Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

sandlemad

Members
  • Content Count

    506
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

sandlemad last won the day on May 20

sandlemad had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

923 Celestant-Prime

About sandlemad

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yeah, that was my thought process. If one release has to get moved, it's not going to be their most popular product and the fulcrum of their release schedule. It is a little unfortunate thematically though, above and beyond just continuity issues. It's like pushing out AoS 2nd. ed with the necroquake, etc. before Malign Portents. Some interesting buildup, tension and background (possibly the only interesting stuff to come out of PA) just didn't go according to plan. Very low down on the list of serious covid-19 related issues but still.
  2. Middle one on the bottom row isn't Scions of the Flame, it's something new and chaotic. Wonder when the Scions will be released for that matter... RE: that release schedule, it does have the weirdness of what seems to be the final Psychic Awakening book, Pariah, released after 9th edition 40k. It's odd because Pariah's the book that most clearly is intended to lead up to the return of the Silent King and the big push of the necrons. It's not a slam dunk against it though, I can see how a 9th ed. launch is the kind of thing you'd struggle to move or rearrange. GW has tended to make these significant dates where staff couldn't take leave and such.
  3. I'm not sure there's much they could change for the basic moonclan grots even if they did want to update them. The general visual design hasn't changed at all with the new Gloomspite stuff and part of their virtue is that they're simple models which can be painted up as a horde quickly. They're got character, multiple weapon options, different banners... They work well as a baseline.
  4. Go for it. As long as it's relatively clear what's what (and from the sound of it crossbowmen as crossbowmen and elite polearm dudes as Phoenix Guard should be clear), you're fine, no one will have any problems.
  5. Forgot this was a thread but the last few GW price rises essentially pushed me out of AoS and 40k. They weren't the only thing but eventually I measured the increasing amount of effort I was putting into keeping costs down (ebay, second hand, proxies and conversions, creative use of specific units) for games I was feeling jaded about and it just wasn't worth it. WHFB 8th ed. had already basically done that for a time but AoS pulled me back and then sort of pushed me out again. I still have no idea how folks that are all in on competitive play do it, it's just an insane amount of money to me. Of course I'm still on the hook to a limited degree for Underworlds, Titanicus, and a bit of other skirmish gaming so it's not like GW's not still getting my money, just... a lot less.
  6. Yeah, being an anti-Semitic ****** who pals around with fascists makes ‘garbage human’ a pretty mild way of referring to him tbh. There’s nothing about his personality that could conceivably balance that out. Of course his content’s wheezy, poorly-sourced, inaccurate trash as well so it’s not like there’s anything of value there either.
  7. This is one of the most pleasant surprises from the soulbound core book, the sheer amount of Kharadron stuff. All the gear and associated game mechanics, it's cool. More than other aspects, I could see an all-Kharadron campaign being effective and a lot of fun.
  8. Wait, I think we're in agreement here, i.e. even putting forward a reasonable, thoughtful argument about, I dunno, Batman vs Superman will get you a flame-y response from the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut crowd if it's anything less than complimentary.
  9. If there's enough there otherwise to hold their interest, they're really not.
  10. Gotta be honest here, this has never been my experience on any subject, wargaming or anything else. Hostility can breed hostility, true, but just as often thoughtful critiques or commentaries that can be taken as even faintly negative receive flareups in response. Particularly in nerd spaces. This is getting into a referendum about The Discourse though, so I'm going to cut it off here.
  11. Same places as you. Even holes like Dakka have handled it better than I expected. By and large I’ve seen responses that do meaningfully engage with older Kislev background and make a distinction between magic in the game, magical stuff on elite units, magical stuff on elite human units, magical stuff on elite human units with a (questionable, to my mind) different cultural attitude to magic vs the empire, and where personal preference comes in there. I’ve often seen that shut down with contextless lists of supernatural units presented as though they’re an argument and sometimes even “lol it’s all fantasy anyway, why do you care”. Generally I’ve seen more absolutist gleeful “WH was like this, gtfo if you don’t like it” from folks speaking in favour of the new designs and more specificity and awareness of WH’s changing tone/history from folks who liked the designs with reservations or were indifferent. In all honesty in a handful of cases it has smacked of a nasty AoS-fan triumphalism anticipating the WHFB snobbery on the scale of a few years ago. It’s the sort of hair-trigger smugness of a former underdog that keeps me away from this forum on occasion. And yeah, Archwarhammer is a truly garbage human being even apart from his lack of knowledge and no one should value his opinion on anything. I go out of my way to avoid anyone who cites or pays attention to him so I’m open to the idea I’m missing the worst of old school WHFB snobbery (or in his case purported old school but really recent and meant to drum up clicks/right wing outrage).
  12. We may be looking at different things or in different places then because I've seen a lot more unbecoming snideness, unsubtle in-universe argumentation, and gatekeeping (which I think is a term that's nearly been washed out by overuse but applies here) from one 'side' than the other.
  13. Saying "Warhammer was always OTT zany and nothing but" is just as wrong and ahistorical as saying that it was always historical fiction with a thin layer of fantasy. 6th and 7th edition were indeed pretty 'low' when it came to the old world and managed to keep that tone despite the presence of magical stuff like Ulthuan, some aspects of Bretonnia, etc. I'd also point to WFRP 1st edition from the late 80's. That was very low and grubby, more so again than 6th/7th ed. fantasy battles. That was the early modern tone they were going for with an RPG - rat-catchers and corrupt burghers - and not all of it translated to armies and massed battles, but it was where a lot of what we consider foundational to WHFB background first came from. And here's the thing: that era/aspect is not inherently better because it's old or was formative... but it was there. It was an important aesthetic/tonal thread that was visible and actively pursued in a lot of material and people are allowed to have a fondness for it over some of the other tones or aesthetics that WH had in its nearly three decades. It's like with Batman; he's variously been wacky and camp, grim and hard-edged, sometimes a prominent universe-spanning hero, sometimes a loner detective in a world which nevertheless had insane fantastical stuff 'out there'. Pretending like there wasn't a multiplicity of tones and subject matters at various times is foolish. Pretending like people who have particular preferences for some of those tones and subject matters are wrong, or not real fans, or need to play a different game (all stuff I've seen from posters on TGA I'd otherwise respected, disappointingly) is messed up, unwelcoming, and comes from a historically uninformed place. In a similar fashion, it is entirely possible for someone to look at e.g. magical ice weapons and recognise that whatever Thermian arguments are used, it is not necessarily quite in keeping with the form of WH that they are most fond of and/or it is not something they find an interesting development or extrapolation from what was already there in Kislev's background.
  14. Eh, I dunno about specific bloodlines, feels like the opposite kind of direction to how most AoS goes. Those were very Old World-specific and kind of totalising in a sense, like all vampires had to have a specific pre-defined background derived from their bloodline. That doesn't quite square with the more open approach to faction background you get in AoS. Even in 7th edition WHFB GW was moving away from very discrete bloodlines as the main focus (though they brought them back a little in 8th edition) on the basis that they'd become sort of flanderised and led to ideas like "all Von Carsteins wear evening dress all the time", "if your vampire has armour or is at all martial, he must be a Blood Dragon", etc. Too much like VC-branded chaos marks, was the concern. The broad concepts were still there - e.g. Neferata was still scheming - but there was more of a unified vampire aesthetic put forward in the art and in the models, meant to represent a Von Carstein or a Blood Dragon or a Necrarch or a Lahmian, though less so a Strigoi. I'd expect bloodlines to come in as something more like army subfactions. There in the background and with some rules differences but not directly represented in the sculpts. It would also be weird to see more Strigos when that would be moving in on conceptual/visual territory already covered by FEC.
  15. My mind went towards wanderers as well but looking at it again, I think this definitely is a vampire. There's the drops of blood alright and I'd make a connection between those two protrusions on the blade, which have some similarities to old undead models (and current Mephiston) but the real giveaway is the combination of a curvy handguard with a straight quillons. That is characteristic of most modern GW vampire sculpts with swords. See below. New Soulblight, who up.
×
×
  • Create New...