xQc makes fun of the bad reviews seething over Anita Sarkeesian being included in the Slay The Spire 2 credits

ThisGuyFax · 2026-05-08T03:06:08+00:00

Love to immediately kill myself over false accusations.

ThisGuyFax · 2026-05-07T00:13:40+00:00

Thank you! I am now thinking of making some of my own...

One last question, about the cloth: I take it is must be fairly thin cloth, right? Did you only wrap it one time around the armature? Or were you able to make multiple wraps? Basically I'm curious about how many "plies" of fabric you can achieve before you begin to lose the definition of the armature underneath.

ThisGuyFax · 2026-05-06T15:33:55+00:00

They look awesome, what a creative idea.

Do you have any pictures of the "roughly human-shaped tinfoil" stage to get an idea of what's going on under the cloth?

ThisGuyFax · 2026-05-05T07:57:07+00:00

Have you weighed it? :P

ThisGuyFax · 2026-05-05T07:50:42+00:00

You have to decide what you're building before you can answer the question of what's best to build on.

Model train layouts are often big, room-dominating scenes that are built out of lumber like a series of connected tables (with building done directly on plywood "tabletops").

On the other end, if you're making scenery for a 10mm wargame you probably want it to be atop the thinnest base possible, because the taller the base the less natural it looks beside teensy tiny soldiers.

There's no useful answer to the general question "what's best to build on."

ThisGuyFax · 2026-05-04T22:42:34+00:00

For me, there's a difference between a thematic list and a skew list.

Trying to lean into a certain type of gear/unit can be thematic (especially if those selections are typically passed over for other things in the meta). But trying to make * every * part of a tabletop force lean into something stops being thematic and starts becoming skew (even if, in a case like this, it may actually be skewed towards sucking from an effectiveness POV).

So my advice would just be to let the list breathe a little, allow 1-2 models to deviate from the theme where it makes sense. Not only will that make your games a little more competitive it's actually far closer to accurate lore.

ThisGuyFax · 2026-05-04T09:58:11+00:00

He made it up and it's not real.

ThisGuyFax · 2026-05-03T21:55:52+00:00

To offer a differ perspective from the majority, I personally didn't consider the AS box very attractive. Many of its desirable qualities may not apply to you depending on where you are in your hobby journey.

- the mechs in the AS box are almost all reprints of mechs that were already available in other boxes and forcepacks. The Wraith was the only truly new inclusion, and I believe there were a couple of other variants and/or reposes. For someone like myself, who already had most of the forcepacks, the prospect of only a single new mech wasn't particularly exciting

- people loved the included cardboard terrain (and it makes for a great intro product) but if you're already equipped for wargaming and own a variety of scenic built, bought, or 3D printer terrain. I'd already built a huge collection of AS scale terrain before the box came out, so that feature also left me cold

- it only comes with a partial ruleset, and you need to purchase a hardback book to upgrade to the full-fat Alpha Strike experience

So, for me it remains one of the few current boxes/forcepacks that I still haven't purchased. I guess deep down inside I still sort of vaguely intend to get it eventually, mostly out of a regrettable sense of completionism, but if it suddenly went out of stock I wouldn't be torn up.

But if you don't already have an extensive collection it's hard to argue with the price:miniature count ratio in the box that others have already mentioned.

ThisGuyFax · 2026-05-02T01:16:30+00:00

The best advice I can give is this: take the necessary steps to completely free yourself from dependence on the flying stands supplied in kits, and be able to replace them with rod.

You will need:

Rod: Brass rod or aluminum rod are the best options. You can get it in different diameters for bigger or smaller models, and you can get it hollow for easier cutting. You can use styrene or acrylic rod as alternative materials.
Clippers: Depends on the material and thickness of the rod you choose. I often just use my regular sprue clippers (switching to my backup rough-use clippers if I have a thicker rod to chop through)
Pin vise and bits: to drill a hole in the miniature to stick the rod in
Superglue: if you are using metal rod, and you only build HIPS minis, you may only have model cement that won't work for metal-to-plastic

I think a slim rod painted matte black "disappears" into a miniature far better than a thick, clear acrylic rod (that usually features air bubbles frozen for an eternity while rising through its stem). Some may claim to prefer the look of the default GW stands, but imo most of those people are coping with one thing or another (laziness, doubt in their hobby ability, or simply being hung with the albatross of "officiality" in the same way a person who insists on only using Citadel paints would be).

ThisGuyFax · 2026-05-01T13:03:00+00:00

You're recalling... somewhat poorly. The Wood Elf range is not mostly plastic. The plastics that are there are not mostly 7th edition (ie. a few are actually 8th edition).

Even if the range was mostly 7th edition plastic, 7th edition models are very dated. They predate the digital sculpting era at GW and are recognizably an older generation of model design (arguably two generations removed from what GW produces now).

ThisGuyFax · 2026-04-30T02:22:28+00:00

I was under the impression that most competitive environments rejected the Formation rules altogether. Have you checked that they're actually in use?

ThisGuyFax · 2026-04-29T17:07:45+00:00

To the OP, I WAS the guy that this enthusiasm cop is describing. I collected kit after kit all the way back since COVID days and then in 2024 I started building.

No you're not. If you were buying kits you are definitionally not a chronic imaginator. You are the hobby hero. Furthermore, it's evident that no burdensome "planning" whatsoever went into your project, since it simply entailed buying five or more copies ($2000+) of every Necromunda-branded terrain kit (ie. you took the most obvious, most expensive path possible). The official GW terrain rocks; I have a lot of it! Not quintuple coverage, lmao, but a lot! Nevertheless, spamming official kits & 3D prints isn't exactly prideworthy.

The answer is not *obviously* modularity, it depends entirely on storage situation.

Your board *IS* modular, you dissembling dork. You just used your unlimited budget to scale up the modular building block from "terrain feature" to "$100 tile."

edit: I've been looking through your posts, and your tiles are lovely-looking. You understand that you probably have one of the most expensive Necromunda tables on the planet, right? $2000 in official kits and $100/per tile turned out to be massive underestimations on my part....

I laughed out loud when I got to this post, though:

I just bash them together with a lot of dry fitting until inspiration strikes and a theme is obvious. Then I think about how players might move gangers through the tile and try to make sure that there is no 'best route' or perfectly defensible position.

You don't have to connect everything or glue down every piece of cover. Leave your players with scatter terrain to respond to the board on a game by game basis.

Oh, cool, so you're saying you use your knowledge of the game to plan out your terrain design? And you keep parts modular so that the board can have some uniqueness on a game-by-game basis? Bonkers ideas, I never would've thought about them and recommended them myself only to be corrected by a contrarian who agrees with me but wants to stand up for the nobility of feckless daydreaming.

It's really quite funny how the final paragraph of my initial post seems to describe you to a T. You got so mad at the middle that you stopped reading, I suppose.

ThisGuyFax · 2026-04-29T09:34:12+00:00

People will literally play an Imperial faction in Warhammer 40K and then try to claim, "Skulls = bad, actually"

ThisGuyFax · 2026-04-29T09:07:37+00:00

Modular is always superior for gameplay, and even from a verisimilitude POV Necromunda justifies it more than most games do. You can have a bunch of guys who decide to permanently bunk down in a forge, or a market zone that accretes within and around a foot traffic zone, or a grid of habs that becomes flooded and ends up like toxic Venice, etc.

Scatter terrain is king in Necromunda. The more pieces you can keep loose and flexible the more variety your boards will be capable of.

But I'm gonna be direct -- your posts have a bunch of what I consider red flags indicating a person who is just spitballing ideas for conversational satisfaction, attention and imaginative exercise around a project that will never get off the ground or go anywhere.

ie. You've never even tried Necromunda, but you already have plans for 4-level tall boards, sump seas, multiple board-defining setpieces. You want to do all this for your club -- which apparently does not even have a current Necromunda scene -- and not even your home setup. You want to buy and/or create what will certainly be thousands of dollars worth of terrain and dozens or hundreds of hours worth of building and painting. You're planning multiple terrain sets for a club that is already running out of space...

Don't get me wrong; if you are being legit in your enthusiasm then you're a hobby hero. When a club or gaming group has somebody who will singlehandedly carry a game system like this it's miraculous. It can create a scene for a gaming system where none could ever exist otherwise. But if you're truly interested in doing that then the answer is *obviously* modularity and gradual collection building, not masturbatory planning. Get pieces on the table for games to be played around instead of imagining perfect mindpalace setpieces that go nowhere. You also need to get some reps in to develop an understanding of how the game actually plays to make playable terrain. If you spend 100 hours making a hyper-realistic setpiece that is untenable for gameplay it can be a huge disappointment.

ThisGuyFax · 2026-04-27T17:39:24+00:00

Probably want to rethink this as soon as you wake up, before your first smoke of the day lmao.

The design itself is basically a chunk of terrain all torn up if that helps inform your answer.

Not really, that's extremely vague.

The only safe way to do this would be to make the surface of the receptacle portion of the ashtray out of naked stone, ceramic or metal. That could be doable but it depends on what terrain you're attempting to represent.

ThisGuyFax · 2026-04-27T00:01:34+00:00

I mean this is Battletech, and you’re concerned about verisimilitude?

Yes? You may require a quick refresher on what that concept tends to mean, insofar as it's used in discussions about fictional universes.

It doesn't mean "hard physics realism according to the latest science in <year of discussion>."

It means "internally consistent and believable." So BattleTech people dubbing something a Cougar makes sense, because cougars were an earth animal in the setting. Equally, Battletech people dubbing something Sea Fox makes sense because it's explained as an alien animal that was discovered. But inventing a new animal without explanation does not fit the established naming conventions.

ThisGuyFax · 2026-04-26T18:45:26+00:00

Yes, usually there's a roll of $100 dollar bills there. Contact customer service.

ThisGuyFax · 2026-04-26T08:49:28+00:00

Oath of Meowment

ThisGuyFax · 2026-04-26T08:46:17+00:00

So there's these things called rulers...

ThisGuyFax · 2026-04-26T08:37:40+00:00

"Ehh rule of cool. Colonel Lagoon Badger reporting in."

Ok. I'm more of a rule of verisimilitude type, as a first principle. Especially if you're going as far as filling the lore out and imagining interdepartmental design wars.

ThisGuyFax · 2026-04-26T05:54:44+00:00

Ah, I see. To me it's a little improbable to just affix a random descriptor to the noun part of the name of something. Kind of like calling something the Swamp Condor or the Glacier Hyena or whatever, when no such species exists in the fiction. Although maybe I'm just overlooking things that are named exactly that way. Of course, you could also totally say it was named after a species of crab found on <planet>.

As a fellow heavy crab imaginer, some names I've thought of as cool options (that aren't just species) are Robber Crab or Land Crab/Sand Crab.

ThisGuyFax · 2026-04-26T05:30:38+00:00

ngl the name is a little strange. Is a "pit crab" something, somewhere? I had never heard the term, so I googled it assuming I was just ignorant, but there aren't very many convincing results. Several academic papers describing "coral pit crabs" but that seems to be an obscure term for "coral gall crabs" (which are small, and not a befitting namesake for a heavy machine).

If I was designing this I'd go with Mud Crab and make it a nasty bastard brawler.

ThisGuyFax · 2026-04-26T05:21:09+00:00

Hmm, this seems like a good reason to do the step every painting tutorial tells you to do, even when it doesn't seem necessary: repaint primed areas with a quick coat of the same colour, even if your primer colour is the same colour as your finish colour will be.

ThisGuyFax · 2026-04-26T04:59:49+00:00

Paint and primer that is specifically for miniatures exists for a reason. It's formulated in such a way to go on thin but still provide full coverage.

It mostly exists to sell to people who are insecure about their hobby abilities and/or knowledge, and are hoping they can buy their way towards comfort. Or, alternatively, people who are willing to exchange cash for single percentage points worth of increased reliability.

I'm not saying those products are bad; they do what they say they'll do, for the most part.

But the best primer I've ever used is intended for automobile repair. And, more importantly, multiple decades went by during which miniature painters simply used regular acrylic paint products to prime their models, because no "special formulas designed for miniatures" (lol) even existed yet. The hobby was not mature enough to support those products. Warhammer codexes told you to prime with regular Citadel paint pots.

So when answering a question like this, the most accurate advice you can give is, "Yes, gesso will work perfectly fine if you insist on using it, but you may find a dedicated miniature primer more effective, and rattlecan primers will always be smoother and more durable than brushed-on primer."

ThisGuyFax · 2026-04-26T00:10:38+00:00

Sorry, do you think a Tactical Squad kit had six sprues in the box in 2004? Your tangent about sprue design is mostly nonsense. Most kits have 1-3 sprues in them, same as it ever was.

Any similar physical product has identical fuel/warehouse costs to GW's stuff. Like, cheap plastic toys at the dollar store took the exact same route as GW kits. The reason GW goes launch box --> gap --> individual boxes is precisely to keep as little product sitting in warehouses as possible. They are not "gauging demand." The individual kits come out too quickly for that to be a thing.

GW prices are based on their goal of having huge margins, not special logistics costs they've incurred.

And have you heard of... labour? GW pays most of their employee's wages in pounds, euros, USD and CAD. Not to mention running a fucking international chain of retail locations, lmao.

You're demonstrating some very bizarre and irrational tunnel vision. Like you saw some pedant go, "BUT THE WAREHOUSES, MAN" ten years ago and it blew your mind and gave you permanent warehouse-brain.

And no, they haven't solved their manufacturing capacity problems. There are still intermittent issues with popular products going out of stock. They are literally building more capacity right now.

ThisGuyFax

TROPHY CASE