poor female characters, or have none at all. It is a reason for the author to do their work and research and invest in learning how to perform their craft better. The prime place to find out more about how to better represent women is, unsurprisingly, women.
If a creator sees accurate representation of whatever it is they are trying to portray as somehow an impediment to creativity or they're vision, they're either lazy or just not very creative.
Knowing what I do about the GW creative team, I imagine most would be excited by the creative challenges of creating a Female Warrior et al, of the places where the need to research and educate a concept and play with it might take them, not intimidated or see it as a HR exercise requiring the addition of XYZ.
The irony is that women and racial minorities are so poorly realised or considered in Western Media that the most basic attempt to thoughtfully create such a character Is almost universally loved by said audiences because a morsel is a banquet if you're starved. It's an open goal more or less. The bar is *low*.
-
6
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Orsino said:
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.
You argued that according to the reality of miltary history, women are over represented. This is an issue because you claim the inspiration of military history within AOS is significant.
I have argued that is not true, and that further to that AOS is founded and even dependent on fantastical concepts to such a degree that the imposition of anything as "over represented" is likewise a nonsense because the basis on why things do or dont exist in AOS is not "representation" it is stylistic choice, preference and creative license.
The argument is not that women should be more present in AOS "to be represented", as though it were some form of government census. The argument is that women should be more present because there is no reason for them not to be, and there isnt.
-
4
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Orsino said:
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?
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.
-
1 minute ago, Beastmaster said:
I don’t think so. If it was, the motives and acts of the members of those races wouldn’t even be comprehensible to us, and we couldn’t feel with the protagonists at all. Actually, the motives and behaviors of fantasy races are more of a caricature, a specialization and exaggeration of motives and behaviors which are clearly and very recognizably human. So is their history.
There is no intelligible concept that any human can ever form which is not recognisably human. That's a basic ontological precept. It applies to literally everything humans can ever make, so it's not really a necessary caveat to ever bring up. Literally everything we understand we understand on the basis of what we deem comprehensible. Even deeming that something is unknowable is still us attempting to exert knowledge over it. Of course a made up Fantasy World IP is not going to prove an exception to this rule.
My point was historical cultures in reality tend to form on the basis of things like the crops available to them, the climate, the proportion of gender in their population etc. Mild differences in these can nonetheless create drastically different outcomes.
So I'm sorry but introducing DRAGONS etc into this equation absolutely creates a radically different different social history to one without them ie the one actual humans have only ever known.
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, Orsino 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?
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.
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, Overread said:
Actually there's a LOT missing or underrepresented from armies if we start to look at them individually. Many armies are missing artillery (both anti infantry and siege style weapons). Many are missing a lot of infantry roles (sappers and ranged units); many are missing more commanders. Many have only one or two infantry and/or cavalry options. The number of dragons is tragically small too.
Also the nature of the game style means we miss the entire concept of the baggage and supply chain as well as the camps, camp followers, camp support. In theory we should have smiths, medics, hangers on, etc... loads of roles that are "missing" by the scale and focus of the game itself. Of course some armies might have more support and some less and some armies the support train would be the army too (yes I'm look at you flesheaters).
My point exactly. With the exception of the fact that there are wars, and the protagonists (sometimes) use weapons and armour to fight, military history has basically no representation in AOS at all.
Military History is simply an extension of social history, it exists on account of the human inhabitants creating and solving different social problems among themselves. Different societies have prioritised and interpreted the role and importance of martial practice, custom, culture throughout the progress of human history as part of their wider existence. it has never occured within a vacuum.
The social history of the races of the Mortal Realms is rather different to the social history of Planet Earth.
-
19 minutes ago, Orsino said:
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?
Do you know what else in AOS is statistically over represented when compared to every real example of combat?
E V E R Y T H I N G
I am genuinley not and never have or will use reality as reference for AOS because it is *not based on reality*.
I have a Masters in History from one of the Top Universities in the World. I know history. I Iove history. I am obsessed with it. I can tell you at great length about why Hannibal won at Cannae. I can also tell you with utter certainty that the presence of Dragons or a Bloodthirster or Magic there would have rendered it all utterly irrelevant, because Hannibal won using the basics and laws of a corporeal universe which has no connection whatever to a universe which is *literally fantastical*. Fantasy being - "the faculty or a activity of imagining improbable or impossible things".
The existence of physical objects and the concept of warfare does not mean something is "based in history".
To claim such is to do the same as clain reality as reference for Super Mario because I have a moustache and also know that plumbers, pipes and mushrooms exist, therefore it must be based on reality right?
Recognising a thing's presence somewhere else does not mean it is based on said thing. It just means it's there.
In AOS, the things which "from history" are there are eclipsed to the Nth degree by the things which aren't.
For every thing you could name about how x faction is inspired by the Ancient Greeks or whatever I could name 20 things that arent, and just not related to the Ancient Greeks but not related to the functioning rules of the cosmos as we understand them.
Yet in such a fictional Universe you choose the "over representation" of women as being somehow obtuse.
(As a general pointer, if you find as in this discussion that nobody seems to understand your point, the likliehood is either that you are not explaining yourself adequately, or alternatively that your view point is disagreeable within present company.)
-
4
-
-
8 hours ago, Orsino said:
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.
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.
Military history has no bearing on AOS AOS besides the basic fact that there are armies, weapons, armour, archetypes etc which draw inspiration from it. Thats it.
If there were dragons at Plataeea or Agincourt the outcome would have been entirely different and all the methods and tactics applied substantially so because they were established in a reality in which people *did not need to consider how to deal with dragons on the battlefield*.
-
4
-
-
52 minutes ago, Orsino said:
Female combatants are actually grossly overrepesented in AoS rather than underrepresented.
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.
To look at AOS and say that the reference points in the real world which are represented are remotiey significant compared to the overwhelming majority of a universe in which:
The laws of physics don't apply;
There is magic, dragons, demons, immortal soldiers etc
Deities are empirical,objectively provable beings;
Is frankly laughable.
To look at *all of that, which is everywhere in AOS, all the time* but then to return the plausibility of history as soon as the issue of gender arises is, to put it mildly, a staggeringly selective and specific application of the "But history" theory.
Dragons yes. Not over represented.
orruks yes. Not over represented.
snake ladies yes. Not over represented.
walking trees yes. Not over represented.
fish people yes. Not over represented.
Nurglings? No problem, not over represented.
hold on, whats this?! Female Commanders?
Oh this won't do, not true to history! I do not wish to see this *over representation* in my game of Giant Leprous Santa Claus Demons and Rat armies. It shatters the "feeling of reality".
-
5
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, amysrevenge said:
I think the underlying issue here is deeper, and while obvious, isn't at the front of everyone's mind.
It speaks highly to the quality of the IP and our level of engagement to it. And it sounds stupid to say it out loud, but sometimes we need to say it out loud just to refresh it in our minds.
WARHAMMER ISN'T REAL.
What our lore books are doing isn't converting a real existing society into tabletop gaming terms. They are creating from zero a tabletop game and going back from there to making a setting that supports the game .
So the question ends up often going backwards, because we are so immersed in the lore that it feels like a real thing, and we are handcuffed to representing only what the real setting dictates. The question doesn't have to be "what would females in those societies do?", it can and should be "if we want the tabletop gaming outcome to be X, how should the societies be structured in the lore to support that?"
Throwing up our hands and saying "we'd love to have lady Orruks, but there just aren't any lady Orruks in the lore" is not the answer. The answer is to put lady Orruks in the lore- the lore is there to support the outcomes we want, not to prevent them.
Cant like this enough.
Also there are/were already multiple examples of Lore which made no sense whatever. The Dark Elves were always the pinnacle of this, a society of sociopaths is an oxymoron. The Lore for them was laughable. They all hate each other, and everyone else. There was literally no explanation as to why they went from plotting against and killing each other to buddying up at army time.
-
3
-
-
It's not reasonable to expect someone to know the rules of an army they dont collect which they can only know through
A) Playing against said armies for literally *tens of hours*
Or
B) Buying a book for 25 quid
It's by far one of the most stupid aspects of GW's approach to rules/balance
-
5 hours ago, LuminethMage said:
I hope that won't happen. I like that so far the aelf faction are not archenemies like in Warhammer Fantasy. And just going back to the old story also doesn't really sound appealing to me. Malerion can't even physically go into Hysh (and the other way round - Teclis and Tyrion can't go into Ulgu either). The shadow aelves and demons are made by Malerion and Morathi, and the Lumineth by Teclis and Tyrion, it would be really strange to have either of those convert to the other half.
So far we haven't heard anything about either Malerion nor any of the other elf gods wanting to rule all aelves etc. Just seems kind of a strange idea in AoS. They even mostly even haven't tried to convert any of the city aelves.
Some internal strife to spice things up is great, and I'm looking forward to the Morathi book, to see what they make out of that, but just going back to the same old story, while there are much bigger threat out there, I personally find really unappealing.
Now the dragon part of this - I'm all for it. We need more dragons.
I didnt say arch enemies. They can and do already fight each other so that's nothing new. The Aelf protagonists being realm bound dosent stop their agency. Hence why they need to establish a system of alliances same way as Sigmar. But if they are making a bigger respective play for their own ambitions simultaneously stands to reason they will deplete themselves, leaving a vacuum. And who then to constrain a growing Slaannesh?
And there were *always* bigger threats out there for the elves in Warhammer, that was a huge part of their character, their hubris and inability to see beyond their personal internecine racial grievances against each other and how those conflicts weakened them against Chaos and eroded their ancestral power.
None of that has gone anywhere and none of what I'm suggesting in that sense is new to either AOS or Warhammer personalities:
Teclis had and still has white saviour complex
Morathi used and still uses the broader political legitimacy of a more orthodox cause (Malkeith's deposition from the Throne, Sigmars War against Chaos) to hide her own ambitions and create her own following
Alarielle was and is the over protective insular mother
Malekith was kicked out of Ulthuan and went to a forbidding, unknowable realm to plot his ascension over elf kind...
See where I'm going?
I have *no idea* of course but I i did predict the whole Slaanesh arc about a year ago just reading the tea leaves as it is.
Fundamentally it's a war game, not Game of Thrones. The political complexities never go much beyond "these guys are fighting these guys more/less than they were before" because it's all just in order of tabletop plausibility and product releases.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, alghero81 said:
AoS 3.0 next year would match the most recent trend but is not a given at all especially considering the current pandemic. While 9th 40K was mostly planned and organised pre-Covid, AoS 3.0 must have had a significant portion of development this year.
Nottingham is also at strong risk of a local lockdown according to the last numbers from the government. On a new big planned release for next year, GW has more choice and time to organise themselves and the chance to delay it (if it was scheduled at all) than they could with 40k. So I wouldn’t be so adamant 3th edition is coming next year considering the current situation but I would be pleasantly surprised.
In saying so I hope broken realms bring new miniatures and rules to the most desperate factions but as far as I know from PA, it will not solve warscroll issues, is that true people who follow 40K more?
Independently it seems AoS was not forgotten (as mentioned in the preview) and we may seem some more things this year. My wallet is definitely worrying...Yeah I think it would have absolutley been the Intention at HQ in Jan 2020 for AOS 3 to release in 2021, but this year's...challenges will have definitely left that up in the air
-
I've always believed Malekith 2 was going to be next edition. The idea that hes just chilling in Ulgu and not up to much seemed unlikely.
Prediction: Aelf Gods beat the snot out of each other and are knackered which leaves the board clear for the denied Phoenix King to reveal himself and his machinations and demand the fealty of all Aelf Kind. Possibly with some form of Dragonish Faction backing him. Probably Idoneth being given some favours too.
-
3
-
3
-
-
36 minutes ago, shinros said:
We didn't have mortals. Considering the Hellstriders they could've pushed the greek hoplite theme rather than Persian. Also the double trouble are daemons, despite how our big boy has been lifted literally from 300.
edit:I'm actually glad they went with Persian, considering DOK are greek themed, it fits.
Didnt have mortals but a very coherent and apparent style was finalised. The new mortal champion is just a smaller Syl'Esske. Also of all the pantheons the mortals likely to look least mortal and most decadent and quasi demonic were always going to be Slaanesh due to their penchant for corporeal expression and experimentation.
The Hellstriders have nothing Hoplite about them besides the Corinthian helmet which was just a style of helmet used all over the ancient world for hundreds of years across civilisations all over the Mediterranean and Fertile Crescent. They have plenty of the piercings, silks, whips and bare flesh established elsewhere throughout the range though.
Not that there is much "Persian" about them either. Persians wore more clothes than the Greeks and were considerably more modest in that sense.
But they are excessively "Frank Miller makes up a Persian civilisation which is the antithesis of Western idealised classical heterosexual masculinity".
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, shinros said:
To be more productive for a moment going by the beastgrave box it seems Slaanesh might have a Persian theme, more along the lines of Xerxes from 300.
Have you not seen last years Slaanesh releases? It was pretty much the Core aesthetic for all the new stuff
-
3 hours ago, swarmofseals said:
I was responding much more to @PJetski than to you, for what it's worth!
Your problem with elite units is honestly a pretty broad problem with AOS in general and not just specifically DoK. Points costs have been driven down to the point where you can easily put 100-150 "elite" models on the board if you really want to in many factions. The limiting factor for most players is not points cost but practicality. You don't see the 200-300 model true horde armies (even though those builds might actually be quite good) because you don't want to paint that many, you don't want to lug that many around, it's hard to fit that many in your deployment zone, and it takes way too long to move everything (especially under tournament time constraints).
So instead you see most players sticking to 50-100 models with maybe 150 at the very top end.
As a result, your 70-90 Witch Aelf builds look like a horde army. But a real Skaven or Goblin horde would probably put 200-300 models on the table... it's just that nobody actually does that (except maybe @Skreech Verminking, you absolute mad lad).
To me the problem is less about DoK and more about the overall point scaling in AOS.
With respect to your other points: it's not necessarily true that a high agility, short range fighting style would only work in a spread out "warrior" type formation. You can do a lot with precision and agility even in confined spaces. But I'll 100% agree that it doesn't really make sense given the frenzied, berserker slant to the fluff which certainly does match a warrior culture military much more strongly.
It's possible that their frenzy blocks their pain receptors without interfering with combat-relevant sensory perception, but I haven't read the fluff closely enough to know if that scans or not.
______________________________
@alghero81 that would be amazing.
Very thoughtful and well worded reply, thank you.
It's quite sad as you say re the model count thing. One of the things I and I think most Warhammer players loved most was the spectacle of a regiment with all its character and panoply of war.
I think AOS was very clever in going the other way by allowing a regiment to be an equally characterful grouping of a just a few, more heroic individuals, and making the spectacle and variety be about the army as a whole for basically the same investment required of two warhammer regiments. Much like early Warhammer in fact. A glorious stew of multiple aspects of an army and its culture. It also meant that the horde faction looked even more so.
But increasingly it's just become Warhammer with round bases in respect to troop numbers and units of 30 which was rare even in Warhammer before 8th edition are pretty much standard in AOS.
Except with the added nonsense that while the rules favour large numbers in that one aspect they also still treat models within them as individuals as well, so you have these massive formations but they dont have flanks or weight and are stretched out in stupid 60 inch conga chains and the like. Or conversely, you have hordes of 60 skeletons being impeded by one bird etc.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, swarmofseals said:
I very much doubt it as GW is notoriously sloppy with translations. Ironjawz is also mostly original AOS sculpts.
______
On another topic, notch me down as another person who really does not care about DOK durability. They are an almost entirely foot based army (the cav and fliers are very niche and not capable as a main attack/defense unit). It would be very difficult for the army to be balanced in a world where they don't have the durability buffs. Turn 2-3 units with paper defense are just not good in AOS as it's too easy to cripple them with shooting, charges, or any unit that messes up turn priority.
Even if we stick entirely to real world reasoning and ignore supernatural tropes like magic tattoos and shields of faith it's entirely plausible for lightly armored units to be very tough.
The classical sarissa phalanx is an excellent example. They used relatively small shields and modest armor. Greek hoplites also used little armor and somewhat larger shields. Granted their spears were a large part of their defensive prowess (which DoK don't have), but the point that gigantic shields and thick metal plates are the only way to survival on the battlefield is incorrect.
If any of you have trained in classical martial arts (either HEMA or a Japanese koryu style for example) you'll know how defensively capable swords, daggers and small shields are. If you're just sitting there and taking square blows head on you're doing it wrong. A major part of defense is getting into a distance where your weapons are maximally effective and your opponent's weapons are ineffective (see also: legionary vs. phalanx). A gigantic sword or maul is much less scary super close in because even if they hit you you are likely to suffer far less damage because the weapon is moving much more slowly closer to the wielder's hands and the weighting is also disadvantageous to the wielder at that range. If you are trying to intercept an attack with your weapon or shield (or even armor), you much prefer to cause a glance than to just absorb the blow. You can parry a much larger weapon with a smaller one this way, and bucklers/daggers are great as they are very light and can be placed at the correct angle very quickly.
Perhaps DoK are extremely adept at these techniques -- using their speed and agility to maintain ideal distancing, disrupt the timing of enemy attacks and achieve very precise parries and deflections.
I agree with all of this but it's rather missing my point about them being elite. I never had an issue with their absence of armour etc for the reasons you state.
But this style of fighting you mention is precisley that-elite. It requires a dedication to a combat and physical training as an art. It requires space to perform, it requires independence of thought and action.
It is in short the antithesis of what most soldiers are taught- how to fight as one, in unison, to do simple things effectively in concert so as to be stronger than the sum of their parts.
Yet in AOS the DOK are most effective in the sort of numbers you expect of skaven and goblins while apparently all whirling around in confined spaces like helicopters.
Simultaneously in a blood frenzy which allows them to ward off pain and renders them insensible while also being somehow conscious enough to maintain the discipline and precision and clarity of martial thought and application exhibited by the greatest of Samurai. Sure, why not.
They are an elite who also operate in enormous numbers, which is the complete opposite of what elite means. Aesthetically the way in which their force multipliers work makes a complete nonsense of them. An elite army of frenzied, psychotic but also somehow incredibly professional and disciplined sardines.
-
17 minutes ago, sandlemad said:
To be honest given how many half-naked psychopath factions there in AoS, durability may actually be more closely associated with "strip and run screaming at the foe" than "wear full plate and form a shieldwall".
Fyreslayers and Saurus Coalesced as well as DOK would suggest the fewer clothes you wear in the Mortal Realms the better.
Meanwhile SC in their gargantuan suits of platemail are dropping like flies
-
12 hours ago, Ggom said:
I would say cost is a factor, as well as painting eyes on the girls. Every. Damn. One. I say this as someone who has painted 20 pairs of eyes and boy I can tell you that tiny models with tinier eyes is a bad combo. If they were an elite army, I'd be down, but alas.
Also, if they put 20 aelves in a box I would expect a price hike. Knowing GW, it's more likely that everything else will get priced up to DoK levels instead of vice versa. "They're just spoiled by the ease of entry for all the other armies, we should make things more even for pricing."
DOK absolutely should be an elite army. It makes no sense that they just run across the board in massive units and ****** you to death like vicious ants. Doesn't speak much of their athletic warrior prowess.
That's P R I C K btw. Quite funny that the filter makes something benign look incredibly rude. Good job, idiot
-
2
-
4
-
-
On 7/28/2020 at 8:46 PM, LordCelestant Imperius 1st said:
What about dryads ? 30 of them is just really a hard block. Always near a wood for the -1 to hit and the ability to get +1 to hit. Not cheap, not overcosted. Not a killing machine. Just does what a battleline should do. Hold the fu......g line.
Thoughts ?
Its really good tarpit but
A) 300 points spent and still need 2 more battle line or 2000 points which for Sylvaneth is a minimum 120 extra if you take the cheapest option
B) If you take a Branchwraith you can get them for free, so why pay points for them at all?
C) They're amazing in a wood sure but unless you've managed to get loads of woods out that restricts what you can do with them which is potentially quite a big issue for an army who wins through movement and unit placement
-
1
-
Female model representation in Age of Sigmar
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
Not one person has demanded anything in this thread. Not once.