Results 241 to 270 of 1476
-
2020-06-25, 11:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
With armies that don't ignore Morale, you typically see one or two max-sized unit (generally, to maximize single-target abilities [e.g; Psychic Powers and Stratagems]), surrounded by MSU, because it's more economical, gives greater board control, gives more access to special/leader wargear, etc.
e.g;
Intercessors (x10); Stalker Bolt Rifles
Intercessors (x5); Bolt Rifles, AGL, BR & Power Fist
Intercessors (x5); Bolt Rifles, AGL, BR & Power Fist
Intercessors (x5); Bolt Rifles, AGL, BR & Power Fist
Intercessors (x5); Bolt Rifles, AGL, BR & Power Fist
Intercessors (x5); Bolt Rifles, AGL, BR & Power Fist
Or...
Ork Boyz (x30)
Ork Boyz (x30)
Gretchin (x10)
Gretchin (x10)
Gretchin (x10)
Gretchin (x10)
...Same thing.
But still, there is no benefit to a 'middle ground' of seven Marines, or like, a unit of 14 Boyz.
-
2020-06-25, 11:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Lima, Peru
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
Unless they are troops. And then Vehicles chew up the points anyways.
3. More bodies for grabbing objectives.
4. More chaff bodies keeping your special weapons users (like the GSC units that can only take so many webbers and mining lasers) from dying.
Cool. Space Marines have no reason to not be MSU. What about other armies?
Blast weapons are really bad against non-Horde lists, since when they're tagged in melee, unlike any other gun, they turn off. There's an incentive, now, for you to not use blast weapons against non-Horde lists.
Even aside from that, hordes can be good, even with Morale and Blast weapons.
If a weapon is extremely effective against every unit in the game and the game centralizes around them, that is a problem with that weapon, not the underlying system.
-
2020-06-25, 11:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
Good point. MSU is really useful for [Action] Objectives. You would prefer to lose 5 models' worth of shooting, than say, 10, 15 or even 20.
If Frag Grendes have Blast (and I'm almost certain that they will), Intercessors with AGLs are about to get real good.
And Missile Launchers are going to be the best Heavy weapon again (like they were in basically every other edition except 7th Ed... Something about Relentless Grav-Cannons being things that existed...)...Aside from Assault Cannons, but Devastators don't get those.
As I've said, in 9th Ed., it looks like Imperial Fists are going to have everything going for them. Of the two meta-shifts I predict, IFs counter both of them, at the same time.
Even though my Faction looks like it's about to be a meta-buster, regardless of the direction that the meta actually takes... I'm still sad.
-
2020-06-25, 11:23 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Durham, UK
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
I’m mostly thinking about the unending FB comments tbf, which are almost always along the lines of ‘where are my new [insert army here]’. But the experience of ork players (and other factions like Dark Eldar) shows the problem of the model led approach: remember, I’m not saying this is the best way for things to be, but it’s the reality of how GW operates, and is very unlikely to change from that, as they are models led.
Basically, the scenarios under which new rules will be written for a faction are:
- There is a new range of models in the pipeline for them. This is the default driver
- There has been sufficient edition change to require a brand new codex. This is what we saw in 8th
- There is a push to update all armies with additional rules. This is what we saw with Psychic Awakening.
There is no other route by which GW will give sufficient resource to the design team to update rules, and each of these is a major project within the company. Chapter Approved has been used a bit to push stuff out, but tends to be stuff they were thinking of including in later rules anyway.
To go back to the original point of discussion, what this means is that there isn’t really a model that can support regular updates to all factions at once AND that is compatible with GW’s operating model. What GW wants, corporately, is for regular, big, heavy releases tied up with new models. What people focussed on the rules want is regular updates to whichever faction they play.
To riff on Cheesegear’s favourite saying: rules only exist to sell models. GW is model led, therefore regular rules updates generally won’t happen without some tie to the model production process: the codex releases in 8th were an anomaly due to the complete system overhaul, I’m expecting a much slower schedule of releases in 9th.
THAT SAID, this is part of the reason I’ve been saying for a long time that a rules app is an important step. If GW has an app it shifts from a game as product model (requiring the tie to regular new releases) to a game as service model, allowing a much more steady flow of rules releases. That will be a definite positive to the game, and would help break down the problems of the model I outline above (as ever, I’m not defending the current model, simply trying to understand it and so understand how it can be improved).
Edit: interesting and perplexing update to Tau: they basically get Overwatch as they did before. On the one hand, they needed a boost under the new Overwatch rules, but on the other hand, going back to exactly what they had before, including the shared overwatch, is really surprising.Last edited by Avaris; 2020-06-25 at 11:40 AM.
Evil round every corner, careful not to step in any.
-
2020-06-25, 11:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
-
2020-06-25, 11:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Lima, Peru
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
The large majority of people (myself included) do not want new UNITS though; we want plastic non-ugly non-finecrap non-old and janky metal versions of existing units. Yes there are a few glaring holes (Tyranid LoW when?) but for the most part its less about new things and more about making existing things better / easier to find / prettier.
As for the update cycle, I sincerely hope you're wrong. The new standard for 9th means that armies without a new codex will work all wonky. I wish they had a release schedule similar to PA: Updated Codices for 4 or so factions every month; tie new plastic releases or vs boxes to them if you want, but be done with it in like half a year.
-
2020-06-25, 11:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
Despite making record profits?
To go back to the original point of discussion, what this means is that there isn’t really a model that can support regular updates to all factions at once AND that is compatible with GW’s operating model.
What GW wants, corporately, is for regular, big, heavy releases tied up with new models. What people focussed on the rules want is regular updates to whichever faction they play.
Imaging running a company where you don't do what your consumers want you to do? It feels insane, and I genuinely don't know how GW is making those record profits.
Oh right. Sky-high prices and reducing staff costs.
(Also, apparently ~20% of their profit comes from 'royalties' and the pumping out of video games?)
To riff on Cheesegear’s favourite saying: rules only exist to sell models.
You've got a box of models, you've got an entire Faction, sitting on the shelf.
Release day; Reviews come out saying that everything is garbage and nobody should buy (I like using my hypothetical Wolves in Space, for an example).
You are not moving stock, because the majority of your player base doesn't play Wolves in Space.
The ones who do play Wolves in Space, are unhappy, because nothing has really changed, and also, there are no new models. What they already have, works well enough (Werewolves and Wolves-riding-Wolves) and nothing is different from the Index - not really. Why buy anything, if nothing has changed? GW even managed to fail an invalidating Wolves in Space's existing army build.
The ones who don't play Wolves in Space, but could, are turned off by how terrible they've heard that Wolves in Space, are.
Ergo, nobody buys anything.
How is it not in the company's interest, to write new rules? Effectively immediately, and effective immediately?
You've got ****loads of stock that isn't moving. You can fix it, by simply making an Errata document. You know all those YouTubers you gave review copies of the Codex to, those same YouTubers who couldn't really talk about the Codex without saying a ton of negative comments and thus, losing their access to GW? Yeah. Them. Ask them what's wrong with the Codex, ask them how to fix it. People aren't stupid, they're willing to try and fix your game.
GW is model led, therefore regular rules updates generally won’t happen without some tie to the model production process
Vyper Jetbikes don't sell.
Change the rules.
Vyper Jetbikes start selling.
It's that easy. GW does not have to make new models, in order to sell existing models.
-
2020-06-25, 12:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Durham, UK
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
Honestly, I hope I'm wrong as well! Getting regular updates to armies would be a good thing, which is why I'm hopeful the app is going to lead to that sort of change.
It's that easy. GW does not have to make new models, in order to sell existing models.
Is it stupid? Yes. Does it mean their operating model should change? Also yes: there should be more focus on existing product lines and getting the most possible value out of them. But it's really going against what we know of how GW operates, and a ship/corporate culture that large takes time to change. I think they're shifting though.
This all ties back to why I don't think 40k is a good place to look if you want a good game for tournaments: it's really not set up to support it. The rules are written to provide a reasonably satisfying experience as a way of using the models players have invested in, but they aren't going to win any awards for game design!
Edit: also, as far as I can tell, GW doesn't actually keep all that much stock: if something starts selling loads, they're having to make more of it. Old stock that doesn't sell isn't actually that much of a cost to them.Last edited by Avaris; 2020-06-25 at 12:07 PM.
Evil round every corner, careful not to step in any.
-
2020-06-25, 12:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
- Location
- Oxford, UK
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
You've got ****loads of stock that isn't moving. You can fix it, by simply making an Errata document. You know all those YouTubers you gave review copies of the Codex to, those same YouTubers who couldn't really talk about the Codex without saying a ton of negative comments and thus, losing their access to GW? Yeah. Them. Ask them what's wrong with the Codex, ask them how to fix it. People aren't stupid, they're willing to try and fix your game.- Avatar by LCP -
-
2020-06-25, 12:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Lima, Peru
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
Thats not new rules, thats bad QA because it was only present in some languages. More like misaligned text or typos, less "we know these rules are junk so here are fixes".
You've got a box of models, you've got an entire Faction, sitting on the shelf.
Also, Sales Reps will keep pushing adding lines to your account, which do come with some nice benefits but are a huge cash sink, as you will be pestered often to show pictures of your shelves to prove the mandatory stuff (and it can be a long ass list, depending on your tier) hasnt sold, and will auto-include it the moment it sold if you want to bring in any GW product. Last year Fenrisian Wolves were in the stockist program, so I had it in the shelf for a long, long time. Eventually someone sold it so I made a ton of pictures of it before shipping it, to keep sending them in during stock checks.
-
2020-06-25, 12:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Durham, UK
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
Basically, people will complain about anything GW does. I’m really not convinced there is anything they can do that will be met with universal acclaim...
GW produces rules with no errata follow up: people complain
GW produces rules and regularly follow up with errata: people complain
GW introduces new edition that requires complete refresh of all codexes: people complain
GW introduces new edition that preserves older codexes, supported with errata where necessary: people complain
GW introduces terrain rules tgat are simple but not very meaningful: people complain
GW makes terrain rules a more significant part of the game: people complain
GW writes rules that are open to interpretation and exploitation by edge cases: people complain
GW writes much more detailed rules that close off the need for interpretation and edge cases: people complainEvil round every corner, careful not to step in any.
-
2020-06-25, 12:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Lima, Peru
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
Thats a huge strawman.
GW produces rules with no errata follow up: people complain
GW produces rules and regularly follow up with errata: people complain
GW introduces new edition that requires complete refresh of all codexes: people complain
GW introduces new edition that preserves older codexes, supported with errata where necessary: people complain
GW introduces terrain rules that are simple but not very meaningful: people complain
GW makes terrain rules a more significant part of the game: people complain
GW writes rules that are open to interpretation and exploitation by edge cases: people complain
GW writes much more detailed rules that close off the need for interpretation and edge cases: people complain[
-
2020-06-25, 12:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
-
2020-06-25, 12:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
Well, yes.
GW produces rules and regularly follow up with errata: people complain
QoL updates twice a year, after Adepticon and NOVA, and major points overhauls once a year.
That's not enough. It's not that GW was doing the wrong thing. It's that they should've been doing the right thing, more.
GW introduces new edition that requires complete refresh of all codexes: people complain
(Except for the people who also missed out during Vigilus [e.g; Necrons, again*]. And Deathwatch and Harlequins getting their 'joke' Psychic Awakening update)
GW introduces new edition that preserves older codexes, supported with errata where necessary: people complain
GW introduces terrain rules tgat are simple but not very meaningful: people complain
GW makes terrain rules a more significant part of the game: people complain
GW then doubles down, by giving every piece of terrain, the one meaningful rule. Now everything feels the same. You fixed it, by ruining it. It's not that the rules are different now. It's that all terrain, now feels identical...And that's probably not what GW was aiming for, and it's almost definitely not what consumers wanted. Welcome to new Terrain, it's the same as the old Terrain, but now there's more of it.
GW writes rules that are open to interpretation and exploitation by edge cases: people complain
GW writes much more detailed rules that close off the need for interpretation and edge cases: people complain
People might complain if the detailed rule significantly nerfs their Faction for no reason ('sup Grey Knights). But that ties into your first point about throwing down errata and then providing no support.
*Vigilus is a great example of exactly what not to do...Everyone gets new rules at the same time! ...Except you, and you.
-
2020-06-25, 12:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Durham, UK
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
I knew I should have added a ‘examples exaggerated to make the point’ disclaimer. Important point though, is this:
Yes, exactly. That’s what I’m getting at. The customer base IS hugely varied, there is nothing GW can do that will make everyone happy. So ninth needs to be judged on what it set out to do, which is what I always say. 8th suceeded at it’s goals, no doubt about that, but it also had flaws, which 9th is aiming to fix.Evil round every corner, careful not to step in any.
-
2020-06-25, 12:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- BFE
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
SpoilerBossing Around Mad Cats for Fun and Profit: Let's Play MechCommander 2!
Kicking this LP into overdrive: Let's Play StarCraft 2!
-
2020-06-25, 12:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Lima, Peru
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
As mentioned, releasing everything at once then having theme weeks for new models / new datasheets / faction focus / alternamodes would be enjoyed by all. Also, I doubt anyone would complain about an x0% price slash across the board (or that anyone actually likes the yearly increases for that matter).
My complaint is as usual that I dont think their perceived target audience is the same audience that is currently buying GW product. But at this point, its all just wait and see.
-
2020-06-25, 01:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Durham, UK
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
Complaining about everything seems to have become an ingrained part of internet nerd culture, and it really is very tiresome at this stage.
I’d be interested to know what you perceive the target audience vs the actual audience as? I suspect it varies massively by locale though, which isn’t great for you if your audience varies significantly from that elsewhere.Evil round every corner, careful not to step in any.
-
2020-06-25, 01:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
- Location
- Oxford, UK
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
Complaining about everything seems to have become an ingrained part of internet nerd culture, and it really is very tiresome at this stage.- Avatar by LCP -
-
2020-06-25, 01:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
1. Not for troop choices. But Brigades are still a thing too, so you can just aim to build one of those if you really need some more slots.
2. That one is true.
3. If I have three five man squads on an objective, and you have one 15 man squad on the objective who has more? MSU doesn't prevent you from holding objectives at all.
4. Better to go MSU and just get more special weapons in total.
5. Very true.
6. Well now there is a strat to get out of wrapping.
Most armies don't. The only armies I can think of that do want big units is things like Orks, Demons and Tyranids where they do get bonuses for being above 20 models.Spoiler: I'm a writer!Spoiler: Check out my fanfiction[URL="https://www.fanfiction.net/u/7493788/Forum-Explorer"here[/URL]
]Fate Stay Nano: Fate Stay Night x Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha
I Fell in Love with a Storm: MLP
Procrastination: MLP
Spoiler: Original FictionThe Lost Dragon: A story about a priest who finds a baby dragon in his church and decides to protect them.
-
2020-06-25, 04:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
Yeah I'll admit that was odd and the faction preview for Tau left me pretty underwhelmed with everything. The change the fly rule also go "Well that's a thing" so one model clipping a riptide basically stalls it from shooting at something more important because it has to shoot into melee and can't fall back to shoot anymore.
So my take on Tau in 9th so far from what we've seen:
Pros:
+ Heavy weapon changes: now tanks flying and broadsides/riptides moving keep accuracy without markerlights (which is actually a con for markerlights). It lets a suit build keep moving and shooting without going to Ork accuracy.
+ Blast weapon changes: Assuming ion weapons get blast then thinning hordes will be a bit easier but this is a bit of a corner case.
+ Assault changes: No more charging a close unit and tacking on a far unit "just in case" so they can get swings in.
+Overwatch: the fact we get to keep 8th's overwatch is good as is the ability to post up units on terrain for a 5+ to hit with it (if this stacks with the T'au sept trait then that's crazy but my gut says no so maybe more septs will see play?) makes it nicer as well.
Cons:
- Heavy weapons changes: Markerlights are now more useless, except the 1 and 5 options, since tau infantry don't carry heavy weapons except markerlights and everything else in the army will shoot the same no matter what. Markerlights to feed into the next con though...
- Terrain changes: Dense terrain is going to REALLY hurt the Tau army and make markerlights even more focused of a target (which is a pretty fragile target). We already took a hit with weapon strength with the changes to wound rolls in 5th but more widespread -1 to hit because of terrain is going to be tricky to deal with.
- Fly change: This hurts crisis suits a lot more than riptides and I'll need to double check on ghost keel ranges (don't have any and don't know their ranges too well) but now that suits still have to get close for their most effective weapons (18" on fusion and cyclic ion) the speed boosts available (and sheer amount of move+run+charge that's around now) means that they're going to be getting shut down more and thus LESS useful when they were already hurting in that regard, which is a shame because suits are what brought me to the army.
Overall the edition has me somewhat pessimistic about how things are going to turn out and I'm hoping the sheer amount of jankery that's going on with Tau (like holding on to holdover rules from 8th) and the overall "Meta" build and it's function will lead to a relatively early codex for the army to roll things over a bit. There's actually a few things I'd like to see if that happened (some of which are definitely wish listing).
1) Markerlight overhaul - The markerlight idea is fun but it's always been kinda clunky and with the revisions in 9th we probably need to re-evaluate the table/system because they're a lot of book keeping for relatively minor benefit.
2) Battlesuits hitting on 3s - This is something that I've said for a LONG time because I don't get how a full suite of targeting gear and computer assist tools means that veteran soldiers shoot the same as grass green rookies footslogging it. Tau vehicles already hit on 3's so why don't suits for their cost? The markerlight argument is suspect at best and honestly I'd give up markerlights for this buff.
3) New Kroot/Vespid models - Not strictly rules related but I actually like vespid by their stats and if we're going to be screening with kroot in the new edition can we get new models that aren't as dated? I don't like finecast and trying to find metal vespid is not easy so this would be a nice fill. Maybe add a special weapon to vespid as well to play up their role as a mobile skirmish unit.
4) Return of JSJ - This is a long shot but it was such an iconic part of the models and I miss it and the options it gave. Yes it made suits SUPER hard to pin down but given their LAUGHABLE close combat effectiveness it helped. As stated I find the overwatch hotfix to be a bit janky and I would give up those bonuses to make suits more viable this way.
5) Force Org Changes - I've said for 3 editions that pathfinders should be troops (they're Tau scouts, every other army has them as troops) but I would LOVE to see things spread out from the Elite slot to give more options in list building.
6) Drone changes - I'd prefer to see something more akin to the old system where shield drones had to be assigned to a unit and they couldn't just bounce around shielding anyone because that leads to things like the current meta list of "3 riptides and as many shield drones as you can get to tank for them" which is just dumb all around. Having drones be a 2 per item for riptides makes them more valuable and encourages diversification because I've been told "you're fine, you have a meta build" in discussions and I HATE riptide+shield drone spam.
7) 1 commander per detachment - This should have always been "No more than 3 models with the commander tag per army" to fall in line with the usual rule of 3 application but was a knee jerk response to the "12 commander list" that cheesed tournaments. This rule actively encourages more detachments when everything else in 9th seems to be about minimizing them so they're at odds with the current rule as written.
8) Weapon strength/AP adjustments - Tau are a very odd duck with their weapon strengths mostly falling in the 5-7 range which saw some significant changes in 8th with the "to wound" adjustments and a new emphasis on AP as well over simply strength. Tau plasma has no real excuse for being Str 6 which hurts it's effectiveness against monsters/light vehicles when every other race's plasma is safe at 7 and hurts at 8. Ion may see a boost with the blast rules but the infantry/crisis variants are a bit weak on AP so the weight once more is carried by Riptides. Even basic firepower used to have Tau hitting less while wounding easier (4's and 2's against T3 infantry rather than 3's and 3's for marines) where now a bolter and pulse rifle wound a guardsman on the same target number.
Overall I still love the look of Tau but if you want a mobile and quick army to move around the board then why do their special rules emphasize grouping up and their keystone Lord of War model is a mass of Str 5 AP0 shots with a few Str 10 shots that can't move for max efficiency? A lot of the rules seem to be at odds with GW's stated design goals and I think that Tau would benefit much more from a widespread overhaul (potentially dumping the overwatch/marker light rules) to better mirror what GW supposedly intends.
Edit: this turned longer than intended but I love Tau as they're described in the fluff and the gameplay REALLY doesn't reflect that. Tau I think could use a good hard look and a big shake up to spread things out and rebalance how the army works rather than just "slap a new unit on it and call it good" that GW has previously done.Last edited by Tyracus; 2020-06-25 at 04:54 PM.
-
2020-06-25, 09:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
-
2020-06-26, 01:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
What is the wording on the Markerlights? If they can cancel out the -1 from Dense Cover, then that is pretty useful. Overall though, yeah, I feel like Tau are going to be weaker going into 9th. I mean, maybe supreme commands will be cheap CP wise, and thus taking a Supreme Command of Farsight Enclaves to get 2 Commanders would be an option, but otherwise, I'm feeling like Tau is looking at a bad start to this edition.
On a different note, what goes well with Brass? I've decided to use Brass for the body of my Wraithknight, but I'm not 100% on what I should do the gems as. I'm leaning towards Silver for the weapons and joints.Spoiler: I'm a writer!Spoiler: Check out my fanfiction[URL="https://www.fanfiction.net/u/7493788/Forum-Explorer"here[/URL]
]Fate Stay Nano: Fate Stay Night x Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha
I Fell in Love with a Storm: MLP
Procrastination: MLP
Spoiler: Original FictionThe Lost Dragon: A story about a priest who finds a baby dragon in his church and decides to protect them.
-
2020-06-26, 02:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
If brass/gold 'counts as' yellow (it does), then you're looking in the spectrum of light blues and purples. If you're looking for two colours, well, red and blue.
Silver/Metal 'counts as' white, grey or black, and doesn't count because it goes with everything.
Spoiler: The Best Painting Tool
-
2020-06-26, 02:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
Spoiler: I'm a writer!Spoiler: Check out my fanfiction[URL="https://www.fanfiction.net/u/7493788/Forum-Explorer"here[/URL]
]Fate Stay Nano: Fate Stay Night x Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha
I Fell in Love with a Storm: MLP
Procrastination: MLP
Spoiler: Original FictionThe Lost Dragon: A story about a priest who finds a baby dragon in his church and decides to protect them.
-
2020-06-26, 02:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- England
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
Which part do you want to draw the viewer's eye?
I personally think that blue gems would be better. Red and brass are two 'warm' colours, so a small red gem against a warm brass background won't stand out as well as a small blue ('cold' colour) on the same. By making the smaller parts more prominent, it will emphasise their importance and make them 'special'.
Also, if you paint brass body with blue armour parts, it starts to look like a really bad attempt at Iyanden colours, and once you realise that it's almost impossible to un-see. Yes, I am talking with the voice of experience.~ CAUTION: May Contain Weasels ~
RPG Characters What I Done Played As (Explained Badly)
17 Things I Learned About 40k By Playing Dark Heresy
Tales of a Role-Play Gamer - Horrible Optimisation
-
2020-06-26, 03:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
Spoiler: I'm a writer!Spoiler: Check out my fanfiction[URL="https://www.fanfiction.net/u/7493788/Forum-Explorer"here[/URL]
]Fate Stay Nano: Fate Stay Night x Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha
I Fell in Love with a Storm: MLP
Procrastination: MLP
Spoiler: Original FictionThe Lost Dragon: A story about a priest who finds a baby dragon in his church and decides to protect them.
-
2020-06-27, 03:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
-
2020-06-27, 06:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- England
- Gender
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
I don't know if 'warm' and 'cool' are the appropriate technical terms, it's just the ones that seemed to explain it most clearly. No doubt an Art Historian somewhere is eating his brush in frustration at my slack-jawed, layman fumbling over the subject, but whatever.
But... yeah. That's why Imperial Fists tend to have silver aquila on their chest and Ultramarines usually have gold - cool detail on warm background and warm detail on cool background respectively, for emphasis. Meanwhile Night Lords have dark/cool armour with pale brass/nearly silver detail - cool on cool, making them look 'not right' even if you don't realise that's what it is.
It's also why green and purple almost never work well together - they can BOTH be warm or cool colours, depending on the amount of blue in either, so getting the right balance can be difficult.Last edited by Wraith; 2020-06-27 at 06:30 AM.
~ CAUTION: May Contain Weasels ~
RPG Characters What I Done Played As (Explained Badly)
17 Things I Learned About 40k By Playing Dark Heresy
Tales of a Role-Play Gamer - Horrible Optimisation
-
2020-06-27, 06:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XL: Bloated Rules
Well, the search terms checked out.
The main problem with using those terms, however, is that we all see colours differently, and as such, colour 'temperature' is subjective, and that's apparently why nobody uses it.
But... yeah. That's why Imperial Fists tend to have silver aquila on their chest and Ultramarines usually have gold
Imperial Fists have a red Aquila.
Sergeants have a red helmet.
...and then GW decided to go with 3rd Company, and gave them red shoulder rims, too. In 6th Ed., red went from their accent colour, to their secondary colour (Blame Matt Ward and Sentinels of Terra), and to me, it's never looked right. It looks okay on Hellblasters, 'cause the blue Plasma rounds out the three-colour triangle, but any unit that doesn't have Plasma, looks wrong. That's why I've said that Tor Garadon needs to be 9th Company, so I can have more blue on my models to round out the red Aquilas and Sergeant helmets.
EDIT:
Shows what I know.
Spoiler
Turns out the most recent stock models are 5th Company again (they still have red Aquilas, though).
Opening my Supplement reveals that GW has gone with a half-half of 3rd and 5th Companies. Not sure why they've gone for both.