Why Marauders don't use spears? Why Warriors bother with

File: 75508010d78c13bcb1f6cb5bcd653df3.jpg (35KB, 576x432px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 576x432px

>>47908809
They use spears...as ranged weapons.

For the most part I think it's those other weapons put distance between you and the enemy. And a Chaos-infused warrior should look at his enemy dead in the eyes as the life fades from them. Or something corny like that.

>>47908809
>Why Marauders don't use spears?

They're not weaklings.

>Why Warriors bother with axes when they can afford a fucking sword?

They take what they get.

>>47908848
Spears mean being weak are you retarded? Name one pre gunpowder era military that didn't use spears.

>>47908884
>Spears mean being weak

Yes.

>Name one pre gunpowder era military that didn't use spears.

Marauders.

>>47908809
>>47908884
In WH the closer you get to your foe, the manly you are. Probably true in other wargames too, no idea.

>>47909039
Why don't they all have daggers?

>>47909105
Daggers are for faggots who can't lift a proper weapon.

>>47909105
because they aren't gay.

>>47909166
Yes they are

>>47909182
Prove it.

>>47909202
Half naked muscular men wanting to be within touching range of other men? Sounds homoerotic to me.

>>47909202
They look like a riot broke out at a pride parade. I don't see any girls in their army.

>>47909235
>Sounds homoerotic to me.

It always does to faggots such as yourself.
You must realise that to straight men muscular men fighting is not erotic.

>>47909278
>Girls
>In armies

>>47908884
The Roman legions post reform.

No the pilum is not a spear. No, auxiliaries do not count.

File: Valkia.png (423KB, 400x389px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 400x389px

>>47909294
Hello, future sex slave.

>>47909329
Better off with a witch elf.

>>47909294
I'm not sure how you would tell the difference between a male and female Chaos Warrior who had progressed sufficiently down the Path to Glory.

>>47909281
When will you realise you can never de-gayify the idea of sweaty muscular men tussling with each other? I bet you think that nude fighting scene in Women in Love has no homoerotic elements either.

You're arguing there is nothing gay from the side of Slaanesh here. Do you never stop to think about that? Chaos is transgressive, and that includes sexual behaviours. It has always had (from 2000AD alone) a touch of the gay.

>>47909399
>When will you realise you can never de-gayify the idea of sweaty muscular men tussling with each other?

I don't need too.
Homosexuals will of course see homosexuality in everything, but straight men do not.

>>47908884
They're a bunch of religious fanatics that live to prove themselves worthy to the gods by showing courage in battle.

The emphasis being to show off your personal glory and not what works best as military unit. It's a lot like counting coup and other displays of bravado, but much bloodier

>>47909399
All the homoerotic subtext is projection from homsexuals. You sound the the kind of person who reads Plato and comes to the conclusion that he was an early advocate of "gay rights"

>>47909674
I mean, really I think it would be really stupid to view classical Greek society as having any bearing on modern homosexuality, because they did not have the same conception of it.

>All the homoerotic subtext is projection from homsexuals.
Even in the context of WHFB alone though, this is complete dogshit.

File: 1466612719687.jpg (506KB, 1200x879px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 1200x879px

>>47909125
>>47909105

>>47909762
>i think it would be really stupid to view classical Greek society
Not true. Despite common beliefs it was generally despised; even among the libertine Athenians known homsexuals were denied citizenship. This idea of greeks as some kind of bisexual progressive utopia is completely modern historical revisionism.

>>47909885
>Not true.
I don't know what you're saying is "not true" here. Are you saying they did have the same conception of it? That it does have strong bearing on modern homosexuality?

Your post doesn't seem to have any relevance to the one you're responding to. You're attacking an argument no-one made, and if you want to do that... >>>/pol/

>>47909923
The claim is that greek views on homsexuals had no comparison to modern ones. Try reading comprehension

>>47909885
Let's ignore for a second the fact that homosexuality as a social construct didn't really exist back then.

You're so incrediby wrong it hurts.
That is literally the opposite of how it worked, boyfucking was a privilege of citizens and JUST CITIZENS.
It was illegal for non-citizens to engage in pederasty.

File: 59007890.jpg (80KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 400x400px

>>47909294
>not wanting girls in his army

>>47909957
>The claim is that greek views on homsexuals had no comparison to modern ones.
So the modern view on homosexuality is that they are denied citizenship? Is that your argument?

>>47908809
Ah look, a large, ordered formation of spearmen! What faction does that bring to mind?Not chaos.

Axes and swords and shit fit their aesthetics much better, which is what you want when you are selling models.

File: riders-of-the-dead-by-dan-abnett.jpg (47KB, 395x501px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 395x501px

>>47908809
>Why Marauders don't use spears?

They use bows and spears in the (non-canon?) fiction novels and fan-stories, like in ''The Riders of the Dead''.

>Why Warriors bother with axes when they can afford a fucking sword?

Swords just don't have the same pillaging and barbarims -vibe to them, too aristocratic and snobbish.

Also axes are ubiquitous among folks in the northern wastes, so they're used (in the actual fucking tabletop miniature game) to emphasize that origin.

>>47909294
I made my Chaos army full female. Then again, I used the regular models, so you'd only know from the few models that don't have a helmet. And of course the Marauders, who have just robes.

>>47911974
pics?

>>47909793
Swords

>>47909885
To add on to >>47910007, IIRC that was also based on cultural bias: A grown man could be the giver of homosexual intercourse, but never the receiver.

>>47908809
Khorne says axes are awesome; why would you disagree with the god that likes to cut you and take your head for a bean bag?

>>47916369

I know the Norse were like that (pitching wasn't illegal, but receiving was and you could be killed on the spot with few repercussions if you accused someone of that - IIRC there were only two other such insults)

>>47909322
You are a retard, if you think the roman army was uniform you are wrong. Late era legionaries had spears for example

>>47916492
And while not criminal, it was a major social stigma for the Romans, Imperial Chinese and Japanese. Reputation ruining and family shaming level of faux pas.

Becauses axes are the quintessential 'barbarian' weapon, one of the most primitive weapons aside from a simple rock in your hand to bash enemies with. It represents a distinct attempt to create a weapon to cause excessive harm. It's a weapon people tend to perceive as lacking in elegance, as brutish and nasty.

Spears don't have the same hands-on, close-range, violent allure, despite being just as primal a weapon. Swords are generally seen as a more refined or elegant a weapon, a heroic weapon more often than not, displaying a sense of progress, something mythical and magical even, compared to an axe. Axes are like a 'working man's' weapon, an edge on a stick, both a tool and a weapon (even though this is untrue, it is wildly perceived to be so).

Maces don't seem to get the same treatment despite being just as vulgar and possibly even more barbaric as just lumps of metal on sticks with optional spikes, just cudgels with better materials. I can't really figure out why, it's weird.

>>47917053
>It represents a distinct attempt to create a weapon to cause excessive harm.
That's the sword m8. An axe starts as a tool.