# 'eavy Metal facebook group closed down



## Kroothawk (May 16, 2014)

Hi,
last year, GW closed down their own facebook page due to the "Spot the Space Marine" incident that flooded their page with negative comments.
This year, they closed down the GW digital and FW facebook pages.
Now they found out that the 'Eavy Metal team is still in contact with customers and shut down their facebook group as well (thanks to Davylove21 over at Dakka for finding this):


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

I don't understand. GW found out their 'Eavy Metal Department still had an FB page that spoke directly to their customers and shut them down for that reason?


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

Einherjar667 said:


> I don't understand. GW found out their 'Eavy Metal Department still had an FB page that spoke directly to their customers and shut them down for that reason?


Yes.


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

Achaylus72 said:


> Yes.



I have my reservations that GW was unaware of the fb groups existence when it used a GW trademarked term as it's title and they have a colossal legal team monitoring such things.

They probably discontinued the group due to Warhammer Visions containing the 'Eavy Metal teams photos.


----------



## Squire (Jan 15, 2013)

Next time the 'eavy Metal team gets a batch of Space Marines to paint I hope they paint penises onto their heads and base the models with a turd theme


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

So...what happened with the "spot the Space Marine" thing anyway?


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

I'm no expert on the matter but I believe that GW's Legal Boffins decided that this:










was an attack on their IP and got Amazon to withdraw it, slapped a C&D on the author from using the term etc etc etc. The internet didn't like this and decided to tell GW quite aggressively through the FB pages. Rather than actually dealing with the issue GW decided that the easiest way of solving the issue was to shitcan the FB pages which to me sounds like cutting off your hand because you got a splinter but that's just my opinion.

Basically GW Legal did was GW Legal do best with all the tact and finesse of a battering ram and the internet responded in kind.


----------



## Wookiepelt (Jan 29, 2013)

'eavy Metal closure announcement made but within the span of an hour of that announcement, the fellas created an alternate 'eavier Metal page and pretty much most of the community who saw the announcement regrouped there... Simple!


----------



## Grokfog (May 4, 2009)

Would just like to point out that one of the other former members of the 'Eavy Metal group has made another group called 'eavy metal (note the lack of capitals)


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

Jacobite said:


> I'm no expert on the matter but I believe that GW's Legal Boffins decided that this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


According to amazon themselves at the time, they took it off sale as they were made aware of the fact space marine was IP by another author.

GW legal's only involvement was being asked about it,
the whole thing was a storm in an egg cup


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

A brief google suggests otherwise: 

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online

http://www.blastr.com/2013-2-6/writer-sued-over-using-term-space-marine-really

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/06/space-marines-and-the-battle-of-tradem-ark/

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-21380003


----------



## locustgate (Dec 6, 2009)

Jacobite said:


> I'm no expert on the matter but I believe that GW's Legal Boffins decided that this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wait is Spot a space marine or it telling you to spot the space marine?


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

The FB group was set up by the EM team back when I was on it. It has since grown quite substantially and has become more of a place to show off painting (not necessarily on GW models) and get advice. I am sad to see it go, but as a result am now a member of the groups 'eavy metal (no caps), 'eavier metal and oz painting, so horizons have broadened somewhat :grin: 

Sad to see a group that has been going over 6 years and had thousands of members get shut down.


----------



## Svartmetall (Jun 16, 2008)

GW do love their heavy-handedness.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

Jacobite said:


> A brief google suggests otherwise:
> 
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online
> 
> ...


That was amazon.coms statement after the dust settled, sounded like everyone had jumped the gun

edit:
no, i'm remembering it partially wrong


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

I thought it had been proven that the author had infact contacted GW and Amazon and reported her own work as potentially using GWs IP and then rode the shit storm of publicity all the way to the bank? Or maybe im remembering it wrong?


----------



## Kroothawk (May 16, 2014)

You remember it wrong.
"Spots the Space Marine" has nothing to do with 40k. It is a "Starship Trooper" inspired ebook about a woman in a space war. Chances are that the female author never heard of 40k before, because Space Marine is a term from the original Starship Trooper novel.
http://mcah.wikia.com/wiki/Spots_the_Space_Marine_%28fiction%29



> In mid-December of 2012, I received a notice from Amazon that they had suspended the sales of my e-book, Spots the Space Marine, in response to a complaint from Games Workshop that I was infringing on their trademark on the term "space marine." Looking up the relevant trademark information in the US, UK and European databases, I discovered that in no country did GW have a trademark on any class related to fiction. I discussed this with Amazon, which told me to talk with Games Workshop. Over a period extended by the frequent absences due to the holidays, I had that discussion and could not reach an agreement with GW.
> 
> I had written two blog posts about this issue in mid-December and again in January. However, my post in February (In the Future All Space Marines Will Be Warhammer 40K Space Marines) caused enough media movement that the EFF was able to convince Amazon to re-instate the e-book. You can once again buy it on Amazon, and many people have; I was gratified to see so many reviews from people who bought the book because of the controversy, only to discover they enjoyed it.


http://mcah.wikia.com/wiki/Spots_vs_Games_Workshop


----------



## emporershand89 (Jun 11, 2010)

Kroothawk said:


> Space Marine is a term from the original Starship Trooper novel.


Indeed Kroothawk, and a great point you make; thank you for the information. In fact I'd go so far to to state that many Video Games contain the term "Space Marines," and even well-known games such a Starcraft contain the iconic imges of "Marines" in their massive sets of armor. Why has GW not gone after them..??

It is sad to see that GW Legal is so desperate for either money or attention that they target an author, and a poor writer at that, for a ridiculous trademark issue. They will honestly loose more business from this than their Legal Team can afford.


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

emporershand89 said:


> Indeed Kroothawk, and a great point you make; thank you for the information. In fact I'd go so far to to state that many Video Games contain the term "Space Marines," and even well-known games such a Starcraft contain the iconic imges of "Marines" in their massive sets of armor. Why has GW not gone after them..??
> 
> It is sad to see that GW Legal is so desperate for either money or attention that they target an author, and a poor writer at that, for a ridiculous trademark issue. They will honestly loose more business from this than their Legal Team can afford.


They would go after Blizzard for that if A. They used the term "space marine" in Starcraft, which they do not. And B, were a smaller company with a weaker legal force. To sue Blizzard would be too expensive for GW to bother with.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Yeah but as well all know starship troopers stole the term too, the first confirmed use was in 1932 a whole 27 years before the starship trooper useage, anyway this has nothing wjat so ever to do with the original topic of eavy Metal dropping faceboot, to be honest I never even knew they had a Facebook page and do they really have time to administer it when they should be working, besides more and more people are walking away from social media these days as they have become just another source of spam adverts and full of people posting utter mindless dross nobody else gives a shit about, out of the close friends I have I am the only one left with an active profile and I keep that mainly to post spam/advertise www.bitsandkits.co.uk in the wargame pages.
We restocked yesterday if anyone might be interested. ....


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> I thought it had been proven that the author had infact contacted GW and Amazon and reported her own work as potentially using GWs IP and then rode the shit storm of publicity all the way to the bank? Or maybe im remembering it wrong?


That was (sort of) what I was remembering, I know the author came out of it in a much better financial situation after it all happened anyway (something akin to it experienced a 400% sales increase pushing it up to a whopping 5 books sold:grin


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

"Defence of the Fiddler".

So it's actually a book about Stuart Hall's legal team....?


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Tawa said:


> "Defence of the Fiddler".
> 
> So it's actually a book about Stuart Hall's legal team....?


Boom ! Its a knock out


----------



## Kroothawk (May 16, 2014)

Bindi Baji said:


> That was (sort of) what I was remembering, I know the author came out of it in a much better financial situation after it all happened anyway (something akin to it experienced a 400% sales increase pushing it up to a whopping 5 books sold:grin


As said, sometimes victims get some popularity, when BBC and Guardian stand by their side. Claiming that the victim made GW attack her, is insulting and far from truth.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

Kroothawk said:


> crap


fixed that for you, no need to thank me


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

Don't get snippy, Bindi. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Kroothawk said:


> As said, sometimes victims get some popularity, when BBC and Guardian stand by their side. Claiming that the victim made GW attack her, is insulting and far from truth.


He is joking, see the winky face at the end of the sentence, hes been a cheeky chappy, before you start taking things personally and defending the authors honor in a duel to the death(again me joking, i dont expect you to duel Bindi for real, he's useless at physical stuff, he would likely just get a note from him mum)you should understand this isnt warseer (do you know you cant say warseer without saying arse) or Dakkadakka, people are much more relaxed here and they will talk crap about stuff they know nothing about.

to be honest i have read a sample of the book and its pretty meh, if anything GW and Amazon were doing people a favour, im not sure i agree with self publications if this is the standard, its difficult to read as its almost written like a script with stage directions, so for example it reads like this

Spots. "Copy that control"

Control."Spots, this is control,You're cleared for your walk"

Claws. "Copy that Control, Thanks, After You Spots"

_They enter the airlock leading to the planets exterior and pause for the chunky(wtf) door to shut behind them_

this is the general gist of the dialog, it goes back and forth, no significant descriptions of anything, no description of the characters,how they are feeling etc. now im no writer but i imagine that the portion of text above should have read something like this 

"Copy that Control" replied Spots through the comms in her helmet,she waited.
Her comms buzzed to life "Spots, This is control, Youre cleared for your walk"
Before Spots could answer Claws interjected "Copy that Control,Thanks, After you Spots" Claws pointed towards the air lock, they moved the cumbersome space suits towards the airlock door, the large crenalated slabs of the air lock door parted as they stepped on to the foot plate control and they stepped in....etc etc 

seriously you can see for yourself if you get the book, i could honestly see why GW may have had concerns if people associated this book with anything from black library, now i know people defended her to the hilt mainly because they felt it was GW throwing its weight around,but even though the term space marine may not be unique to GW it has been popularized by them and they do have a vested interest if people are writing scifi and using the term, on reading portions of the story i can safely say the author really isnt aware of GW and its rich universe, if she were her story would be much better written.


----------



## Kroothawk (May 16, 2014)

1.) I have no doubt that "Spot the Space Marine" is not a piece of fiction I would enjoy. But I will defend her right to write and sell such crap :wink:
2.) I have read Graham McNeill's novel where a Tau army of orbital landers, anti-grav tanks and anti-grav suits fights over a bridge to cross a river. I have read a recently released Phil Kelly novel where Shadowsun is busy killing human civilians, when an ethereal urges her to hurry up, so she incinerates a hive city of 7 billion civilians and culls half the civilian population of the planet. I have seen the 7th edition of 40k, where GW claims that it is totally okay for Orks, Eldar and all Imperials (except Grey Knights) to summon daemons at will. So don't tell me that GW is aware of the value of its rich background. Because that is not true anymore.
3.) I won't get used to people talking crap and will most likely continue to counter this with facts and reason.


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

Give me a fucking break.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Kroothawk said:


> I won't get used to people talking crap and will most likely continue to counter this with facts and reason.


You're gonna go insane.  

Seriously though, you will find it often enough prudent to just let shit slide. Trying to hold onto it and fix it just means it's going to pile up around you, and then it's deep shit you're in. 


And on a more unsubtle note, that was a metaphor for you shouldn't pick pointless arguments with people based on opinions. Because all it leads to is red text and closed threads.


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

Kroothawk said:


> I have seen the 7th edition of 40k, where GW claims that it is totally okay for Orks, Eldar and all Imperials (except Grey Knights) to summon daemons at will. So don't tell me that GW is aware of the value of its rich background. Because that is not true anymore.


My Slaaneshi army is fallen Eldar. If I can now run an actual Eldar army and use that to summon my daemonettes, then I will be a happy bunny. There was a comic many years back where the main bad guy was a possessed ork. Imperial guard become traitor guard all the time. 

What these new rules do, is allow you to play these things without needing new codeces to cover all eventualities. This is not a bad thing. It is in fact a good thing, and hugely broadens scope, and allows you to play things that are already in the background and have been for decades...


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

SilverTabby said:


> My Slaaneshi army is fallen Eldar. If I can now run an actual Eldar army and use that to summon my daemonettes, then I will be a happy bunny. There was a comic many years back where the main bad guy was a possessed ork. Imperial guard become traitor guard all the time.
> 
> What these new rules do, is allow you to play these things without needing new codeces to cover all eventualities. This is not a bad thing. It is in fact a good thing, and hugely broadens scope, and allows you to play things that are already in the background and have been for decades...


Kroot seems a bit new, and doesn't yet understand that this community is not all about negativity, venom, and ragging on GW in every way we can. Almost every one of his posts that I have come across has made me roll my eyes, as he seems to wish to spin everything to rail against GW. This is not what our community is all about, and does not promote a healthy environment here. 

I am getting a little sick of it.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Kroothawk said:


> 1.) I have no doubt that "Spot the Space Marine" is not a piece of fiction I would enjoy. But I will defend her right to write and sell such crap :wink:
> 2.) I have read Graham McNeill's novel where a Tau army of orbital landers, anti-grav tanks and anti-grav suits fights over a bridge to cross a river. I have read a recently released Phil Kelly novel where Shadowsun is busy killing human civilians, when an ethereal urges her to hurry up, so she incinerates a hive city of 7 billion civilians and culls half the civilian population of the planet. I have seen the 7th edition of 40k, where GW claims that it is totally okay for Orks, Eldar and all Imperials (except Grey Knights) to summon daemons at will. So don't tell me that GW is aware of the value of its rich background. Because that is not true anymore.
> 3.) I won't get used to people talking crap and will most likely continue to counter this with facts and reason.


no need to get used to it, your already part of it


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)




----------



## Kroothawk (May 16, 2014)

SilverTabby said:


> What these new rules do, is allow you to play these things without needing new codeces to cover all eventualities.


The rules don't just allow Chaos Eldar, they make ALL Craftworld Eldar Chaos Eldar, narrowing the scope to something impossible so far. Same with Chaos Dark Angels, Chaos Blood Angels, Chaos Space Wolves, Chaos Ultramarines, Chaos Orks and Chaos IG. So the rich 40k background is one of the first casualties of 7th edition, in opposition to GW's claims that defending their rich IP is important to them.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

So sell your shit and go be buttsore about it somewhere else. If you haven't noticed the general opinion around here is that we don't care about it.


----------



## Kroothawk (May 16, 2014)

Thanks for reminding me, that everyone who has a different opinion from you should leave the forum.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Nope not at all, didn't say leave. I said be buttsore elsewhere because we don't care. Fluff is there to sell models, GW would rewrite it so the Emperor actually was just a Chaos god in disguise if it sold more models.


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

Kroothawk said:


> The rules don't just allow Chaos Eldar, they make ALL Craftworld Eldar Chaos Eldar, narrowing the scope to something impossible so far. Same with Chaos Dark Angels, Chaos Blood Angels, Chaos Space Wolves, Chaos Ultramarines, Chaos Orks and Chaos IG. So the rich 40k background is one of the first casualties of 7th edition, in opposition to GW's claims that defending their rich IP is important to them.


Actually, no it doesn't. Just because you have *access* to something, doesn't mean you *have* to use it. Every race you mentioned has the potential to fall to Chaos. That doesn't mean every farseer is suddenly going to decide that summoning daemons is a good idea. All this does is open options. 

I have a sisters army, and a slaaneshi army. Now if I choose, I can run the army from Daemonifuge. However, my normal sisters army wouldn't touch psykers, let alone a daemonologist, with a battle barge.

The rules are not black and white, they are a hundred shades of grey so you can do what you want with them. This is deliberate, and I can say that with certainty having worked in the Studio for almost 10 years.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Kids play nice.

Just a friendly reminder before anyone gets too upset and says something they'll regret later.


----------



## venomlust (Feb 9, 2010)

Never quite understood the seriousness with which people approach the 40k fluff.

Time and time again, it is obvious that anything and everything we can conceive of happens in the 40k universe. It is simply so vast and variable that you can justify any "fluff" decision you please. You don't need permission, nor do you need a precedent.

Guy 1: "Yeah, this is my army of traitor Grey Knights. Every single one of them succumbed to chaos." 

Whiny voice: "But that wouldn't happen!"

Guy 2: "It did happen. Do you see those minis on the table? They exist. That's their background."


But if someone else's army -- or shit, even painting/modeling decisions -- doesn't stack up to someone's gospel interpretation of the fluff THE GAME IS RUINED! OHMAHGAWRD!

What the hell is the insult or injustice you're suffering, exactly? You got so invested in a fantasy world that you can't abide any possible threat to its existence? That because you've read so much about the GW background that you're now an "expert" who spends their time telling people they're wrong about a world of make believe? Or that a company can't edit/change their background fiction as they see fit? You'd have to try very hard to be more childish about it.

I seriously can't believe it. I just don't understand why people give a shit.

*edit*

Also "you" is directed toward anyone with that point of view. Not attacking anyone directly, just a point of view that I find frustrating.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

@venomlust think of this more as a religious argument. That hypothetical army of grey knights undermines that other hypothetical players safety in believing in the game system.


----------



## Svartmetall (Jun 16, 2008)

Hell, if I ever did a Sisters army I'd be tempted to model them as Fallen Sisters because:

*a)* Black Seraphim just sounds cool 
*b)* fleur-de-lys are so 2nd. Edition
*c)* it'd be fun watching the faces of the Fluff Police turning Mephiston Red with NERDRAGE as they try to come to terms with the idea


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

Svartmetall said:


> Hell, if I ever did a Sisters army I'd be tempted to model them as Fallen Sisters because:
> 
> *a)* Black Seraphim just sounds cool
> *b)* fleur-de-lys are so 2nd. Edition
> *c)* it'd be fun watching the faces of the Fluff Police turning Mephiston Red with NERDRAGE as they try to come to terms with the idea


This a thousand times :good:


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Svartmetall said:


> Hell, if I ever did a Sisters army I'd be tempted to model them as Fallen Sisters because:
> 
> *a)* Black Seraphim just sounds cool
> *b)* fleur-de-lys are so 2nd. Edition
> *c)* it'd be fun watching the faces of the Fluff Police turning Mephiston Red with NERDRAGE as they try to come to terms with the idea


I eventually want to do a Khorne Sisters army. I mean if Khorne can corrupt dozens of marines be splattering them with blood then corrupting a coven of Sisters to become a band of slaughter-happy women who see Heresy everywhere shouldn't be beyond his power.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

Svartmetall said:


> Hell, if I ever did a Sisters army I'd be tempted to model them as Fallen Sisters because:
> 
> *a)* Black Seraphim just sounds cool
> *b)* fleur-de-lys are so 2nd. Edition
> *c)* it'd be fun watching the faces of the Fluff Police turning Mephiston Red with NERDRAGE as they try to come to terms with the idea


How have I never seen anyone do this?,
it sounds like such an obvious twist on an army......


----------



## Kroothawk (May 16, 2014)

Because usually only teens want to make a boob themed female army to feel naughty but lack the money and sculpting skills to actually make it. Then they grow up and the prospect to offend fellow gamers is not enough reason anymore to spend 1000 $ on an army.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Only cunts get offended about how plastic army men are setup.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Zion said:


> I eventually want to do a Khorne Sisters army. I mean if Khorne can corrupt dozens of marines be splattering them with blood then corrupting a coven of Sisters to become a band of slaughter-happy women who see Heresy everywhere shouldn't be beyond his power.


That's why the Grey Knights used them as tribute.


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

Kroothawk said:


> Because usually only teens want to make a boob themed female army to feel naughty but lack the money and sculpting skills to actually make it. Then they grow up and the prospect to offend fellow gamers is not enough reason anymore to spend 1000 $ on an army.


1) The sisters range is full of girls in power armour. No boobs showing. Even the Repentia are covered with scrolls and purity seals. Not the best army to do a 'boob theme' with. 

2) Really? 

3) No, seriously. Really?

I have several female themed armies. Not from a sexist or boob-fetished point of view, but because I happen to like the female form better than the male from an artistic point of view, and if I am to paint 100+ models then they had better be ones I like. The mindset that says only teenagers who like giggling about breasts make female armies is akin to the one that says all wargamers are fat smelly middle-aged men who live in their mothers basement. In short, it's wrong.


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

SilverTabby said:


> 1) The sisters range is full of girls in power armour. No boobs showing. Even the Repentia are covered with scrolls and purity seals. Not the best army to do a 'boob theme' with.
> 
> 2) Really?
> 
> ...


At this point, I think he's a very successful troll, or psychotic. But either way, he should best be ignored. He's only trying to rile us up.


----------



## Kroothawk (May 16, 2014)

SilverTabby said:


> 1) The sisters range is full of girls in power armour. No boobs showing. Even the Repentia are covered with scrolls and purity seals. Not the best army to do a 'boob theme' with.


I am obviously talking about the concept of Chaos sisters mentioned in this thread, which is almost always Slaanesh sisters -> sex theme.
Standard Sororitas are fine for me.

But as over 50% of this forum's posts seem to consist of insults and swear words, I am leaving this forum again after less than a month. Good-bye.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Actually any theme is fine.


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

Kroothawk said:


> I am obviously talking about the concept of Chaos sisters mentioned in this thread, which is almost always Slaanesh sisters -> sex theme.
> Standard Sororitas are fine for me.
> 
> But as over 50% of this forum's posts seem to consist of insults and swear words, I am leaving this forum again after less than a month. Good-bye.


Bye. I recommend Dakkadakka, you'll fit right in.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Laters.


----------



## Adramalech (Nov 10, 2009)

Seeya krootykins!


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

DeathKlokk said:


> Don't get snippy, Bindi. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.


Indeed, I forgot the "don't respond straight away to a post you don't like" rule and as such I apologise for escalating the situation............


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

It didn't escalate because of you, it escalated because someone couldn't figure out that this isn't dakka or warseer.


----------



## Einherjar667 (Aug 23, 2013)

Indeed, this place lacking posters like him is what makes being a member here so worthwhile. Everything that guy said was spun to be negetive toward GW, that crap gets pretty tiresome.

Even this thread was useless, obviously GW took the 'Eavy Metal FB page down so it didn't take emphasis away from Warhammer Visions.


----------



## venomlust (Feb 9, 2010)




----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Let's stop taking pot shots at people who aren't here to defend themselves shall we? I mean, I assume we're all adults here and can act like it, or are we petty children who can't get over someone having a difference of viewpoint and need to keep making fun of them after they leave?


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Back to the previous discussion about themed armies ......

Chaos Sisters of my own. Sisters of the Poisened Chalice



With their ride ....


I use the CSM codex so could have deamons in there as well. To be honest this is a 5th ed army and I have not updated it since its such a chore doing the modeling on metals. If they bring out plastics this army is going to be revamped. I used chaos undivided on the army at the time as Slaanesh seemed to obvious. 

So from my personal perspective an army of Chaos GK is perfectly fine with me .. maybe I should look into that.


----------



## Bindi Baji (Apr 23, 2009)

humakt said:


> Back to the previous discussion about themed armies ......
> 
> Chaos Sisters of my own. Sisters of the Poisened Chalice


Which I misread as Sisters of the pointy chalice,
think I prefer that as well


----------



## venomlust (Feb 9, 2010)

Very cool, Humakt. I love the orange color scheme and the idea in general.


----------

