Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
The Bee
Nov 25, 2012

Making his way to the ring . . .
from Deep in the Jungle . . .

The Big Monkey!

Safety Factor posted:

Wait, the auspex is getting rules? That thing's been nothing but decoration for years.

There was a huge section in the Intercessor data sheet that seemed dedicated to a rule. No Know Fear was above it, so it couldn't be No Know Fear, and the Auspex model being specifically pointed out on the shop page helped me put 2 and 2 together. At this point if it isn't the Auspex having rules, and instead Intercessors just randomly getting a new ability out of nowhere, I'll eat my hat.

Bonds has a good point though. Infiltrate on a 24*24 playmat would be insane.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Zuul the Cat
Dec 24, 2006

Grimey Drawer
God drat, 4 pages to catch up on and 90% of it was Atlas Shrugged.

loving nerds.

Omnispex's for the AdMech are real good, although I don't know about taking them now in conjunction with Phosphor weapons since cover save negation won't stack.

Should be pretty good on Intercessors if it just negates cover though.

chutche2
Jul 3, 2010

CUPOLA MY BALLS

Zuul the Cat posted:

God drat, 4 pages to catch up on and 90% of it was Atlas Shrugged.

loving nerds.

Omnispex's for the AdMech are real good, although I don't know about taking them now in conjunction with Phosphor weapons since cover save negation won't stack.

Should be pretty good on Intercessors if it just negates cover though.

I think the only ones that can take it are rangers and vanguard, right? They'll be flinging plasma or sniper shots around which is when it's relevant.

Der Waffle Mous
Nov 27, 2009

In the grim future, there is only commerce.
Okay so I'm doing some 30k Imperial Fists and while I've been passably free handing the chapter insignia on my characters and terminators I really don't want to have to do that for 40+ power armor jobbers.

I found some of my old transfer sheets from before they made them Ultras-only and they're goddamn terrible and don't fit the contour of a mk.3 shoulder pad at all.

What are my options here?

JBP
Feb 16, 2017

You've got to know, to understand,
Baby, take me by my hand,
I'll lead you to the promised land.

Der Waffle Mous posted:

Okay so I'm doing some 30k Imperial Fists and while I've been passably free handing the chapter insignia on my characters and terminators I really don't want to have to do that for 40+ power armor jobbers.

I found some of my old transfer sheets from before they made them Ultras-only and they're goddamn terrible and don't fit the contour of a mk.3 shoulder pad at all.

What are my options here?

Keep painting or buy IF transfers from FW.

Giant Ethicist
Jun 9, 2013

Looks like she got on a loaf of bread instead of a bus again...

Der Waffle Mous posted:

Okay so I'm doing some 30k Imperial Fists and while I've been passably free handing the chapter insignia on my characters and terminators I really don't want to have to do that for 40+ power armor jobbers.

I found some of my old transfer sheets from before they made them Ultras-only and they're goddamn terrible and don't fit the contour of a mk.3 shoulder pad at all.

What are my options here?

Decal medium (I use Vallejo's) will help as well - it softens the decal up and lets it sort of melt onto contours. It's not perfect for space marine shoulder pads - I use it for the tactical markings on my dudes, and do get the occasional wrinkle - but much better than nothing.

Proletariat Beowulf
Jan 7, 2007
I wish meat screamed as I ate it.
I don't remember the last time anyone got galtsied. Is that low or high-quality shitposting now? The Internet moves in cycles re: such decisions, I'm certain of it.

Beer4TheBeerGod
Aug 23, 2004
Exciting Lemon

VanSandman posted:

The fact that I can't put people on ignore while phone-posting is some serious bullshit.

Awful App gives you that option.

Soulfucker
Feb 15, 2012

i,m going to kill myself on friday #wow #whoa
Fun Shoe

tallkidwithglasses posted:

"If you hold the irrational as your standard of value and the impossible as your concept of the good, if you long for rewards you have not earned, for a fortune, or a love you don't deserve, for a loophole in the law of causality, for an A that becomes non-A at your whim, if you desire the opposite of existence-you will reach it. Do not cry, when you reach it, that life is frustration and that happiness is impossible to man; check your fuel: it brought you where you wanted to go.

"Happiness is not to be achieved at the command of emotional whims. Happiness is not the satisfaction of whatever irrational wishes you might blindly attempt to indulge. Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy-a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but of using your mind's fullest power, not the joy of faking reality, but of achieving values that are real, not the joy of a drunkard, but of a producer. Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions.

"Just as I support my life, neither by robbery nor alms, but by my own effort, so I do not seek to derive my happiness from the injury or the favor of others, but earn it by my own achievement. Just as I do not consider the pleasure of others as the goal of my life, so I do not consider my pleasure as the goal of the lives of others. Just as there are no contradictions in my values and no conflicts among my desires-so there are no victims and no conflicts of interest among rational men, men who do not desire the unearned and do not view one another with a cannibal's lust, men who neither make sacrifice nor accept them.

"The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit-his love, his friendship, his esteem-except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure, which he receives from men he can respect. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the traders and held them in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of their sneers: a trader is the entity they dread-a man of justice.

"Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None-except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and their demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don't, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs. I have nothing to gain from fools or cowards; I have no benefits to seek from human vices: from stupidity, dishonesty or fear. The only value men can offer me is the work of their mind. When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.

"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate-do you hear me? no man may start-the use of physical force against others.

"To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force-him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man's capacity to live.

"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason-as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no 'right' to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.

"To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument-is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment: you threaten him with death if he does. You place him into a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life-and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.

"Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: 'Your money or your life,' or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: 'Your children's education or your life,' the meaning of that ultimatum is: 'Your mind or your life'-and neither is possible to man without the other.

"If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others or the moral degenerate who grants to others the right to force his mind. That is the moral absolute one does not leave open to debate. I do not grant the terms of reason to men who propose to deprive me of reason. I do not enter discussions with neighbors who think they can forbid me to think. I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderer's wish to kill me. When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him-by force.

"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil.

"In the name of all the producers who had kept you alive and received your death ultimatums in payment, I now answer you with a single ultimatum of our own: Our work or your guns. You can choose either; you can't have both. We do not initiate the use of force against others or submit to force at their hands. If you desire ever again to live in an industrial society, it Will be on our moral terms. Our terms and our motive power are the antithesis of yours. You have been using fear as your weapon and have been bringing death to man as his punishment for rejecting your morality. We offer him life as his reward for accepting ours.

"You who are worshippers of the zero-you have never discovered that achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death. Joy is not 'the absence of pain,' intelligence is not 'the absence of stupidity,' light is not 'the absence of darkness,' an entity is not 'the absence of a nonentity.' Building is not done by abstaining from demolition; centuries of sitting and waiting in such abstinence will not raise one single girder for you to abstain from demolishing-and now you can no longer say to me, the builder: 'Produce, and feed us in exchange for our not destroying your production.' I am answering in the name of all your victims: Perish with and in your own void. Existence is not a negation of negatives. Evil, not value, is an absence and a negation, evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us. Perish, because we have learned that a zero cannot hold a mortgage over life.

"You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live.

"You, who have lost the concept of the difference, you who claim that fear and joy are incentives of equal power-and secretly add that fear is the more 'practical'-you do not wish to live, and only fear of death still holds you to the existence you have damned. You dart in panic through the trap of your days, looking for the exit you have closed, running from a pursuer you dare not name to a terror you dare not acknowledge, and the greater your terror the greater your dread of the only act that could save you: thinking. The purpose of your struggle is not to know, not to grasp or name or hear the thing. I shall now state to your hearing: that yours is the Morality of Death.

"Death is the standard of your values, death is your chosen goal, and you have to keep running, since there is no escape from the pursuer who is out to destroy you or from the knowledge that that pursuer is yourself. Stop running, for once-there is no place to run-stand naked, as you dread to stand, but as I see you, and take a look at what you dared to call a moral code.

"Damnation is the start of your morality, destruction is its purpose, means and end. Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.

"It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him-it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.

"The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

"A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man's sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

"Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a 'tendency' to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

"What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge-he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil-he became a mortal being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor-he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire-he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they drat him are reason, morality, creativeness; joy-all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was-that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love-he was not man.

"Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

"They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain-and they point at the torture rack to which they've tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body.

"They have cut man in two, setting one half against the other. They have taught him that his body and his consciousness are two enemies engaged in deadly conflict, two antagonists of opposite natures, contradictory claims, incompatible needs, that to benefit one is to injure the other, that his soul belongs to a supernatural realm, but his body is an evil prison holding it in bondage to this earth-and that the good is to defeat his body, to undermine it by years of patient struggle, digging his way to that gorgeous jail-break which leads into the freedom of the grave.

"They have taught man that he is a hopeless misfit made of two elements, both symbols of death. A body without a soul is a corpse, a soul without a body is a ghost-yet such is their image of man's nature: the battleground of a struggle between a corpse and a ghost, a corpse endowed with some evil volition of its own and a ghost endowed with the knowledge that everything known to man is nonexistent, that only the unknowable exists.

"Do you observe what human faculty that' doctrine was designed to ignore? It was man's mind that had to be negated in order to make him fall apart. Once he surrendered reason, he was left at the mercy of two monsters whom he could not fathom or control: of a body moved by unaccountable instincts and of a soul moved by mystic revelations-he was left as the passively ravaged victim of a battle between a robot and a dictaphone.

"And as he now crawls through the wreckage, groping blindly for a way to live, your teachers offer him the help of a morality that proclaims that he'll find no solution and must seek no fulfillment on earth. Real existence, they tell him, is that which he cannot perceive, true consciousness is the faculty of perceiving the non-existent-and if he is unable to understand it, that is the proof that his existence is evil and his consciousness impotent.

"As products of the split between man's soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelation, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter-the enslavement of man's body, in spirit-the destruction of his mind.

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive-a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society-a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man's mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man's standard of value say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure 0f God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man's standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man's right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man's life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth-to his great-grandchildren.

"Selfishness-say both-is man's evil. Man's good-say both-is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; man's good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice-cry both-is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man's reach.

"Whoever is now within reach of my voice, whoever is man the victim, not man the killer, I am speaking at the deathbed of your mind, at the brink of that darkness in which you're drowning, and if there still remains within you the power to struggle to hold on to those fading sparks which had been yourself-use it now. The word that has destroyed you is 'sacrifice.' Use the last of your strength to understand its meaning. You're still alive. You have a chance.

"'Sacrifice' does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. 'Sacrifice' does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. 'Sacrifice' is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don't.

"If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and gave it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor's child and let your own die, it is.

"If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.

"If you renounce all personal desire and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate-that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.

"A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward-if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.

"You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man-and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death.

"If you start, however, as a passionless blank, as a vegetable seeking to be eaten, with no values to reject and no wishes to renounce, you will not win the crown of sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to renounce the unwanted. It is not a sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to give your life for others, if death is your personal desire. To achieve the virtue of sacrifice, you must want to live, you must love it, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the splendor it can give you-you must feel the twist of every knife as it slashes your desires away from your reach and drains your love out of your body, It is not mere death that the morality of sacrifice holds out to you as an ideal, but death by slow torture.

"Do not remind me that it pertains only to this life on earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you.

"If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a 'sacrifice': that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who's willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions.

"Sacrifice could be proper only for those who have nothing to sacrifice-no values, no standards, no judgment-those whose desires are irrational whims, blindly conceived and lightly surrendered. For a man of moral stature, whose desires are born of rational values, sacrifice is the surrender of the right to the wrong, of the good to the evil.

"The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral-a morality that declares its own bankruptcy by confessing that it can't impart to men any personal stake in virtues or value, and that their souls are sewers of depravity, which they must be taught to sacrifice. By his own confession, it is impotent to teach men to be good and can only subject them to constant punishment.

"Are you thinking, in some foggy stupor, that it's only material values that your morality requires you to sacrifice? And what do you think are material values? Matter has no value except as a means for the satisfaction of human desires. Matter is only a tool of human values. To what service are you asked to give the material tools your virtue has produced? To the service of that which you regard as evil: to a principle you do not share, to a person you do not respect, to the achievement of a purpose opposed to your own-else your gift is not a sacrifice.

"Your morality tells you to renounce the material world and to divorce your values from matter. A man whose values are given no expression in material form, whose existence is unrelated to his ideals, whose actions contradict his convictions, is a cheap little hypocrite-yet that is the man who obeys your morality and divorces his values from matter. The man who loves one woman, but sleeps with another-the man who admires the talent of a worker, but hires another-the man who considers one cause to be just, but donates his money to the support of another-the man who holds high standards of craftsmanship, but devotes his effort to the production of trash-these are the men who have renounced matter, the men who believe that the values of their spirit cannot be brought into material reality.

"Do you say it is the spirit that such men have renounced? Yes, of course. You cannot have one without the other. You are an indivisible entity of matter and consciousness. Renounce your consciousness and you become a brute. Renounce your body and you become a fake. Renounce the material world and you surrender it to evil.

"And that is precisely the goal of your morality, the duty that your code demands of you. Give to that which you do not enjoy, serve that which you do not admire, submit to that which you consider evil-surrender the world to the values of others, deny, reject, renounce your self. Your self is your mind; renounce it and you become a chunk of meat ready for any cannibal to swallow.

"It is your mind that they want you to surrender-all those who preach the creed of sacrifice, whatever their tags or their motives, whether they demand it for the sake of your soul or of your body, whether they promise you another life in heaven or a full stomach on this earth. Those who start by saying: 'It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others'-end up by saying: 'It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others.

"This much is true: the most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth. You are asked to sacrifice your intellectual integrity, your logic, your reason, your standard of truth-in favor of becoming a prostitute whose standard is the greatest good for the greatest number.

"If you search your code for guidance, for an answer to the question: 'What is the good?'-the only answer you will find is 'The good of others.' The good is whatever others wish, whatever you feel they feel they wish, or whatever you feel they ought to feel. 'The good of others' is a magic formula that transforms anything into gold, a formula to be recited as a guarantee of moral glory and as a fumigator for any action, even the slaughter of a continent. Your standard of virtue is not an object, not an act, not a principle, but an intention. You need no proof, no reasons, no success, you need not achieve in fact the good of others-all you need to know is that your motive was the good of others, not your own. Your only definition of the good is a negation: the good is the 'non-good for me.'

"Your code-which boasts that it upholds eternal, absolute, objective moral values and scorns the conditional, the relative and the subjective-your code hands out, as its version of the absolute, the following rule of moral conduct: If you wish it, it's evil; if others wish it, it's good; if the motive of your action is your welfare, don't do it; if the motive is the welfare of others, then anything goes.

"As this double-jointed, double-standard morality splits you in half, so it splits mankind into two enemy camps: one is you, the other is all the rest of humanity. You are the only outcast who has no right to wish to live. You are the only servant, the rest are the masters, you are the only giver, the rest are the takers, you are the eternal debtor, the rest are the creditors never to be paid off. You must not question their right to your sacrifice, or the nature of their wishes and their needs: their right is conferred upon them by a negative, by the fact that they are 'non-you.'

"For those of you who might ask questions, your code provides a consolation prize and booby-trap: it is for your own happiness, it says, that you must serve the happiness of others, the only way to achieve your joy is to give it up to others, the only way to achieve your prosperity is to surrender your wealth to others, the only way to protect your life is to protect all men except yourself-and if you find no joy in this procedure, it is your own fault and the proof of your evil; if you were good, you would find your happiness in providing a banquet for others, and your dignity in existing on such crumbs as they might care to toss you.

"You who have no standard of self-esteem, accept the guilt and dare not ask the questions. But you know the unadmitted answer, refusing to acknowledge what you see, what hidden premise moves your world. You know it, not in honest statement, but as a dark uneasiness within you, while you flounder between guilty cheating and grudgingly practicing a principle too vicious to name.

"I, who do not accept the unearned, neither in values nor in guilt, am here to ask the questions you evaded. Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?

"The answer you evade, the monstrous answer is: No, the takers are not evil, provided they did not earn the value you gave them. It is not immoral for them to accept it, provided they are unable to produce it, unable to deserve it, unable to give you any value in return. It is not immoral for them to enjoy it, provided they do not obtain it by right.

"Such is the secret core of your creed, the other half of your double standard: it is immoral to live by your own effort, but moral to live by the effort of others-it is immoral to consume your own product, but moral to consume the products of others-it is immoral to earn, but moral to mooch-it is the parasites who are the moral justification for the existence of the producers, but the existence of the parasites is an end in itself-it is evil to profit by achievement, but good to profit by sacrifice-it is evil to create your own happiness, but good to enjoy it at the price of the blood of others.

"Your code divides mankind into two castes and commands them to live by opposite rules: those who may desire anything and those who may desire nothing, the chosen and the demand, the riders and the carriers, the eaters and the eaten. What standard determines your caste? What passkey admits you to the moral elite? The passkey is lack of value.

"Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who don't lack it. It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards. If you are able to satisfy your need, your ability annuls your right to satisfy it. But a need you are unable to satisfy gives you first right to the lives of mankind.

"If you succeed, any man who fails is your master; if you fail, any man who succeeds is your serf. Whether your failure is just or not, whether your wishes are rational or not, whether your misfortune is undeserved or the result of your vices, it is misfortune that gives you a right to rewards. It is pain, regardless of its nature or cause, pain as a primary absolute, that gives you a mortgage on all of existence.

"If you heal your pain by your own effort, you receive no moral credit: your code regards it scornfully as an act of self-interest. Whatever value you seek to acquire, be it wealth or food or love or rights, if you acquire it by means of your Virtue, your code does not regard it as a moral acquisition: you occasion no loss to anyone, it is a trade, not alms; a payment, not a sacrifice. The deserved belongs in the selfish, commercial realm of mutual profit; it is only the undeserved that calls for that moral transaction which consists of profit to one at the price of disaster to the other. To demand rewards for your virtue is selfish and immoral; it is your lack of virtue that transforms your demand into a moral right.

"A morality that holds need as a claim, holds emptiness-non-existence-as its standard of value; it rewards an absence, a defeat: weakness, inability, incompetence, suffering, disease, disaster, the lack, the fault, the flaw-the zero.

"Who provides the account to pay these claims? Those who are cursed for being non-zeros, each to the extent of his distance from that ideal. Since all values are the product of virtues, the degree of your virtue is used as the measure of your penalty; the degree of your faults is used as the measure of your gain. Your code declares that the rational man must sacrifice himself to the irrational, the independent man to parasites, the honest man to the dishonest, the man of justice to the unjust, the productive man to thieving loafers, the man of integrity to compromising knaves, the man of self-esteem to sniveling neurotics. Do you wonder at the meanness of soul in those you see around you? The man who achieves these virtues will not accept your moral code; the man who accepts your moral code will not achieve these virtues.

"Under a morality of sacrifice, the first value you sacrifice is morality; the next is self-esteem. When need is the standard, every man is both victim and parasite. As a victim, he must labor to fill the needs of others, leaving himself in the position of a parasite whose needs must be filled by others. He cannot approach his fellow men except in one of two disgraceful roles: he is both a beggar and a sucker.

"You fear the man who has a dollar less than you, that dollar is rightfully his, he makes you feel like a moral defrauder. You hate the man who has a dollar more than you, that dollar is rightfully yours, he makes you feel that you are morally defrauded. The man below is a source of, your guilt, the man above is a source of your frustration. You do not know what to surrender or demand, when to give and when to grab, what pleasure in life is rightfully yours and what debt is still unpaid to others-you struggle to evade, as 'theory,' the knowledge that by the moral standard you've accepted you are guilty every moment of your life, there is no mouthful of food you swallow that is not needed by someone somewhere on earth-and you give up the problem in blind resentment, you conclude that moral perfection is not to be achieved or desired, that you will muddle through by snatching as snatch can and by avoiding the eyes of the young, of those who look at you as if self-esteem were possible and they expected you to have it. Guilt is all that you retain within your soul-and so does every other man, as he goes past, avoiding your eyes. Do you wonder why your morality has not achieved brotherhood on earth or the good will of man to man?

"The justification of sacrifice, that your morality propounds, is more corrupt than the corruption it purports to justify. The motive of your sacrifice, it tells you, should be love-the love you ought to feel for every man. A morality that professes the belief that the values of the spirit are more precious than matter, a morality that teaches you to scorn a whore who gives her body indiscriminately to all men-this same morality demands that you surrender your soul to promiscuous love for all comers.

"As there can be no causeless wealth, so there can be no causeless love or any sort of causeless emotion. An emotion is a response to a face of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards. To love is to value. The man who tells you that it is possible to value without values, to love those whom you appraise as worthless, is the man who tells you that it is possible to grow rich by consuming without producing and that paper money is as valuable as gold.

"Observe that he does not expect you to feel a causeless fear. When his kind get into power, they are expert at contriving means of terror, at giving you ample cause to feel the fear by which they desire to rule you. But when it comes to love, the highest of emotions, you permit them to shriek at you accusingly that you are a moral delinquent if you're incapable of feeling causeless love. When a man feels fear without reason, you call him to the attention of a psychiatrist; you are not so careful to protect the meaning, the nature and the dignity of love.

"Love is the expression of one's values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another. Your morality demands that you divorce your love from values and hand it down to any vagrant, not as response to his worth, but as response to his need, not as reward, but as alms, not as a payment for virtues, but as a blank check on vices. Your morality tells you that the purpose of love is to set you free of the bonds of morality, that love is superior to moral judgment, that true love transcends, forgives and survives every manner of evil in its object, and the greater the love the greater the depravity it permits to the loved. To love a man for his virtues is paltry and human, it tells you; to love him for his flaws is divine. To love those who are worthy of it is self-interest; to love the unworthy is sacrifice. You owe your love to those who don't deserve it, and the less they deserve it, the more love you owe them-the more loathsome the object, the nobler your love-the more unfastidious your love, the greater the virtue-and if you can bring your soul to the state of a dump heap that welcomes anything on equal terms, if you can cease to value moral values, you have achieved the state of moral perfection.

"Such is your morality of sacrifice and such are the twin ideals it offers: to refashion the life of your body in the image of a human stockyard, and the life of your spirit in the image of a dump.

"Such was your goal-and you've reached it. Why do you now moan complaints about man's impotence and the futility of human aspirations? Because you were unable to prosper by seeking destruction? Because you were unable to find joy by worshipping pain? Because you were unable to live by holding death as your standard of value?

"The degree of your ability to live was the degree to which you broke your moral code, yet you believe that those who preach it are friends of humanity, you drat yourself and dare not question their motives or their goals. Take a look at them now, when you face your last choice-and if you choose to perish, do so with full knowledge of how cheaply so small an enemy has claimed your life.

"The mystics of both schools, who preach the creed of sacrifice, are germs that attack you through a single sore: your fear of relying on your mind. They tell you that they possess a means of knowledge higher than the mind, a mode of consciousness superior to reason-like a special pull with some bureaucrat of the universe who gives them secret tips withheld from others. The mystics of spirit declare that they possess an extra sense you lack: this special sixth sense consists of contradicting the whole of the knowledge of your five. The mystics of muscle do not bother to assert any claim to extrasensory perception: they merely declare that your senses are not valid, and that their wisdom consists of perceiving your blindness by some manner of unspecified means. Both kinds demand that you invalidate your own consciousness and surrender yourself into their power. They offer you, as proof of their superior knowledge, the fact that they assert the opposite of everything you know, and as proof of their superior ability to deal with existence, the fact that they lead you to misery, self-sacrifice, starvation, destruction.

"They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it 'another dimension,' which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it 'the future,' which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say-and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge-God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue 'is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.

"It is only the metaphysics of a leech that would cling to the idea of a universe where a zero is a standard of identification. A leech would want to seek escape from the necessity to name its own nature-escape from the necessity to know that the substance on which it builds its private universe is blood.

"What is the nature of that superior world to which they sacrifice the world that exists? The mystics of spirit curse matter, the mystics of muscle curse profit the first wish men to profit by renouncing the earth, the second wish men to inherit the earth by renouncing all profit. Their non-material, non-profit worlds are realms where rivers run with milk and coffee, where wine spurts from rocks at their command, where pastry drops on them from clouds at the price of opening their mouth. On this material, profit-chasing earth, an enormous investment of virtue-of intelligence, integrity, energy, skill-is required to construct a railroad to carry them the distance of one mile; in their non-material, non-profit world, they travel from planet to planet at the cost of a wish. If an honest person asks them: 'How?'-they answer with righteous scorn that a 'how' is the concept of vulgar realists; the concept of superior spirits is 'Somehow.' On this earth restricted by matter and profit, rewards are achieved by thought; in a world set free of such restrictions, rewards are achieved by wishing.

"And that is the whole of their shabby secret. The secret of all their esoteric philosophies, of all their dialectics and super-senses, of their evasive eyes and snarling words, the secret for which they destroy civilization, language, industries and lives, the secret for which they pierce their own eyes and eardrums, grind out their senses, blank out their minds, the purpose for which they dissolve the absolutes of reason, logic, matter, existence, reality-is to erect upon that plastic fog a single holy absolute: their Wish.

"The restriction they seek to escape is the law of identity. The freedom they seek is freedom from the fact that an A will remain an A, no matter what their tears or tantrums-that a river will not bring them milk, no matter what their hunger-that water will not run uphill, no matter what comforts they could gain if it did, and if they want to lift it to the roof of a skyscraper, they must do it by a process of thought and labor, in which the nature of an inch of pipe line counts, but their feelings do not-that their feelings are impotent to alter the course of a single speck of dust in space or the nature of any action they have committed.

"Those who tell you that man is unable to perceive a reality undistorted by his senses, mean that they are unwilling to perceive a reality undistorted by their feelings. 'Things as they are' are things as perceived by your mind; divorce them from reason and they become 'things as perceived by your wishes.'

"There is no honest revolt against reason-and when you accept any part of their creed, your motive is to get away with something your reason would not permit you to attempt. The freedom you seek is freedom from the fact that if you stole your wealth, you are a scoundrel, no matter how much you give to charity or how many prayers you recite-that if you sleep with sluts, you're not a worthy husband, no matter how anxiously you feel that you love our wife next morning-that you are an entity, not a series of random pieces scattered through a universe where nothing sticks and nothing commits you to anything, the universe of a child's nightmare where identities switch and swim, where the rotter and the hero are interchangeable parts arbitrarily assumed at will-that you are a man-that you are an entity-that you are.

"No matter how eagerly you claim that the goal of your mystic wishing is a higher mode of life, the rebellion against identity is the wish for non-existence. The desire not to be anything is the desire not to be.

"Your teachers, the mystics of both schools, have reversed causality in their consciousness, then strive to reverse it in existence. They take their emotions as a cause, and their mind as a passive effect. They make their emotions their tool for perceiving reality. They hold their desires as an irreducible primary, as a fact superseding all facts. An honest man does not desire until he has identified the object of his desire. He says: 'It is, therefore I want it.' They say: 'I want it, therefore it is.'

"They want to cheat the axiom of existence and consciousness, they want their consciousness to be an instrument not of perceiving but of creating existence, and existence to be not the object but the subject of their consciousness-they want to be that God they created in their image and likeness, who creates a universe out of a void by means of an arbitrary whim. But reality is not to be cheated. What they achieve is the opposite of their desire. They want an omnipotent power over existence; instead, they lose the power of the consciousness. By refusing to know, they condemn themselves to the horror of a perpetual unknown.

I noticed this wasn't on the new page

Zuul the Cat
Dec 24, 2006

Grimey Drawer

chutche2 posted:

I think the only ones that can take it are rangers and vanguard, right? They'll be flinging plasma or sniper shots around which is when it's relevant.

Yeah, just the Rangers and Vanguard, but phosphor negation applies to any further shooting for the rest of the turn. Better bang for your buck.

Dr Hemulen
Jan 25, 2003

Shadin posted:

If nothing else I guess it's good to get a firsthand reminder of how terrible Atlas Shrugged is.

drat, somebody published that? My money was on 'fanfiction'

darnon
Nov 8, 2009

Zuul the Cat posted:

Yeah, just the Rangers and Vanguard, but phosphor negation applies to any further shooting for the rest of the turn. Better bang for your buck.

Luminagen is gone now, though, isn't it? Phosphor weapons only negate cover on their own attacks on 8th.

Shadin
Jun 28, 2009

HardCoil posted:

drat, somebody published that? My money was on 'fanfiction'

You're wrong, yet also right.

Also to post something besides addressing the terrible pseudo-philosophy, are there any Minnesota goons out there? I'm just getting into the game for the first time with Dark Imperium and figured I'd start looking for some action in the Twin Cities.

BaconCopter
Feb 13, 2008

:coolfish:

:coolfish:
I don't know about you all, but I am totally down for probating every person that posted or quoted any Ayn Rand poo poo in this thread.

Less poo poo, more cool pics. Anyone painting any nids up after the new edition?

jng2058
Jul 17, 2010

We have the tools, we have the talent!





Yay, "Atlas Shrugged", providing selfish assholes an excuse for their assholery since 1957! Ignoring the inconvenient fact that they are not, in fact, oppressed geniuses who aren't able to contribute to society because those loving poor people are keeping them down but are, instead, just a bunch of entitled pricks who can't prove mastery of anything more significant than CTRL-C and CTRL-P. You can tell, because if they could, they'd have been able to give us anything better than this 60 year old poo poo. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I was putting together a 1500 point Imperium army, mostly Guard and Marines, and started looking at a vehicle heavy army. In my last game the Russ and Razorback I brought got Dark Lanced or Blastered into oblivion in a couple of turns. Has anyone had much success with going really tank heavy? I was looking at something like a Land Raider, a couple of Russes, a Razorback or two, and a handful of infantry to ride in the transports. I've heard that all Dread could be viable, but that's got a melee component that Tanks can only get from embarked infantry.

Thoughts?

JBP
Feb 16, 2017

You've got to know, to understand,
Baby, take me by my hand,
I'll lead you to the promised land.
Dirty Dancing is my favourite movie because it takes time out to make fun of people that read Ayn Rand.

Living Image
Apr 24, 2010

HORSE'S ASS

Hey tkwd - Forge World still sucks, but not as hard as you do

ijyt
Apr 10, 2012

BaconCopter posted:

I don't know about you all, but I am totally down for probating every person that posted or quoted any Ayn Rand poo poo in this thread.

Less poo poo, more cool pics. Anyone painting any nids up after the new edition?

Corrode posted:

Hey tkwd - Forge World still sucks, but not as hard as you do

jng2058 posted:

Yay, "Atlas Shrugged", providing selfish assholes an excuse for their assholery since 1957! Ignoring the inconvenient fact that they are not, in fact, oppressed geniuses who aren't able to contribute to society because those loving poor people are keeping them down but are, instead, just a bunch of entitled pricks who can't prove mastery of anything more significant than CTRL-C and CTRL-P. You can tell, because if they could, they'd have been able to give us anything better than this 60 year old poo poo. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I was putting together a 1500 point Imperium army, mostly Guard and Marines, and started looking at a vehicle heavy army. In my last game the Russ and Razorback I brought got Dark Lanced or Blastered into oblivion in a couple of turns. Has anyone had much success with going really tank heavy? I was looking at something like a Land Raider, a couple of Russes, a Razorback or two, and a handful of infantry to ride in the transports. I've heard that all Dread could be viable, but that's got a melee component that Tanks can only get from embarked infantry.

Thoughts?

quote:

Thoughts?
Imagine getting this upset by forum posting.

Fuegan
Aug 23, 2008

BaconCopter posted:

I don't know about you all, but I am totally down for probating every person that posted or quoted any Ayn Rand poo poo in this thread.

Less poo poo, more cool pics. Anyone painting any nids up after the new edition?

Yup!



Recently finished the gaunts as a speed painting experiment. They're a quicker technique than the warriors (drybrushed red, less highlight layers) but they'll do for getting them on the table at least. Nearly finished a Trygon as well.

Living Image
Apr 24, 2010

HORSE'S ASS

ijyt posted:

Imagine getting this upset by forum posting.

You suck also

Zaphod42
Sep 13, 2012

If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.

BaconCopter posted:

Less poo poo, more cool pics. Anyone painting any nids up after the new edition?

Yep I'm working on this crazy vibrant new scheme:





Stripping a bunch of my old 'nids right now, just took them out of the dunk tank and they're back to primer so I can start fresh.

ijyt
Apr 10, 2012

Corrode posted:

You suck also

lmao we all suck down here in the Warhammer 40,000 thread, traditional games sub-forum.

xtothez
Jan 4, 2004


College Slice

BaconCopter posted:

Less poo poo, more cool pics. Anyone painting any nids up after the new edition?

Picked up these guys just before 8E release because I always liked the new kit and they have playable rules now:


I've also painted up over two dozen more genestealers in the last week as they've been the star unit in pretty much every game I've played.

Genghis Cohen
Jun 29, 2013
[quote="xtothez" post=""474248392"]
I've also painted up over two dozen more genestealers in the last week as they've been the star unit in pretty much every game I've played.
[/quote]

One of my main warhammer buddies plays tyranids and has always favoured the stealers. He's really gone all in on them in this edition, including 2 units of 20 in most of his lists. They loving blend anything they hit, although personally I think he'd be better off with 3-4 units and the same total number.

But Sunday he played the marines and found himself staring down the barrels of a land raider redeemer. He had no shooting of note in his entire army. It killed whole units in overwatch!

xtothez
Jan 4, 2004


College Slice

Genghis Cohen posted:

One of my main warhammer buddies plays tyranids and has always favoured the stealers. He's really gone all in on them in this edition, including 2 units of 20 in most of his lists. They loving blend anything they hit, although personally I think he'd be better off with 3-4 units and the same total number.

In 8E you need to keep critical mass with 'stealers as they lose bonus attacks if the unit has <10 models left. It's literally a case of 10 making 40 attacks, but if you lose just one model that drops to 27 attacks.

It's so easy to lose a few getting into combat I would never risk taking a starting size of 10 - in fact for my game tonight I'm bringing 3 x 15.

BaconCopter
Feb 13, 2008

:coolfish:

:coolfish:

Some drat fine bugs right there. Loving the highlights on the head carapace, they look phenomenal!


This scheme is total warm and fuzzies. The neon colors are totally 2nd edition and I love it.


Tough and amazing lookin' bugs! Your army shots really show how much of a difference basing makes. The (assumingly) older griblies with that dark contrast to the bright colors. Get a few full army shots in here soon please.

I have a stash full of not build or semi-painted Tyranids and I've been trying to find the motivation to finish them. Denver area here...

Artum
Feb 13, 2012

DUN da dun dun da DUUUN
Soiled Meat
I'm guessing the spanish rules for reivers are from first strike or whatever since they actually explain And They Shall Know No Fear on the datasheet. That and if you're playing on a 2'x2' mat deep strike would be somewhat unnecessary. Guess ill hold off on buying reivers until the codex comes out though since a squad of 3 footslogging melee guys for 4 power is useless atm.

Genghis Cohen
Jun 29, 2013

xtothez posted:

It's so easy to lose a few getting into combat I would never risk taking a starting size of 10 - in fact for my game tonight I'm bringing 3 x 15.

I was aware of the rule, but against most of his opponents there is a big level of overkill there. 9 stealers will mince any of my imperial guard units for example. You're probably right that units of 15 is about optimum.

LordAba
Oct 22, 2012

by FactsAreUseless

Genghis Cohen posted:

I was aware of the rule, but against most of his opponents there is a big level of overkill there. 9 stealers will mince any of my imperial guard units for example. You're probably right that units of 15 is about optimum.

At the same time going against anything that is marine or better without critical mass is asking to bounce your rending rolls. 15 is a good number, and adrenal glands are almost a necessity to try to avoid massed 8" flamers.

DiHK
Feb 4, 2013

by Azathoth

That's a fair asceii equivalent.

Master Twig
Oct 25, 2007

I want to branch out and I'm going to stick with it.

LordAba posted:

At the same time going against anything that is marine or better without critical mass is asking to bounce your rending rolls. 15 is a good number, and adrenal glands are almost a necessity to try to avoid massed 8" flamers.

I don't think genestealers can take adrenal glands. Just toxin sacs, but that gets pricy at 4ppm. Purestrains can't take either.

Zuul the Cat
Dec 24, 2006

Grimey Drawer

darnon posted:

Luminagen is gone now, though, isn't it? Phosphor weapons only negate cover on their own attacks on 8th.

*sigh* I misread that. Every time I learn something new about the changes to AdMech it further increases my desire to never field them.

NORTH-HALL
Jan 15, 2005
"Barney comes to play with us whenever we may need him!"

xtothez posted:

Picked up these guys just before 8E release because I always liked the new kit and they have playable rules now:


Tyranid bloodbowl teams looking hella sick.

Naramyth
Jan 22, 2009

Australia cares about cunts. Including this one.

jng2058 posted:

Yay, "Atlas Shrugged", providing selfish assholes an excuse for their assholery since 1957! Ignoring the inconvenient fact that they are not, in fact, oppressed geniuses who aren't able to contribute to society because those loving poor people are keeping them down but are, instead, just a bunch of entitled pricks who can't prove mastery of anything more significant than CTRL-C and CTRL-P. You can tell, because if they could, they'd have been able to give us anything better than this 60 year old poo poo. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I was putting together a 1500 point Imperium army, mostly Guard and Marines, and started looking at a vehicle heavy army. In my last game the Russ and Razorback I brought got Dark Lanced or Blastered into oblivion in a couple of turns. Has anyone had much success with going really tank heavy? I was looking at something like a Land Raider, a couple of Russes, a Razorback or two, and a handful of infantry to ride in the transports. I've heard that all Dread could be viable, but that's got a melee component that Tanks can only get from embarked infantry.

Thoughts?

razorspam/rifledreads is totally a thing.

Genghis Cohen
Jun 29, 2013

Zuul the Cat posted:

*sigh* I misread that. Every time I learn something new about the changes to AdMech it further increases my desire to never field them.

Admech are loving great mate. My friend's grav cannon destroyers, onager dunecrawler and kastelan robots, all supported by tech priests, absolutely terrorised me.,

Zuul the Cat
Dec 24, 2006

Grimey Drawer

Genghis Cohen posted:

Admech are loving great mate. My friend's grav cannon destroyers, onager dunecrawler and kastelan robots, all supported by tech priests, absolutely terrorised me.,

I did better with them in 7th, although barely.

So far I've really struggled to figure out how to make them all work together and haven't won a single game with them.

bonds0097
Oct 23, 2010

I would cry but I don't think I can spare the moisture.
Pillbug

Der Waffle Mous posted:

Okay so I'm doing some 30k Imperial Fists and while I've been passably free handing the chapter insignia on my characters and terminators I really don't want to have to do that for 40+ power armor jobbers.

I found some of my old transfer sheets from before they made them Ultras-only and they're goddamn terrible and don't fit the contour of a mk.3 shoulder pad at all.

What are my options here?

I would personally either get some insignias from pop goes the monkey on shapeway or just buy the imperial fists shoulder pads from FW, they have mk 3 ones I think.

The Sex Cannon
Nov 22, 2004

Eh. I'm pretty content with my current logo.

OhDearGodNo posted:

How many points or PL for the HAMSLAM? I want to know how much I need to quickly paint/assemble.

I was gonna bring 1500 points of Steel Legion.

JesusIsTehCool
Aug 26, 2002

Zuul the Cat posted:

I did better with them in 7th, although barely.

So far I've really struggled to figure out how to make them all work together and haven't won a single game with them.

Oh man... now I feel even more like a dick for the list I have made for Sunday...

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Zuul the Cat
Dec 24, 2006

Grimey Drawer

JesusIsTehCool posted:

Oh man... now I feel even more like a dick for the list I have made for Sunday...

Don't sweat it! I'm taking 1/2 Primaris and i'm also expecting to lose. I'll be shocked and amazed if I manage to pull out a win with my AdMech.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply