Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 673 674 [675] 676 677 ... 825

Author Topic: WH40K discussion thread: [loading grimdark, please wait]  (Read 1048817 times)

Tack

  • Bay Watcher
  • Giving nothing to a community who gave me so much.
    • View Profile
Re: WH40K general discussion thread: A comparative biology of Beastmen.
« Reply #10110 on: February 02, 2018, 05:39:32 am »

Daemon is fine. They're warp based, the weapon is an extension of them in the material plane.
Chainaxes, chainswords- these are all powered if not 'power field'.
"'Uge choppas" are actually powered on the mini, and Bio-weapons are just that. Bio weapons.

These are quite literally  8) 8) MAGIC 8) 8) and I hate it because it has no place in this setting.
Be a psyker, be a daemon, but this is just gerrymandering the setting so that they can fit the same models into an additional niche for better sales stock.
It infuriates me.
Logged
Sentience, Endurance, and Thumbs: The Trifector of a Superpredator.
Yeah, he's a banned spammer. Normally we'd delete this thread too, but people were having too much fun with it by the time we got here.

Grim Portent

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: WH40K general discussion thread: A comparative biology of Beastmen.
« Reply #10111 on: February 02, 2018, 05:47:33 am »

Daemon is fine. They're warp based, the weapon is an extension of them in the material plane.
Chainaxes, chainswords- these are all powered if not 'power field'.
"'Uge choppas" are actually powered on the mini, and Bio-weapons are just that. Bio weapons.

These are quite literally  8) 8) MAGIC 8) 8) and I hate it because it has no place in this setting.
Be a psyker, be a daemon, but this is just gerrymandering the setting so that they can fit the same models into an additional niche for better sales stock.
It infuriates me.

They're basically the same as the weapons wielded by champions of Chaos and various Daemons. Not all the weapons daemons had in prior editions were part of them, several were made for them by other beings like the hellblades of bloodletters or the witstealer sword of Slaanesh.

These are basically just Tzeentch versions of hellblades, solidified warp energy made to look like bows and spears.
Logged
There once was a dwarf in a cave,
who many would consider brave.
With a head like a block
he went out for a sock,
his ass I won't bother to save.

Burnt Pies

  • Bay Watcher
  • Captain Brunch!
    • View Profile
Re: WH40K general discussion thread: A comparative biology of Beastmen.
« Reply #10112 on: February 02, 2018, 06:43:28 am »

Pretty sure either 1st or 2nd ed 40k had rules for bows too. I certainly remember reading through an old wargear book which gave stats for them (including a +1 to armour, making all armour better vs the bowshot). It's certainly not a new thing, just a thing they dropped for a long time.

AP mods for non-power weapons was a thing everywhere pre-3rd ed, as well. Either through an ascending scale based on strength (S3 no save mod, S4 -1, S5 -2 etc), or directly noted on the weapon's statsheet if it didn't follow that progression. This just sounds like them looking back at their old rules and reusing some of it because they wanted a midpoint between a sharp stick and a high tech power weapon.

If magic weapons have no place in the setting, do you support throwing out Force weapons too? They're pretty much the same thing; using the warp to kill someone through a weapon-shaped focus.
Logged
I can read box now
Also, I am a bit drunk
Refrigerator

Tack

  • Bay Watcher
  • Giving nothing to a community who gave me so much.
    • View Profile
Re: WH40K general discussion thread: A comparative biology of Beastmen.
« Reply #10113 on: February 02, 2018, 06:54:39 am »

I think that the broader the line stays between the two settings, the happier I am.
W40k had become labrinthine and convoluted, so they tanked WHFB and made AoS, which is bright and cool and accessible.
However, they've now made W40k more accessible, and brightness and coolness are coming along quite fast. I get that 'grimdark' was a 90's thing but I'm still hungry for it, and there's no other real settings which have it. Now Gully is awake, the Imperium is beginning the transition to noblebright, and the storyline is progressing, possibly to an end, and I am flailing.

Maybe it's just me being an old fart, but yeah, force weapons seem 'fine' to me, because they're just power weapons with a special kicker. As long as everything is more 'techy' and less 'magic', I'm happy.
Shiny plate armour and magic weapons on chaff units (belonging to a faction which basically prizes edginess), that makes me less happy. I dunno, maybe I should just sell the Ksons and pick up Deldar.
Logged
Sentience, Endurance, and Thumbs: The Trifector of a Superpredator.
Yeah, he's a banned spammer. Normally we'd delete this thread too, but people were having too much fun with it by the time we got here.

sprinkled chariot

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: WH40K general discussion thread: A comparative biology of Beastmen.
« Reply #10114 on: February 02, 2018, 07:11:21 am »

And now we have the first ever bows in 40k!
And actually the first ever non-power weapons with an AP mod as well.

grumble gruble bitterness grumble

One ancient as fuck codex had bows as weapon options among lasgun, autogun and other stuff like that ( don't remember which faction it belonged to though)

Also, well, enlightened tzaangors are chosen among beastmen( unlike scrubs with laspistols )

Logged

Grim Portent

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: WH40K general discussion thread: A comparative biology of Beastmen.
« Reply #10115 on: February 02, 2018, 08:32:55 am »

Offical schemes for Chaos have always favoured strong colours on everyone in the range, early Chaos was frankly garish in model and description, including the Tzaangors of old. Old Tzaangors were meant to be various shades of blue and pink but otherwise mostly normal beastmen in appearance.
Logged
There once was a dwarf in a cave,
who many would consider brave.
With a head like a block
he went out for a sock,
his ass I won't bother to save.

Tack

  • Bay Watcher
  • Giving nothing to a community who gave me so much.
    • View Profile
Re: WH40K general discussion thread: A comparative biology of Beastmen.
« Reply #10116 on: February 05, 2018, 11:34:58 am »

Early Tzaangors also had flak armor and boltguns.
Logged
Sentience, Endurance, and Thumbs: The Trifector of a Superpredator.
Yeah, he's a banned spammer. Normally we'd delete this thread too, but people were having too much fun with it by the time we got here.

Grim Portent

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: WH40K general discussion thread: A comparative biology of Beastmen.
« Reply #10117 on: February 05, 2018, 05:05:42 pm »

Well autoguns and pistol/chainsword sergeants were the only 40k beastmen minis at the time. We're talking pre-plastic era after all.

If Tzaangors were still autogun based they'd have even more overlap with cultists and frankly neither unit needs the competition.

I would have liked to see Tzaangors serving as the irregular weapons specialists for 1k Sons though. Heavy weapon teams of them replacing the Rubricae who would have been Havocs before the whole dusting thing and so on. Would let them be more than just 1K Sons assault units and emphasise that the Rubricae are elite units and need too much psychic oversight to perform some specialist roles.
Logged
There once was a dwarf in a cave,
who many would consider brave.
With a head like a block
he went out for a sock,
his ass I won't bother to save.

Tack

  • Bay Watcher
  • Giving nothing to a community who gave me so much.
    • View Profile
Re: WH40K general discussion thread: A comparative biology of Beastmen.
« Reply #10118 on: February 05, 2018, 05:25:22 pm »

They kind of are though.
The Fatecaster Greatbows on the Tzaangor Enlightened are Assault 2 S5 AP-1. Which makes them essentially heavy bolters.

I'm personally quite happy to see them as melee chaff, I just want the models to be a bit more thematic.
My current thoughts are modding Tzaangors to use some kind of chainaxe, and modding the exalted to use either kroot or skitarii rifles.
Logged
Sentience, Endurance, and Thumbs: The Trifector of a Superpredator.
Yeah, he's a banned spammer. Normally we'd delete this thread too, but people were having too much fun with it by the time we got here.

Grim Portent

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: WH40K general discussion thread: A comparative biology of Beastmen.
« Reply #10119 on: February 05, 2018, 05:57:27 pm »

Eh, they're not exactly meant to be chaff lorewise, that's what cultists are for. Tzaangor are more like elite guards and/or pets. The 1k Sons even teach a bunch of them sorcerery and apparently Tzeentch likes them enough that their equivalent of Chosen are given chaos gifts most marine champions would covet greedily. Old fluff was that they were loyal and well treated, new fluff seems to be the same.

I'd say they're a mid-line assault unit more than anything, Tzaangor blades are pretty beefy and a 5++ T4 body isn't that bad as base stats go. The Enlightened are a skirmish unit like Screamers (or Centigors come to think of it, though less shit by all accounts). Good for harrassing. I'd almost compare them both to scions before I'd compare them to 'gaunts or guardsmen. Hell, they're practically Bloodletters.

I would have liked to see them actually haul autocannons and heavy bolters along behind the Rubricae as well though.

EDIT: I am growing a great hatred for painting trees. Decided to paint some terrain I've had lying around for about two years and it's rather tedious.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 07:12:56 pm by Grim Portent »
Logged
There once was a dwarf in a cave,
who many would consider brave.
With a head like a block
he went out for a sock,
his ass I won't bother to save.

Radio Controlled

  • Bay Watcher
  • Morals? Ethics? Conscience? HA!
    • View Profile
Re: WH40K general discussion thread: A comparative biology of Beastmen.
« Reply #10120 on: February 06, 2018, 02:08:45 pm »

Helsreach part 10 is out.

Not my favorite episode of the ones he's done, but still pretty nice. Some of the sound effects could've been better I feel, and I think I preferred the style of the first few episodes more, but still glad to see it's continuing.
Logged


Einsteinian Roulette Wiki
Quote from: you know who you are
21:26   <XYZ>: I know nothing about this, but I have strong opinions about it.
Fucking hell, you guys are worse than the demons.

Tack

  • Bay Watcher
  • Giving nothing to a community who gave me so much.
    • View Profile
Re: WH40K general discussion thread: A comparative biology of Beastmen.
« Reply #10121 on: February 06, 2018, 05:50:30 pm »

Eh, they're not exactly meant to be chaff lorewise, that's what cultists are for. Tzaangor are more like elite guards and/or pets.

Lore in the book has them as either the results of experimenting on slaves, a few natural brayflocks on prospero, and a very large portion being unnatural offspring of humans caught in the citrix.
The ones who use Magic aren’t actually taught it by the Ksons, they operate purely on devotion rather than any actual learning.

The models annoy me on a basic level because they seem to be exactly the wrong tech level to push my buttons. If they had boltguns and autocannons, i’d be cool with it. If they wore rags instead of plate, i’d be cool with it.

Frankly my frustration mostly comes from the stuff behind it. They just seem lazy.
I’m all for having Tzaangors in the game, and actually wanted to convert a beastman sorceror a long time ago. But they should have their own sculpts, and their own art.
This literally feels like profiteering.
Logged
Sentience, Endurance, and Thumbs: The Trifector of a Superpredator.
Yeah, he's a banned spammer. Normally we'd delete this thread too, but people were having too much fun with it by the time we got here.

Grim Portent

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: WH40K general discussion thread: A comparative biology of Beastmen.
« Reply #10122 on: February 06, 2018, 06:24:41 pm »

That's an odd direction for them to have taken for the fluff, even in Wrath of Magnus and Traitor Legions they were mentioned as serving sorcerers for the rare chance to rise to higher status, it was the justification for them having Artifact Hunter as they sought items of power/lore to earn their master's favour.

I don't think 7th mentioned their origins much beyond them being referred to as mutant beastmen.

That and some stuff from the core rules about the Arbites reducing Beastman rights seems to be implying that GW has decided to write off Homo Variatus as being more mutants than abhumans.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2018, 06:27:09 pm by Grim Portent »
Logged
There once was a dwarf in a cave,
who many would consider brave.
With a head like a block
he went out for a sock,
his ass I won't bother to save.

LordPorkins

  • Bay Watcher
  • Unrelated to DukePorkins
    • View Profile
Re: WH40K general discussion thread: A comparative biology of Beastmen.
« Reply #10123 on: February 11, 2018, 12:15:16 pm »

UHHHHHH.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/11/weird-necromunda-facts.html


...


SQUATS LIVE STOMP-STOMP
SQUATS LIVE STOMP-STOMP

HOLY SHIZNUTS THEY'RE BACK

Logged
Ïlul Thuveg-Ellest
Rete Sano-Pima
Tormuk Dul-Orax
Kar Pum-Sisha

Andres

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: WH40K general discussion thread: A comparative biology of Beastmen.
« Reply #10124 on: February 12, 2018, 02:53:34 am »

What are fey from Warhammer Fantasy?
Logged
All fanfics are heresy, each and every one, especially the shipping ones. Those are by far the worst.
Pages: 1 ... 673 674 [675] 676 677 ... 825