Jump to content

Where do we need buffs for 10?


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

Demonic are still angels, bro.

 

Actually beauty is not subjective. There is a mathematical element to it. It is universally agreed, for instance, that symmetry is viewed as beautiful where asymmetry is associated with ugliness. This is a long topic, but needless to say “beauty is subjective” is modernist nonsense. Taste is subjective, beauty is objective.

 


And no one said otherwise. However, in the case of BA, their artificer armor is usually designed like Dante’s. 
 


Well no duh. You gave your opinion that we should have a Gravis unit, and I gave my opinion which is that it doesn’t fit the aesthetics of the chapter. It doesn’t. 
 

Besides, we already have more special units than almost everyone else in the SM realm. 
Salamanders? Iron Hands? UM? Nothing.

We have DC, SG, Baal Predators, Furioso Dreadnaughts, Sanguinary High Priests, DC Character Upgrades, and DC Primaris.

 

I would rather those units get better than an ugly (objectively speaking) unit of Gravis that don’t fit the profile for BA’s just because you think they’d be cool.

Bro… the spiritual aspect of renaissance art and the parallels with BA and BA stuff. Again, you are just clueless. 
Considering you already admitted you don’t read any of the actual lore, it makes sense. You probably haven’t studied any of the cultural stuff it’s based on either.

Tell a priest a demon is an angel.

 

no, beauty is not scientific, beauty is subjective and there’s nothing modern about that.

people and things can be ugly while being symmetrical.

 

even by your definition of beauty being in symmetry, gravis armor is symmetrical, so it must be beautiful.


regardless i wasn’t asking your permission to have a desire a gravis melee unit that is BA specific.

Edited by Inquisitor_Lensoven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Tell a priest a demon is an angel.

No need, is Catholic teaching and dogmatic teaching that Demons are Angels, and any exorcist will tell you that. I have a book on my shelf written by Father Ripperger, an Exorcist, on the subject. I also have several works by St. Thomas Aquinas (known as the Angelic Doctor, by the way), who also says it. So I don't need to tell a priest, because they tell me ;)

 

4 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

no, beauty is not scientific, beauty is subjective and there’s nothing modern about that.

people and things can be ugly while being symmetrical.

 

It sure is, and considering it is a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church, I'm not going to budge on that. And it absolutely is modern, which is why up until recently everyone learned the ratios (the Golden Ratio, being one example), and why Greek and Renaissance Art is universally acclaimed (at least the actual art), where as modern art is universally seen as ugly (except for a few edge lords).

 

5 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

even by your definition of beauty being in symmetry, gravis armor is symmetrical, so it must be beautiful.

Symmetry doesn't make beauty, but it is one of the components of it. Don't make my argument what it isn't. Ratios also go into it. Besides, beauty isn't the only argument I made. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

No need, is Catholic teaching and dogmatic teaching that Demons are Angels, and any exorcist will tell you that. I have a book on my shelf written by Father Ripperger, an Exorcist, on the subject. I also have several works by St. Thomas Aquinas (known as the Angelic Doctor, by the way), who also says it. So I don't need to tell a priest, because they tell me ;)

 

 

It sure is, and considering it is a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church, I'm not going to budge on that. And it absolutely is modern, which is why up until recently everyone learned the ratios (the Golden Ratio, being one example), and why Greek and Renaissance Art is universally acclaimed (at least the actual art), where as modern art is universally seen as ugly (except for a few edge lords).

 

Symmetry doesn't make beauty, but it is one of the components of it. Don't make my argument what it isn't. Ratios also go into it. Besides, beauty isn't the only argument I made. 

Lmao the greek master pieces are considered beautiful because they were created by masters of art.

 

nor is modern art ‘universally’ considered ugly. 
You’re providing your opinions as universal facts.

 

the fact that we’re disagreeing on what is beautiful is proof that there’s no scientific method of determining what is beautiful.

Edited by Inquisitor_Lensoven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Arkangilos said:

No need, is Catholic teaching and dogmatic teaching that Demons are Angels, and any exorcist will tell you that. I have a book on my shelf written by Father Ripperger, an Exorcist, on the subject. I also have several works by St. Thomas Aquinas (known as the Angelic Doctor, by the way), who also says it. So I don't need to tell a priest, because they tell me ;)

 

 

It sure is, and considering it is a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church, I'm not going to budge on that. And it absolutely is modern, which is why up until recently everyone learned the ratios (the Golden Ratio, being one example), and why Greek and Renaissance Art is universally acclaimed (at least the actual art), where as modern art is universally seen as ugly (except for a few edge lords).

 

Symmetry doesn't make beauty, but it is one of the components of it. Don't make my argument what it isn't. Ratios also go into it. Besides, beauty isn't the only argument I made. 

You backed down on all of your other arguments and then leaned on ‘angelic’ which you admitted was just a euphemism for beauty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Lmao the greek master pieces are considered beautiful because they were created by masters of art.

Using the ratios and objective beauty standards. There is a reason they are masters.

 

"Modern art" is a category, not literally all art that is modern. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

You backed down on all of your other arguments and then leaned on ‘angelic’ which you admitted was just a euphemism for beauty.

Where did I back down on my other arguments? While I admit now Gravis Armor can work, I still don't think we should waste a special unit on it. It just isn't the epitome of Blood Angel for all the reasons I gave before.

 

And no, Angelic isn't just a euphemism for beauty, it's that the beauty should bring about some sort of angelic glory to it. For Dante it is the gold muscular plate bringing about the golden armored angels that bring victory and hope. For Mephiston it is the red flayed skin of a fallen angel (which is reflective of his own interior nature).

Dante is not a fallen angel, and shines bright. Mephiston is, and has twisted beauty. The beauty they display brings forth their spiritual nature as Angels of Blood and Death.

8 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

the fact that we’re disagreeing on what is beautiful is proof that there’s no scientific method of determining what is beautiful.

People disagree on whether 2+2=4 and that the Earth is round, that doesn't mean there isn't an objective standard by which we can judge it. So someone that denies that the Golden Ratio exists, or that objective beauty exists are as accurate as people that believe 2+2=5

Edited by Arkangilos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.