MitGas

Ah, that is good to know.... the Curseling I've gotten around 2 years ago still used classic Finecast and well.... he wasn't exactly great. Which is a bummer as I love the mini's design but he makes me paranoid. If I looked at him the wrong way one of those feathers could break off.

Throw your dog a bone takes another meaning in there... (mind killed a few of my hunchback Chaos Warriors back in the day - although they actually looked better after him chewing on them) anyways, great colors, makes them look a hell of a lot better than the standard Eavy Metal scheme.

I won't find out I'm afraid. I have/had hundreds of metal minis and never had a problem with them outside of obvious drawbacks. With the 2 Finecast ones I've had lots of problems. From fixing the models (which isn't my job, I'm a paying customer) to them being a brittle, warped mess (which can be fixed but shouldn't have to be) in the end. It's simply a very bad product in every possible way. Especially when there's FW next door who make splendid resin minis. I understand they worry about young ones (cause why else wouldn't they use better resin) but then don't sell those models to people younger than 18 or - even better - give them the benefit of the doubt and let nature do its own thing if they manage to kill themselves with a resin mini (which they won't). The only time where Failcast would've been good was when I was 14, wanted to remove a Rubric Marine's head with a stanley knife (thanks for that idea, Neil Hodgson - j/k, this started my love for Tzeentch) and cut my own thumb open. Very stupid but it's my very own mark of Tzeentch.

I respectfully disagree. Unlike FW's resin it's extremely fragile even IF the cast is decent (good luck with that) - I got two FC models and those are enough for me to never, ever buy another.

Just having seen the new Necromunda releases (see spoiler below) gave me an idea in conjunction with talking about traditional painting of skin tones here (which is science in its own right with all those halftones and stuff as you've alluded to, something where I unfortunately still got much to learn).... perhaps going for oil colors would really be the answer. The guy in the top left certainly makes me think that these were done with oils... and it would make introducing subtle color variation a heck of a lot easier.

The possibilities of what they have planned are endless and not for mere mortals (them included) to know! Rest assured that any reader of the new battletome will find plotholes and logical errors in a matter of minutes however. If the giants are accompanied by other creatures that we thought we knew they'll greatly expand on their lore as well, fully disregarding everything that came before in a stroke of Hollywood genius!

So very wise for an aelf.

Well, Giants are usually portrayed in a rather negative way (from Warhammer to DnD to movies); something new would be to make them smart and sophisticated like their ancestors supposedly were.... would be funny to see them in GA: Order. I'm sure Damon Lindelof and JJ Abrams are taking notes - such an unnecessary twist could be turned into a franchise!

I've got that sinking feeling too. I'm far from good enough to a balancing genius but I'm sure there are some people out there who could easily suggest the right changes that wouldn't nerf Tzeentch back to oblivion. I'd play T even if he was the worst but obviously it's nice to play a strong faction.

Said Gods usually didn't involve huge armies in their fights though (a notable exception would be Troy). I just feels like it's less about the player's army now and more about GW's token characters and they shouldn't be the focus IMO. Wouldn't hurt to make some things a bit smaller so that the HUGE events then really stick out. Plus: with our armies just being a couple of dudes, it's not like we really portray those GIGANTIC battles they're always writing about. Hence it feels a bit disconnected. Hope you get what I'm trying to say here, I'm probably too stupid to find the right words.

Shhh, don't say that - OBR fans are apparently as whiny as Nagash. That said, Archaon's also the king of meh. Getting lots of HAYTE for this but I did enjoy back in old WHFB that not every single battle revolved around the same 10 dudes and dudettes... It feels like Sigmar, Archaon, Katakros with his daddy Nagash, Teclis, Morathi, Alarielle and Malerion and Gotrek are the only sentient inhabitants of the Mortal Realms in 99% of the stories these days. A bit less dramatic hyperbole might be good.

Not that I'm aware of - Fold R has always been a gamble. Regarding changing DD: I agree 100% with you that GW should change those overpowered subfactions rather than points or DD. That said, I could live with them changing DD if they're also too strong. But they really need to get a proper balancing team going. It's annoying as FAQ (hur hur, see what I did there) to think about our last battletome where every 2 pages something had to be explained/changed/recosted/repurposed. Change's cool but it's not cool to bring 20 pages from different FAQs and erratas along with your battletome.

I'd argue that even most Blood Angels and Emperor's Kiddies are also more square-faced test freaks than average prettyboys when I look at the models (the art is something different). But I can only agree with absolutely everything you say here. It definitely looks like all the guys who shaped the SM's image over the years looked at how facial development gets influenced by testosterone and most likely also steroids and HGH. It's definitely fitting. It's quite funny that most of the primarchs models have have rather narrow faces, lacking the width of SM heads.

The Chaos Gods are older and together FAR MORE powerful than Nagash. I was referring to them obviously.... Sigh. Yeah, in a 1 on 1 Archaon would crush Katakros. I said nothing more. Could very well be Katakros would outsmart Archaon but that is something I've already said. Thanks for playing, read my post next time.

One's the champion of four Gods much older than Nagash who managed to destroy a world, one's Nagash greatest general. If they came face to face there should be like zero contest, Kat should be dead in 1 second. Tactics-wise it feels like Archaon should have the edge as well as - if I'm getting it right - he's the defending party here (with in theory limitless backup due to daemons) but I guess it'll be fully up the writer in the end. I see no smart way where Katakros could win on his own (plus if he did win they'd have to remove at least the whole Archaon part of StD, which they won't) but let's see whom the writers favor. In theory lots of SC could attack the Varanspire at the same time or something... Personally I don't care. I like Archaon more cause he's older but that's about it - he's quite bland. I don't know enough about Katakros although I imagine him to be kinda bland as well - a) because's he's new and b) because most writing these days is a bit lackluster.

I took this as a double entendre (as in spoiled fruit) and found it absolutely hilarious. That was witty, good sir!

Yes, look at some people affected by let's say extreme conditions - it's our natural instinct to find them ugly, everyone with a sane mind would agree - obviously I will not consider the opinion of people that are so far off the norm they'd be considered legally insane as that would be absolutely senseless and stupid. I gave you examples in relation to beauty and fonts already. There are objective parameters from golden ratios to what have you. Stop fighting it when you're wrong. I'm not talking about preferences like height, hair color/length or other mundane things. It is misguided to argue that uniform ugliness does not exist much like it is misguided to argue that uniform beauty does not exist. You argue for cases where person A is hotter but I prefer for whatever reason person B. That is fine, not disagreeing there, logically you are right and such things are hard to quantify (I'd go for Jessica Biel, someone else would go for Kate beckinsale in that awful Total Recall remake). But you're just as logically wrong when you wanna take away natural instincts/preferences from humans away because some misguided soul hammered into the minds of people that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder in EVERY case". It's not true in EVERY case. It's like saying "water's wet. ALWAYS". There are situations where it actually is not.

the facial structures of your examples are indeed spot-on.

I got this sinking feeling that they'll overcorrect it though... or I'm getting paranoid. Also cool, that way I'll never feel alone again.

While I enjoy that Tzeentch makes every progamer cry and whine for once (serves the powergamers right), I'm fine with them nerfing it - but PLEASE, for the love of God, do it in a way where we don't need 12 pages of FAQs to play our army again like last time. I'm fine with ending up as one of the weakest armies as long as we don't have to bring a folder with all the errata and stuff...

I give up (not because any of the arguments against my points are reasonable). First and foremost because the OBR aren't really worth my time to discuss them at length (I don't hate them at all but I don't really care much either) and because I've stopped talking about them a long time ago and I can only gain bonus points on the insanity scale if I keep repeating myself here. But okay, continue disagreeing with much sharper minds than our very own on these things if you like to claim that basic taste in the discussed points is subjective, I'll agree to disagree - there are a hell of a lot of things in aesthetics/beauty/design/whathaveyou where there are universal truths - disagreeing here is simply wrong, I'm not arguing anything else. Look up acid victims and then say that beauty is subjective. It's a horrible sight to behold (seriously, those poor people). I'm not talking about Bonereapers there or the best eye or hair color - perhaps you argue for preferences but when something is against the norm it's a difficult point to argue, especially if you look at data. What do you think they teach you in university if there were no objective facts about things you could argue are totally subjective (like art)? I'm sure someone out there loves Comic Sans with dubious line-heights and kerning that makes you lose all hope. It's still not a well-made font on an objective point of view (I'm taking an easy example here) even that guy loves it. That makes that guy who's into weirdly set Comic Sans simply tasteless, not a valid artisan. (And no, I don't mean that as a back-handed insult directed at OBR fans). I'm not sure it's anything but senseless to not dismiss such cases. Anyways, lots of joy to you and all OBR players/Teclis fans and the like - it's cool if you love your dudes/gals. I'll meanwhile sit here in total acceptance of my pink horrors who are ugly in every possible way. Except for Pinky, he's cute as a button and a true hero.

Yeah, the art background shows in those mixed colors - very ambitious and cool and a seldom sight in 28-35mm mini painting Those ogors are also great models for it due to being large and showing off a lot of skin I figure. I guess you could start using filters with airbrush for some quick and easy color variation on the other parts but then again I don't think color variation is as important and striking there (except maybe for metals but then again you've already done that too).

Then they're certainly wiser than pretty much everyone else in the real world and fiction.

The reason for a beauty spot is that it directs your eyes to a physical marker you actually care about (usually in a sexual way) - for example their eyes and/or mouth. Let's say this little, cute mole was a huge, irregular wart with hairs coming out of it. Only a fool would argue that anyone (except for maybe someone with perverse taste, which is - as the true meaning of the word perverse - unnatural/uncommon) would find said wart beautiful by itself. But whatever.

I don't think Teclis is the subject here. It's basically about if something can be classified as ugly per se. I argue that we as humans have some common conceptions about beauty (and ugliness) and others disagree. Which is ludicrous as many researchers already disproved "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Hell, even when you think about something as narrow facial aesthetics in humans there are various common markers. No matter where people come from. Those are universal things.