https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Lovedagger
So what do you fa/tg/irls think about the newest Dawn of Sorrow coming out?
>>49714309
>>49714270
>https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Lovedagger
Is this meant to be a parody? It's not very funny.
>>49714329It was until people started taking it way too seriously.
>>49714270
Fix the goddamn romance options. Gabrielle having to die to get her good end was just a giant middle finger, and NOBODY liked Aurora Indra.
More shirtless Machion.
>>49714345
So, just like regular 40k?
>>49714669
Pottery.
>>49714703
Pottery?
>>49714670
I'll give it to the faggots, some of the art was nice.
>>49714670
>>49714775
You know, I wish as much as anyone else this thing was funny again, but /tg/ fucked this up once, and there's no reason to assume it won't fuck it again. Let it fucking rest.
>>49714270
Not that I'm complaining, but did anyone else think the new Genestealers expansion was a bit too risque? I mean, there was always a lot of subtext in Lovedagger, but I think the Genestealer's theme is just over-the-top rapey.
>>49714669
Right on target.
>>49715336
Tyranids theme was always 'violation', so sub textual rape is no surprise.
>>49714270
I'm like 65% on board for this. I think that alot of it is silliness but it does certainly scratch an itch of mine. Mainly, how does romance work in 40k? Like really. We always hear about these giant dynastys but I've never encountered a single piece of fiction that explores the domestic sphere. What gives Games Workshop?
>>49715668
GameWorkshop upper management has no soul and the lower staff has no idea how sex and romance works. It's a no brainer to understand why they don't approach it in novels and other fluff texts.
>>49715668
Honestly I like the whole "Lovedagger" thing because it's built from the ground up around female fantasy literature, rather than just being Rule 63 40k.
I also was never around for whatever fiasco made /tg/ dislike it, I just read the 1d4chan article and found it surprisingly in-depth.