AoS Kharadron overlords

[Aginor]

Arkanauts are actually quite poorly armoured because they only wear diving suits and helmets. It's the thunderers who are the well-armoured blokes.



Don't forget Tyranid monsters that can just advance through autocannon fire without giving a damn.

Some idiots think Games Workshop copied Blizzard, but we all know it was the other way around. Warcraft 3 is OK as a game but custom battles against the computer are ridiculously hard compared to some other fantasy games like D&D: Dragonshard. I haven't played Starcraft much because I was put off by the poor graphics but am going to play it a bit more when I have the chance.

You really should!
There's a remake coming soon and SC is one of the greatest games I've ever played. Really worth it. Both SC1 and SC2.

 

[TheSkeptic]

I can to a point. But every version of Warhammer that I have played has fallen well short of that point.



In real life combatants copy each other.

Old Oog's tribe invents bows in the Spring? Grunk's tribe has them by late Fall.

The French figure a way to shoot through moving propeller blades? The Germans get Fokker to build an improved version.

The British invent tanks? Soon there is a German counter in the form of a near copy.

The British create Battlecruisers? (Even though it was a stupid idea...) the Germans countered and built their own (tougher, better) Battlecruisers.
___________

That is one of the intrinsic things that is utterly wrong with Games from the Workshop...all the armies are so radically different, as if none have ever had contact with the enemy.

I'd agree with you on this, but only up to a certain point. If Old Oog's tribe invented submachine guns, then that doesn't mean Grunk's tribe, who are only up to bows and arrows, can reproduce them. There's a number of reasons, in both 40k and AoS/WFB, that species don't keep one-upping each other in this manner. For one thing, most of these species were entirely separate from each other, and evolved separately, for literally thousands of years. They are wildly different biologically, and the very way their weapons and technology works is radically different. One 40k race is literally a giant hive mind, composed of billions of ravenous, mind controlled monsters, who's weaponry consists entirely of guns, cannons, and blades made of living tissue, who fly around space in giant, living organisms. That sort of species can't start pooping out metal guns because they got their claws on one. Some species are literally to stupid to innovate, and also have significant biological advantages which make it more advantageous to simply get in close and bash someone with a giant stick. Why would a species need flying airships, for example, when they already have giant, rideable dragons, griffins, or wyverns? Why make a tank when you have colossal, rideable spiders? Others have ideological reasons. Why would the beastmen develop advanced weaponry when their expressed purpose in life is to destroy such species, and they are reward by their dark gods with biological augmentations for doing so? The species that needs advanced weapons develop them. Those species who don't need them, well, don't.

 

[pendrake]

@Canas thread really isn't about 40K. Sorry if I kicked it in that direction.

@Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl

Arkanauts are actually quite poorly armoured because they only wear diving suits and helmets.

Interesting.
I was only going off the painted models I had seen in adverts. Looked like clanky armor.

So....diving suits? These flying Ironclads are submersibles as well? WITNOS

What In The Name Of Sotek ???

 

[pendrake]

I'd agree with you on this, but only up to a certain point.

So what is that point? Confining it to Fantasy. I wasn't giving much thought to 40K.

Others have ideological reasons.

Bretonnians have no ideological reason to not give their archers individual pavises. Skinks have no ideological reason to not use make and use bows (and once ubiquitously did!!!) What ideological reason do Lizardmen have against small flying platforms, (particularly, for game balance purposes, if it matched the dwarf machine, star for stat) ?

The species races that need advanced weapons develop them.

All [races] need to win at warfare, therefore all races will advance to the limits of their technical capability. (And I see no reason Beastmen could not use bows ...anything a caveman could use... and I thought the little gors were missile troops?!)

Those species who don't need them, well, don't.

When did WARHAMMER stop calling the various factions species rather than races?

(Is that just a 40K=species versus Fantasy=races thing?)

 

[pendrake]

The little Gors can be missile Troops:

...box set contains 10 multi-part plastic Ungors. This 98-piece set includes: 10 different bodies, 10 variations of shield, a selection of heads and all of the weapon parts needed to assemble your Ungor with either hand weapons, spears or bows. Also included are...

...with bows.

 

[Aginor]

So what is that point? Confining it to Fantasy. I wasn't giving much thought to 40K.

Bretonnians have no ideological reason to not give their archers individual pavises. Skinks have no ideological reason to not use make and use bows (and once ubiquitously did!!!) What ideological reason do Lizardmen have against small flying platforms, (particularly, for game balance purposes, if it matched the dwarf machine, star for stat) ?

All [races] need to win at warfare, therefore all races will advance to the limits of their technical capability. (And I see no reason Beastmen could not use bows ...anything a caveman could use... and I thought the little gors were missile troops?!)

When did WARHAMMER stop calling the various factions species rather than races?

(Is that just a 40K=species versus Fantasy=races thing?)

Not sure. Maybe someone told them that "races" is - at least - inaccurate and most likely just the wrong word? Also because of racism perhaps? Some idiots could start a crusade against GW just because of the word....

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

I can to a point. But every version of Warhammer that I have played has fallen well short of that point.



In real life combatants copy each other.

Old Oog's tribe invents bows in the Spring? Grunk's tribe has them by late Fall.

The French figure a way to shoot through moving propeller blades? The Germans get Fokker to build an improved version.

The British invent tanks? Soon there is a German counter in the form of a near copy.

The British create Battlecruisers? (Even though it was a stupid idea...) the Germans countered and built their own (tougher, better) Battlecruisers.
___________

That is one of the intrinsic things that is utterly wrong with Games from the Workshop...all the armies are so radically different, as if none have ever had contact with the enemy.

Our tanks were much better than the German tanks originally. This is one of the first British tanks, the 'Tadpole':

Meanwhile this is one of the first German tanks, the 'Sturmpanzer':

Both were introduced at the end of WW1. The Sturmpanzer was the only German tank in WW1 to have actually seen combat.

The Sturmpanzer really was terrible in comparison with our first tank designs. It was much slower and often broke down in the middle of battles. There is only one Sturmpanzer left in existence at the Australian War Memorial (how did it get there?)

@Canas thread really isn't about 40K. Sorry if I kicked it in that direction.

@Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl

Interesting.
I was only going off the painted models I had seen in adverts. Looked like clanky armor.

So....diving suits? These flying Ironclads are submersibles as well? WITNOS

What In The Name Of Sotek ???

When the Kharadron descend to the land below, the pressure change they go through is roughly equivalent to us diving down underwater, so they have to wear diving suits, because through the centuries they have been living in the sky they have adapted to the low air pressure up there.

Not sure. Maybe someone told them that "races" is - at least - inaccurate and most likely just the wrong word? Also because of racism perhaps? Some idiots could start a crusade against GW just because of the word....

Well, Bretonnian and Tomb Kings players are already considering launching a crusade against GW...

 

[Canas]

​

Both were introduced at the end of WW1. The Sturmpanzer was the only German tank in WW1 to have actually seen combat.

The Sturmpanzer really was terrible in comparison with our first tank designs. It was much slower and often broke down in the middle of battles. There is only one Sturmpanzer left in existence at the Australian War Memorial (how did it get there?)

Wasn't that one a broken one that was sitting in no-mans land till it got stolen by a bunch of soldiers that just wanted to piss off the germans?

@Canas thread really isn't about 40K. Sorry if I kicked it in that direction.

The same arguments hold (to a degree) in fantasy. Yea there's no logical reason for skinks to not use bows, and there are myriad of other equally weird situations. BUT because of the vast differences between the various races and their opponents it does make sense for their armies to be a lot less symmetrical when compared to historical armies. Logically the warhammer fantasy armies can be divided according to how civilized they are. The more civilized factions (humans, elves, dwarves, undead) should by all accounts learn from and copy their opponents (provided they can stop being arrogant twats or yelling "heresy" for longer than 2 seconds). The less civilized factions like ogers, or greenskins are a lot less likely to copy all that much, sticking mostly to crude variants or looted weapons making up for it with their more monstrous soldiers and general better physicque. Then there are a handfull of weird ones in between, like wood elves and lizardmen, who are intelligent and civilized enough to learn, but also "different" enough that they aren't all that likely to copy their opponents. Nor do they really need to, after all who needs a steamtank if you have a bastillidon or stegadon.

 

[Killer Angel]

Logically the warhammer fantasy armies can be divided according to how civilized they are. The more civilized factions (humans, elves, dwarves, undead) should by all accounts learn from and copy their opponents (provided they can stop being arrogant twats or yelling "heresy" for longer than 2 seconds).

To a certain point they do it.
Dwarfs and Empire share lot of tech about ranged weaponry. And they both use steam power: dwarfs to fly (Empire got griffons), Empire for tanks (that probably would find hard times within dwarfs mountains)
This leads to some other factors: you develope/copy a certain tech if you can use it to a good degree: if your Kingdom is mainly made by mountain and underground tunnels, you will make poor use of large tanks; if your Kingdom lacks resources to use gunpowder on a large scale, you will use bows.
And if you need a different weaponry, there are mercenary troops (which were a thing 'til 7th edition, right?)

And remember that also if we look at real life examples, armies were not carbon copies of each other.
While english army was known for its large use of longbows, genoese mercenaries were largely specialized in crossbows.
The "Spanish third" (tercio espanol) was a combat unit composed by pikemen, swordsmen and arquebusiers, very affective for almost 2 centuries...but despite its success, the other nations continued to fight with their own military formations.

Even if the norm is "let's copy successful things from our opponents", there are lots of exceptions. The macedonian phalanx, with the long sarissa, dominated the battlefields for a long time, and yet you see that other armies didn't adopt that clearly superior weapon. And in the end, it took the Roman Empire to defeat the phalanxes, using something totally different.

And this is about human armies. In fantasy, you have whole different races, with whole different phisical and mental abilities.

 

[Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl]

To a certain point they do it.
Dwarfs and Empire share lot of tech about ranged weaponry. And they both use steam power: dwarfs to fly (Empire got griffons), Empire for tanks (that probably would find hard times within dwarfs mountains)
This leads to some other factors: you develope/copy a certain tech if you can use it to a good degree: if your Kingdom is mainly made by mountain and underground tunnels, you will make poor use of large tanks; if your Kingdom lacks resources to use gunpowder on a large scale, you will use bows.
And if you need a different weaponry, there are mercenary troops (which were a thing 'til 7th edition, right?)

And remember that also if we look at real life examples, armies were not carbon copies of each other.
While english army was known for its large use of longbows, genoese mercenaries were largely specialized in crossbows.
The "Spanish third" (tercio espanol) was a combat unit composed by pikemen, swordsmen and arquebusiers, very affective for almost 2 centuries...but despite its success, the other nations continued to fight with their own military formations.

Even if the norm is "let's copy successful things from our opponents", there are lots of exceptions. The macedonian phalanx, with the long sarissa, dominated the battlefields for a long time, and yet you see that other armies didn't adopt that clearly superior weapon. And in the end, it took the Roman Empire to defeat the phalanxes, using something totally different.

And this is about human armies. In fantasy, you have whole different races, with whole different phisical and mental abilities.

Indeed Estalia is based on that 16th Century Conquistadore theme of pikemen and arquebusiers, and I have based Tilea on the Romans to be more original.

Although there is one thing different between Dwarfs and Empire...Dwarfs are better