|
Ashcans posted:Off the top of my head, the Warp Spiders are still the first sculpts of those models I bought in the mid 90s. They're in finecast now, though. Also true for the Phoenix Lords and a number of the warlock/seer models. We had the same jet bikes from the early 90s until the latest release, and they tripled in price over that time. The ork buggy predates Gorkamorka I believe, so it's even older than that.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
Ashcans posted:I believe you, but thats probably also true for even GW's newest tank kits The funny thing is I'm pretty sure the Dragon 1:35 KT kit is a ~2005 repackaging with extra parts of a kit that is older than the leman Russ. Though my opinion is that Russ kit is a dog. Ignoring the comparisons it's just a boxy turd with weak/non existent details and poor customization. quote:This is compared to, say, Warp Spiders which are single piece monopose figures which you have to repeat even in a 5 man squad, or the ork buggies which have really lumpy looking crew. Oh yeah the warp spiders have moved past laughable into criminal
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 14:33
|
|
What I mean is that while the Russ and the Falcon are fairly old kits, they are comparable to the more modern kits in quality and appearance, so it's more tolerable they haven't been updated. They're ALL in a bad place compared to historicals.
|
spectralent posted:Does anyone make mod packs for Good 28mm scale historical tanks to sci-fi them up a bit? Because most sci fi tanks are kinda poo poo, I tend to find. I know dreamforge (IIRC?) do a pack for the hanomag. Warlord Games kinda do that for their Konflict 47 range. Stuff like https://store.warlordgames.com/collections/konflikt-47/products/m4a9-t-sherman-with-tesla-cannon are their regular 28mm tanks with sci fi zappy turrets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Yeah, sadly I don't really like their pulp-history thing. Sci fi stuff is always a bind because most sci fi tanks look either horribly retro or "a modern tank but the searchlights are in a different place".
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yeah, sadly I don't really like their pulp-history thing. https://www.zinge.co.uk/ makes the sort of stuff you're looking for
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:https://www.zinge.co.uk/ makes the sort of stuff you're looking for Oooh, sweet! Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:I believe you, but thats probably also true for even GW's newest tank kits The Russ actually was updated just a few years ago, it's just that they kept the same look for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:https://www.zinge.co.uk/ makes the sort of stuff you're looking for Thanks from me too. This may be handy down the line. E: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/03/shadow-war-armageddon-promo-cards.html Pricing apparently confirmed by BoLS as being $130. Looks like the characters will replace the hired guns from NM. mcjomar fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
mcjomar posted:Pricing apparently confirmed by BoLS as being $130. Welp, ain't gonna touch that with a ten-foot pole. Will wait for what Forgeworld is apparently cooking up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Hustlin Floh posted:The Russ actually was updated just a few years ago, it's just that they kept the same look for the most part. They updated the russ to be easier to put together! They also updated it to remove most of the customization pieces. Same with the Chimera. Not exactly a welcome upgrade. The new ork codex could be subtitled "25 point twin-linked missile buggies" so the fact that they didn't release a new kit for them is pretty stupid. LordAba fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
mcjomar posted:E: why does the "new" land raider cost so much? Isn't it literally the same kit? it costs exactly the same as all the other imperial land raiders though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:it costs exactly the same as all the other imperial land raiders though? In which case holy poo poo at the GW price hikes. I've not bought one of those things in years so if they now coat that much then holy gently caress that's expensive as all hell. GW can get hosed with their pricing. I mean I know I shouldn't be surprised but it's worse than I thought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Yeah Land Raiders have been like $72 for a while now, it's ridiculous. I remember when they were $45 and that seemed kinda steep at the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
 They're not even good models.I mean even setting aside the strict "realism" stuff like how they're a backwards WWI tank, the interior frankly sucks. There's not even anywhere for the crew to go! At least the Rhino has a little divider in the interior for where you a driver could hide. Which is what I did on my perpetually-unfinished Techmarine Razorback:  I started painting it but then realized I didn't like tabletop games (and then it took another several years to realize I just didn't like GW tabletop games). Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:
I can't believe I'm actually doing this but:  Those two hatches on the top of the land raider. One is for the gunner, who also controls some/all of the weapons. The second one further forward is actually the commander's cupola. He drives. Land raiders apparently only need two crew  And the crew section of the Land Raider is using TARDIS phsyics. And the only reason I know this is because I think it got brought up last death thread. I mean, it's still dumb as all hell, the design is quite lovely, and learns nothing from actual tanks (also a discussion from last death thread), but it does have some kind of explanation. I mean, the explanation is also dumb as all hell, but it has one 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
AFAIK they are also capable of being controlled completely independently via their machine spirit. Hell, there's a story about a Crimson Fists LR that goes apeshit and drives through an ocean to go kill more orks
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
mcjomar posted:I mean, it's still dumb as all hell, the design is quite lovely, and learns nothing from actual tanks (also a discussion from last death thread), but it does have some kind of explanation. No I mean I get that, but the stuff in that cutaway isn't in the model. There's no little chair for the driver or anything. I guess they just expect you to get a boost up to the hatch from one of your Space Marine buddies cuz there's no way to use them otherwise. If you're gonna do vehicle interiors you gotta actually do all the visible parts, not just a handful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
The only way any of the 40k vehicles work is if you accept they're on a different scale to the infantry and should be at least a good 20-30% bigger, which gives enough room for the crew and their transport capacity. I mean look at the Ork Trukk. There's no way that thing can hold 12 Boyz at that size (even assuming some hang onto the outside).
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
I always interpreted them as being the right scale for the height of the infantry, but that infantry figures are way too fat thanks to "heroic scale".
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Land raiders only needing two crew is ok because they have so many automated systems, they basically skirt the Imperiums 'no AI' laws. Everything else about their design and stuff is pretty bad. A lot of the designs are 'ok' in the original 40k aesthetic of kind of cartoony, goofy stuff. Like the Leman Russ looks like a bad prop tank, but it's alright because so much stuff is plain silly or deliberately hammed up. As the setting has taken itself more and more seriously and gotten grittier, it's still kept many of those looks and they fare even worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
I have finally written the bad thread off for dead, I believe this a good and sound decision. Using the handicapped as a punching bag is not okay, holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Irate Tree posted:I have finally written the bad thread off for dead, I believe this a good and sound decision. Which thread is the bad thread now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
I was told it was the 40k thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:I believe you, but thats probably also true for even GW's newest tank kits there is no way warp spiders are going to survive the 40k end times
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
Irate Tree posted:I have finally written the bad thread off for dead, I believe this a good and sound decision.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Irate Tree posted:I have finally written the bad thread off for dead, I believe this a good and sound decision. I don't feel like sifting through their posts. What's the deal there?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
TKIY posted:Which thread is the bad thread now? This is the death thread, 40k is the bad thread, whfb is the sad thread, gbs is the scrunt thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
I'm probably over stating but it's just the constant use of autistic as an insult that gets to me. I mean, i get it, it's this generation's retard. It wasn't valid then and it isn't valid now. You have a language with more non-flattering descriptors than any other and you choose to beat on the mentally handicapped or disabled to make an insult? It's disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
40k thread = bad thread whfb thread = sad thread this thread = mad thread 30k thread = fad thread aos thread = bh'adde thread historicals thread = dad thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
BYOB thread: the good thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
The AoS thread can be fun now since they treat the game with exactly as much reverence as it deserves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:aos thread = rad thread please be more respectful of my thread son
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
The AoS thread is ghoode, actually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
Xarbala posted:The AoS thread is ghoode, actually. ghoode thread bad game
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Irate Tree posted:I'm probably over stating but it's just the constant use of autistic as an insult that gets to me. I mean, i get it, it's this generation's retard. It wasn't valid then and it isn't valid now. A goddamn men. I have been accused of being autism - as an insult - for a variety of reasons mostly relating to attention to detail or adherence to principals. These are not symptoms of autism, and if they were, that would not be cause for insult. But much worse, using "autistic" to describe anyone on the basis that you think they're mentally dysfunctional is insulting and denigrating to people who are actually on the spectrum. Granted low-functioning autistic people likely aren't reading threads on SA, but there are high-functioning people with autism who might be, and there are a lot more of us who have friends or family members with autism. And more broadly yet, the general use of clinical terms that describe various developmental disabilities, mental illnesses, and... well, anything that anyone might get as a diagnosis from a doctor, as terms of ridicule or insult is sickening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
I dunno I always figured it as a sort of self-conscious thing since I only ever see people use it in areas where it's generally assumed (rightly or not) that everyone involved is on the spectrum, such as computer programming or tabletop gaming. Like calling someone a big loving nerd for knowing slightly more than you about Star Wars. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:It's self deprecation, guys! loving kill me now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 10:17
|
|
|
I basically gave up on autism. It's going to be like retardation or special needs and slip out of the medical lingo because it's used solely by assholes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I basically gave up on autism. It's going to be like retardation or special needs and slip out of the medical lingo because it's used solely by assholes. It's an ongoing problem--those states will always be considered undesirable, so each time you give them a new label, that same label will be adopted by society at large as a pejorative. e: still worth fighting, though
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
Can we talk about RPGs and stuff in this thread too? I know we go off on tangents about game design a lot and I think there's fertile ground in discussing RPGs. Anyway, I got into a stupid Facebook discussion about DnD editions and everything positive I had to say about 4e was met with the response that 5e did the same things but better. Not having any experience with 5e, I couldn't really say. So to fill in my own knowledge gaps, I looked through the 5e PHB and what I saw didn't impress me. What exactly is different between 5e and 3e? I'm sure there are numerous differences, but surface level they look identical to me except that they carried over Dragonborn into the PHB and Fighter's can now choose a skin at a certain level. Is there anything at all resembling the tactical combat and defined combat roles of 4e? Outside of a particular Fighter skin's alternative actions, is the Fighter just swinging his sword most of the time? Is casting basically how it was back in 3e for every class?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 14:55
|
|