Darkchild130 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Apologies for turning your thread into my own personal Flesh Tearer love-fest, but I'd like to point out that they don't embody the vampire aesthetic at all. They removed blood transfusions from their rituals, so therefore do not sleep in the coffin things that made them as BA do. They have no ritualised blood drinking either. All this has a direct effect on the chapter as a whole, being the reason that so many more of them fall to the black rage. Instead they have a "feast" at the end of a successful campaign, in which all of the prisoners collected throughout said campaign mysteriously disappear. For some reason, the angrier nature of the Flesh Tearers has manifested their blood urges as cannibalism. the link between vampirism and stability makes sense when you look at the Blood drinkers, who have notably increased their blood drinking practices and in turn have more control over the red thirst and black rage. So to summarise, FTs=not vampires. but I am horribly biased, and the Angels Sanguine would give you much more leeway in regards to fluff as they are more "normal" BA successors. Darkchild Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2880391 Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamaNagol Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 It's called Cretacia and it has Dinosaurs on it. Because GW don't like to make their audience think too hard when it coes to references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2880422 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlantic Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 If only GW would let us use the dinos as monstrous creatures.... I would play FT for life. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2880473 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimrod451 Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 Sounds like there should be a thunder dino-calvalery out there somewhere! DarkChild - I meant more then, kill people and eat them sorta of aesthetic i think..not the coffin thing and stuff. Your fine on the thread thing.. Bias is what i wanted to see what people though and what fluff they could contribute.. ..and i'm getting a good bit of FT fluff actaully.. ..the angels seem to be lacking however heh Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2880744 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Semper Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Sounds like there should be a thunder dino-calvalery out there somewhere! DarkChild - I meant more then, kill people and eat them sorta of aesthetic i think..not the coffin thing and stuff. Your fine on the thread thing.. Bias is what i wanted to see what people though and what fluff they could contribute.. ..and i'm getting a good bit of FT fluff actaully.. ..the angels seem to be lacking however heh Yeap, less background means less developed imagery on one hand but more room to fill in the gaps yourself on the other... But background aside there is also the question of paint schemes - which one do you like the most? As I said earlier the "halved" color scheme with black & red makes for a very striking combination and, to me at least, a much more intersting looking force. This of course is purely subjective. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2880757 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkangilos Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Apologies for turning your thread into my own personal Flesh Tearer love-fest, but I'd like to point out that they don't embody the vampire aesthetic at all. They removed blood transfusions from their rituals, so therefore do not sleep in the coffin things that made them as BA do. They have no ritualised blood drinking either. All this has a direct effect on the chapter as a whole, being the reason that so many more of them fall to the black rage. Instead they have a "feast" at the end of a successful campaign, in which all of the prisoners collected throughout said campaign mysteriously disappear. For some reason, the angrier nature of the Flesh Tearers has manifested their blood urges as cannibalism. the link between vampirism and stability makes sense when you look at the Blood drinkers, who have notably increased their blood drinking practices and in turn have more control over the red thirst and black rage. So to summarise, FTs=not vampires. but I am horribly biased, and the Angels Sanguine would give you much more leeway in regards to fluff as they are more "normal" BA successors. Darkchild Not questioning, but where did you actually read this? 0.o I knew the Flesh Eaters did the eating part, but no idea the Flesh Terrors did, I just thought they were more savage! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2881039 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrahawk Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Apologies for turning your thread into my own personal Flesh Tearer love-fest, but I'd like to point out that they don't embody the vampire aesthetic at all. They removed blood transfusions from their rituals, so therefore do not sleep in the coffin things that made them as BA do. They have no ritualised blood drinking either. All this has a direct effect on the chapter as a whole, being the reason that so many more of them fall to the black rage. Instead they have a "feast" at the end of a successful campaign, in which all of the prisoners collected throughout said campaign mysteriously disappear. For some reason, the angrier nature of the Flesh Tearers has manifested their blood urges as cannibalism. the link between vampirism and stability makes sense when you look at the Blood drinkers, who have notably increased their blood drinking practices and in turn have more control over the red thirst and black rage. So to summarise, FTs=not vampires. but I am horribly biased, and the Angels Sanguine would give you much more leeway in regards to fluff as they are more "normal" BA successors. Darkchild Not questioning, but where did you actually read this? 0.o I knew the Flesh Eaters did the eating part, but no idea the Flesh Terrors did, I just thought they were more savage! It's in IA: Blood Frenzy, aka IA: Flesh Tearers. Also, it's not straight out stated the Tearers eat their enemies, but it is very, very heavily hinted (as are many things in WH40K). Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2881166 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkchild130 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Apologies for turning your thread into my own personal Flesh Tearer love-fest, but I'd like to point out that they don't embody the vampire aesthetic at all. They removed blood transfusions from their rituals, so therefore do not sleep in the coffin things that made them as BA do. They have no ritualised blood drinking either. All this has a direct effect on the chapter as a whole, being the reason that so many more of them fall to the black rage. Instead they have a "feast" at the end of a successful campaign, in which all of the prisoners collected throughout said campaign mysteriously disappear. For some reason, the angrier nature of the Flesh Tearers has manifested their blood urges as cannibalism. the link between vampirism and stability makes sense when you look at the Blood drinkers, who have notably increased their blood drinking practices and in turn have more control over the red thirst and black rage. So to summarise, FTs=not vampires. but I am horribly biased, and the Angels Sanguine would give you much more leeway in regards to fluff as they are more "normal" BA successors. Darkchild Not questioning, but where did you actually read this? 0.o I knew the Flesh Eaters did the eating part, but no idea the Flesh Terrors did, I just thought they were more savage! It's in IA: Blood Frenzy, aka IA: Flesh Tearers. Also, it's not straight out stated the Tearers eat their enemies, but it is very, very heavily hinted (as are many things in WH40K). At the 3rd war of Armageddon the Orks called the Flesh Tearers "Eaters of the dead". Seems pretty black and white to me. Darkchild Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2881192 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Semper Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 They actually ate Orks? Yuk... Bliah... Do Angels Sanguine :wallbash: Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2881200 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrahawk Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Apologies for turning your thread into my own personal Flesh Tearer love-fest, but I'd like to point out that they don't embody the vampire aesthetic at all. They removed blood transfusions from their rituals, so therefore do not sleep in the coffin things that made them as BA do. They have no ritualised blood drinking either. All this has a direct effect on the chapter as a whole, being the reason that so many more of them fall to the black rage. Instead they have a "feast" at the end of a successful campaign, in which all of the prisoners collected throughout said campaign mysteriously disappear. For some reason, the angrier nature of the Flesh Tearers has manifested their blood urges as cannibalism. the link between vampirism and stability makes sense when you look at the Blood drinkers, who have notably increased their blood drinking practices and in turn have more control over the red thirst and black rage. So to summarise, FTs=not vampires. but I am horribly biased, and the Angels Sanguine would give you much more leeway in regards to fluff as they are more "normal" BA successors. Darkchild Not questioning, but where did you actually read this? 0.o I knew the Flesh Eaters did the eating part, but no idea the Flesh Terrors did, I just thought they were more savage! It's in IA: Blood Frenzy, aka IA: Flesh Tearers. Also, it's not straight out stated the Tearers eat their enemies, but it is very, very heavily hinted (as are many things in WH40K). At the 3rd war of Armageddon the Orks called the Flesh Tearers "Eaters of the dead". Seems pretty black and white to me. Darkchild That sounds like a cool bit of fluff to me. :wallbash: Do you know where I could find it? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2881210 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkchild130 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 It was originally in a WD that detailed the actions of various Space Marine chapters at Armageddon (which I no longer own) It's just a couple of paragraphs if I remember rightly, but it's copy pasted in numerous locations if you google "Flesh Tearers eaters of the dead". Darkchild Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2881211 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrahawk Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 It was originally in a WD that detailed the actions of various Space Marine chapters at Armageddon (which I no longer own) It's just a couple of paragraphs if I remember rightly, but it's copy pasted in numerous locations if you google "Flesh Tearers eaters of the dead". Darkchild Thanks for the heads-up. :) I'll be sure to check it out. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2881339 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulllyssies0110 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 They actually ate Orks? Yuk... Bliah... Do Angels Sanguine What Ork taste like mushrooms. Grill some up and put them on you burger. yum ;) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2881414 Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamaNagol Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I wrote a bunch of backgrounds for my own named characters that I've included in my Flesh Tearer army so far. I tried to bring a bit more than just ghoulish cannibalism Click here Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2881619 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlantic Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 You have the coolest models. I love your counts as Mephiston. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2881623 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smendrik Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 I wrote a bunch of backgrounds for my own named characters that I've included in my Flesh Tearer army so far. I tried to bring a bit more than just ghoulish cannibalism Click here Thank you for that wonderful pieve of fluff <_< Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2881752 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkchild130 Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 If we're playing it like that, read the story in my sig, its generally well received and shows the flesh tearers as more than just savage barbarians! Darkchild Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2881756 Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamaNagol Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Will read it now! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2881758 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimrod451 Posted September 23, 2011 Author Share Posted September 23, 2011 Actually i've been reading the blog, with Darkchild you've been an inspiration and one of the reason i'm not sure which army i want to do. The fact is it is tempting to do an army that not many people do..and i do see people paying flesh tearers more lately... still pondering.. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2883159 Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelOfDeathXIII Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 when considering the colour scheme I like the Angels Sanguine more. As a matter of fact, when I quit my part-time job at the local library (after 3 years) I painted a Angels Sanguine Librarian for them (because the colours of our city are red and black as well) and while not my best work I really enjoyed painting him.. See below. http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/140/0/0/as_librarian_update_by_reinoutjansen-d3grgtn.jpg Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/238701-angels-sanguine-vs-flesh-tearers/page/2/#findComment-2883163 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.