Zeus and sigmar (Stormcast eternals)

that's awesome. Also the forum is broken again, I can't like-like your post more than once.

 

That Scaletail fellow is a bad influence.

 

Not...
Sotekus
Mortis
Que
Rattus
...then?

 

Spellus
Messed-upus
Dyslexicus
Pendrakus

 

Somehow that rat knows we are talking about him even when we don't use his name.

 

This model of zues looks pretty decent what do you think http://www.beastsofwar.com/mythic-battles-pantheon/mighty-zeus-painted/

Edit - I don't like the horns but the rest I like

 

GW, like all fantasy writers, are deeply inspired by myth and history. Most writers of Western fiction tend to be mostly inspired by Western (i.e. European and near-European) myth. It's not surprising that comparisons between Sigmar and Zeus can be drawn. I've always taken Sigmar to be more inspired by Thor - I mean, hammer + lightning + Nordic aesthetic isn't pretty subtle. Plus, Azyrheim is a clear mirror to Valhalla, with a pseudo-Old Norse name just in case it wasn't clear enough. Essentially there're too many patriarchal sky gods out there.

Part of me wishes GW put more thought into this as it hardly brushes originality (although neither did the previous fluff tbf). Then again easily identifiable tropes are decent vectors to involve audiences. Eh.

 

Yeah, I guess you can draw lines to many mythologies, probably because the mythologies themselves have similarities. When gods where made to all kinds of different forces of nature, or an attribute in humans, you end up with the same concepts, the difference being how they are combined.
That explains why they can be so similar. The words also kind of originate from the same place, but of course there are more differences in this area, as it have probably changed more through the ages.

regarding originality, let me quote Einstein: "Creativity is knowing how to hide your sources", GW just have not been too great at doing that.

Yeah, it is a pretty model, maybe you could take the horns off, and patch him up with greenstuff?

 

What.
I unconsciously wrote this and now I'm floundering over its acceptability.
"There is" is the incorrect way to refer to a multiplicity and thus "there's" should probably considered so too.
"There're" doesn't aid in brevity compared to "there are" however.
Is it acceptable even if it's uncommon?
Is there a rule for this?
What use are rules for English anyway?
What is English?
What is life?
What is?
What?

 

It aint worth worrying about.

Whoops, sorry.

Ain't.

 

no one really knows were the right usage of words goes, saying that where all hear to help each other - sometimes you here the word in your head as your write it and it seems right

 

"There're" is probably spoken language asserting itself in written language - we tend to mush similar sounds together so that "there are" end up sound like "therrrrr..."
I vote that, if we can make contractions with "are" such as "you're", then "there're" is fair game.