Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

I don't think anyone is excited by the Coatl... CA included.

124

Comments

  • MaedrethnirMaedrethnir Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,899
    edited July 10

    Nyxilis said:

    Nyxilis said:

    I have dozens of games with immense amount of worldbuilding, but garbage game mechanics that I have not wanted to touch after a few hours invested.

    Reworking the unit recruitment processes, a complete revamp of the lord trees and adding a meaningful trade system within the game would be far superior to anything CA could provide in improving a dozen creatures.

    If a Coatl were to speak, what would you want it to say within the context of the game? It sounds as though it spoke in a snake like language.

    And I'm not denying the importance of gameplay, I just don't think that caring for both is mutually exclusive.

    I don't know, 'rub my feathers', 'oil my beak', 'Tepok' or some other LM specific gibberish they utter in their scaly-fairy language.
    Nyxilis said:

    Goatforce said:

    Today I have discovered that the Coatl doesn't speak. It's such a wasted opportunity. CA likes to reduce intelligent creatures into roaring/screeching beasts.

    Has there ever been any indication in the lore that they can speak? Not that they are intelligent but that they can actually talk.
    Yes.
    Source?

    Today I have discovered that the Coatl doesn't speak. It's such a wasted opportunity. CA likes to reduce intelligent creatures into roaring/screeching beasts.

    Has there ever been any indication in the lore that they can speak? Not that they are intelligent but that they can actually talk.
    Yes.
    Care to show some proof? Cause their write up in Warhammer Chronicles doesn't say anything about them speaking.

    Talks a lot about then being eaten by Pygmies though
    From 2ED Battle Bestiary:



    Sure, it's an ancient stuff, but it would set Coatls apart from the rest of LM creatures.
    Sibilant language, this means the language they speak is literally hissing.

    So it speaks, but you would not be able to understand pathetic mortal.
    Or it has a lot of hissing sounds, like the language from, hm, let's say Harry Potter. Parseltongue was it?

    It's not as if I understand most of what LM say anyway.
    Parseltongue was also all hissing, and needed magic to understand.

    This isn't an accent. The language is literally hissing.

    So yeah they talk, they talk in animal sounds.
    To be precise, I meant the cinematic universe for which professor Francis Nolan created phrases. Whether it requires special skill or not is a secondary issue.

    We don't know that. Sibilant language might as well mean words sounding like 'xishasaks'.

    It still wouldn't be just animal sounds, because language proper would consist of phonemes, suprasegmentals etc.
    Itharus said:

    WTF is parseltongue? Sounds Slaaneshi.

    It's the language of serpents from the Harry Potter universe.

    Ahh, it turns out that the Coatl does speak by telepathy. However, if you can't tell what it is saying, it's a good indication that you're not telepathic.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that every LM can be a receiver of telepathic communication.
    No, if you just got some hissing you're just speaking a language with an accent. Sibilant is a language based in hissing.

    You're just trying to staple human nonsense onto a winged serpent.
    1. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sibilant
    2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sibilant

    We don't know what form exactly this language takes. But we know that an alien frog has no problems with human nonsense.
    There is no context in the game in which a Coatl would speak to the player. Dragons are highly intelligent in the WH universe. It's not like we spend our time in game chatting with them. The exception is Imrik where there is context. Going on and on about something like this is the height of pedantry.

    The alien frogs are given speech we can understand as they are the leaders of their faction. As has already pointed out, we would not understand the speech of any races if they were given "loreful" speech.

    There is such context: when we would select it. The Coatl too are highly intelligent. It's a shame that dragons don't have voicelines. Especially Minaithnir should, in order for the Lord of Dragons theme to be fuller. I disagree.

    But we can't understand them. The Slann speak in made-up language. And it's not about understanding it, but hearing it. I wouldn't mind High Elves and Dwarfs speaking in Eltharin and Khazalid respectively. In fact, it would add a lot to the ambience of the game.
    Post edited by Maedrethnir on
    animacja-sygn-3.gif


  • Mr_Finley7Mr_Finley7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,630
    Jesus Christ why are you people arguing against the Coatl speaking?

    A: It’s almost certainly not going to happen.

    B: If it does, the “well it’s canon now so I guess I like it” crowd will accept it.

    C: If you’re someone who can’t abide the idea, one post of “ I think it’s a stupid idea but to each their own” should be more than enough discussion.

    One guy saying he wishes the Coatl spoke is not going to cause a redesign of a unit most never heard of but now champion as proof of GW/CA infallibility so y’all can probably relax.
  • MarcusLiviusMarcusLivius Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 996

    Jesus Christ why are you people arguing against the Coatl speaking?

    A: It’s almost certainly not going to happen.

    B: If it does, the “well it’s canon now so I guess I like it” crowd will accept it.

    C: If you’re someone who can’t abide the idea, one post of “ I think it’s a stupid idea but to each their own” should be more than enough discussion.

    One guy saying he wishes the Coatl spoke is not going to cause a redesign of a unit most never heard of but now champion as proof of GW/CA infallibility so y’all can probably relax.

    I could care less if it could talk or not. It's the nitpicking to the umpteenth degree, with the lack of consistency that is nauseating. Really, infallibility in video game design when it comes to talking Coatls, and the type of earrings it isn't wearing?

    There is a difference in saying, "I think it would be cool and loreful if the Coatl could talk" compared to "Can you believe that CA did not design the Coatl to talk? CA is so lazy!". Especially when the same argument could have been made about Dragons and other similar creatures for years, but never was.

    Put an Ice Witch on a bear and many complain it's the most overpowered and unloreful unit ever. Put an Oracle Skink on a Troglodon, that can basically fill any niche on a battlefield and no one bats an eye. Only difference is the year the lore and content was written.

  • Mr_Finley7Mr_Finley7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,630

    Jesus Christ why are you people arguing against the Coatl speaking?

    A: It’s almost certainly not going to happen.

    B: If it does, the “well it’s canon now so I guess I like it” crowd will accept it.

    C: If you’re someone who can’t abide the idea, one post of “ I think it’s a stupid idea but to each their own” should be more than enough discussion.

    One guy saying he wishes the Coatl spoke is not going to cause a redesign of a unit most never heard of but now champion as proof of GW/CA infallibility so y’all can probably relax.

    I could care less if it could talk or not. It's the nitpicking to the umpteenth degree, with the lack of consistency that is nauseating. Really, infallibility in video game design when it comes to talking Coatls, and the type of earrings it isn't wearing?

    There is a difference in saying, "I think it would be cool and loreful if the Coatl could talk" compared to "Can you believe that CA did not design the Coatl to talk? CA is so lazy!". Especially when the same argument could have been made about Dragons and other similar creatures for years, but never was.

    Put an Ice Witch on a bear and many complain it's the most overpowered and unloreful unit ever. Put an Oracle Skink on a Troglodon, that can basically fill any niche on a battlefield and no one bats an eye. Only difference is the year the lore and content was written.

    Skinks are the primary worshippers of Sotek. The Troglodon is sacred to Sotek.

    Bears are sacred to Ursun. The tension and mistrust between the Orthodoxy headed by the high priest of Ursun and the Ice Witches is one of the central (and awesome) themes of the updated Kislev lore. So is there a reason for them to be mounted on bears, or did CA just decide to only design two mounts for Kislev (Same as Dwarfs if we count the Throne of Power) and call it a day?

    It’s not hard to see the problem here without nitpicking.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Registered Users Posts: 5,405

    Jesus Christ why are you people arguing against the Coatl speaking?

    A: It’s almost certainly not going to happen.

    B: If it does, the “well it’s canon now so I guess I like it” crowd will accept it.

    C: If you’re someone who can’t abide the idea, one post of “ I think it’s a stupid idea but to each their own” should be more than enough discussion.

    One guy saying he wishes the Coatl spoke is not going to cause a redesign of a unit most never heard of but now champion as proof of GW/CA infallibility so y’all can probably relax.

    I could care less if it could talk or not. It's the nitpicking to the umpteenth degree, with the lack of consistency that is nauseating. Really, infallibility in video game design when it comes to talking Coatls, and the type of earrings it isn't wearing?

    There is a difference in saying, "I think it would be cool and loreful if the Coatl could talk" compared to "Can you believe that CA did not design the Coatl to talk? CA is so lazy!". Especially when the same argument could have been made about Dragons and other similar creatures for years, but never was.

    Put an Ice Witch on a bear and many complain it's the most overpowered and unloreful unit ever. Put an Oracle Skink on a Troglodon, that can basically fill any niche on a battlefield and no one bats an eye. Only difference is the year the lore and content was written.

    Skinks are the primary worshippers of Sotek. The Troglodon is sacred to Sotek.

    Bears are sacred to Ursun. The tension and mistrust between the Orthodoxy headed by the high priest of Ursun and the Ice Witches is one of the central (and awesome) themes of the updated Kislev lore. So is there a reason for them to be mounted on bears, or did CA just decide to only design two mounts for Kislev (Same as Dwarfs if we count the Throne of Power) and call it a day?

    It’s not hard to see the problem here without nitpicking.
    Yet, if anyone knows GW if they had decided to expand upon Kislev in a proverbial 9th edition they probably would have slathered more bears and ice on it. Because that's how they do it.

    Oh, so you hunt white lions to prove your a good hunter. Well lets domesticate them and make them a beast of burden for a chariot in some kind of self defeating thing for that whole purpose. That was Games Workshop.

    But somehow it's a cardinal sin for CA.
  • Gamabunta77Gamabunta77 Registered Users Posts: 11
    I quite like it. People are exaggerating a lot with this unit. I personally like the design of his head and the attack animations are not too bad, gyrocopters also have some problems in attacks. In my opinion with respect.
  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 10,966
    jorgebm77 said:

    I quite like it. People are exaggerating a lot with this unit. I personally like the design of his head and the attack animations are not too bad, gyrocopters also have some problems in attacks. In my opinion with respect.

    I think one distinction is that gyrocopters pretty much only melee if out of ammunition or other niche situations, so you don't see their melee animations much. Coatl, however, have three bound spells and then they HAVE to melee if they're going to contribute, so poor melee animations are a bigger deal.
  • MarcusLiviusMarcusLivius Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 996

    Jesus Christ why are you people arguing against the Coatl speaking?

    A: It’s almost certainly not going to happen.

    B: If it does, the “well it’s canon now so I guess I like it” crowd will accept it.

    C: If you’re someone who can’t abide the idea, one post of “ I think it’s a stupid idea but to each their own” should be more than enough discussion.

    One guy saying he wishes the Coatl spoke is not going to cause a redesign of a unit most never heard of but now champion as proof of GW/CA infallibility so y’all can probably relax.

    I could care less if it could talk or not. It's the nitpicking to the umpteenth degree, with the lack of consistency that is nauseating. Really, infallibility in video game design when it comes to talking Coatls, and the type of earrings it isn't wearing?

    There is a difference in saying, "I think it would be cool and loreful if the Coatl could talk" compared to "Can you believe that CA did not design the Coatl to talk? CA is so lazy!". Especially when the same argument could have been made about Dragons and other similar creatures for years, but never was.

    Put an Ice Witch on a bear and many complain it's the most overpowered and unloreful unit ever. Put an Oracle Skink on a Troglodon, that can basically fill any niche on a battlefield and no one bats an eye. Only difference is the year the lore and content was written.

    Skinks are the primary worshippers of Sotek. The Troglodon is sacred to Sotek.

    Bears are sacred to Ursun. The tension and mistrust between the Orthodoxy headed by the high priest of Ursun and the Ice Witches is one of the central (and awesome) themes of the updated Kislev lore. So is there a reason for them to be mounted on bears, or did CA just decide to only design two mounts for Kislev (Same as Dwarfs if we count the Throne of Power) and call it a day?

    It’s not hard to see the problem here without nitpicking.
    I don't know, if my Tzar had recently been killed by the forces of Chaos and my entire nation was facing a strong possibility of eradication, I could probably put aside my differences long enough to focus on survival rather than worrying about an Ice Witch riding a bear. Especially if that option gave my society a greater chance at survival.

    The Orthodoxy and Ice Witches are at conflict, that does not mean the Ice Witches are Anti-Ursun.

  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 10,966
    Draxynnic said:

    jorgebm77 said:

    I quite like it. People are exaggerating a lot with this unit. I personally like the design of his head and the attack animations are not too bad, gyrocopters also have some problems in attacks. In my opinion with respect.

    I think one distinction is that gyrocopters pretty much only melee if out of ammunition or other niche situations, so you don't see their melee animations much. Coatl, however, have three bound spells and then they HAVE to melee if they're going to contribute, so poor melee animations are a bigger deal.
    PS to the above: I think another consideration is that with the gyro, they couldn't really have done any more. The 8E gyro has a sealed cockpit, so descending and using its rotors and simply ramming enemies is pretty much all the melee animations that could be really expected. Coatls, on the other hand, COULD be much better.
  • Mr_Finley7Mr_Finley7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 6,630

    Jesus Christ why are you people arguing against the Coatl speaking?

    A: It’s almost certainly not going to happen.

    B: If it does, the “well it’s canon now so I guess I like it” crowd will accept it.

    C: If you’re someone who can’t abide the idea, one post of “ I think it’s a stupid idea but to each their own” should be more than enough discussion.

    One guy saying he wishes the Coatl spoke is not going to cause a redesign of a unit most never heard of but now champion as proof of GW/CA infallibility so y’all can probably relax.

    I could care less if it could talk or not. It's the nitpicking to the umpteenth degree, with the lack of consistency that is nauseating. Really, infallibility in video game design when it comes to talking Coatls, and the type of earrings it isn't wearing?

    There is a difference in saying, "I think it would be cool and loreful if the Coatl could talk" compared to "Can you believe that CA did not design the Coatl to talk? CA is so lazy!". Especially when the same argument could have been made about Dragons and other similar creatures for years, but never was.

    Put an Ice Witch on a bear and many complain it's the most overpowered and unloreful unit ever. Put an Oracle Skink on a Troglodon, that can basically fill any niche on a battlefield and no one bats an eye. Only difference is the year the lore and content was written.

    Skinks are the primary worshippers of Sotek. The Troglodon is sacred to Sotek.

    Bears are sacred to Ursun. The tension and mistrust between the Orthodoxy headed by the high priest of Ursun and the Ice Witches is one of the central (and awesome) themes of the updated Kislev lore. So is there a reason for them to be mounted on bears, or did CA just decide to only design two mounts for Kislev (Same as Dwarfs if we count the Throne of Power) and call it a day?

    It’s not hard to see the problem here without nitpicking.
    I don't know, if my Tzar had recently been killed by the forces of Chaos and my entire nation was facing a strong possibility of eradication, I could probably put aside my differences long enough to focus on survival rather than worrying about an Ice Witch riding a bear. Especially if that option gave my society a greater chance at survival.

    The Orthodoxy and Ice Witches are at conflict, that does not mean the Ice Witches are Anti-Ursun.

    No but it probably does mean they wouldn’t be gifted with a bear friend.

    Let’s stop pretending like CA wasn’t just trying to save Charlemagnes by not creating more mounts.
  • AnnoyedOneEyedGuyAnnoyedOneEyedGuy Registered Users Posts: 1,822
    nothing against the Coatl but this DLCs main spotlight is the Beastmen, Troglodon and Coatl is cool but its about the Beastmen really
  • endikuxendikux Registered Users Posts: 829
    edited July 11

    nothing against the Coatl but this DLCs main spotlight is the Beastmen, Troglodon and Coatl is cool but its about the Beastmen really

    Ya, like the other two "lizardmen" DLC were only about skaven and empire.

    People think the Lizardmen have had 3 DLC but really they've never had a single one.
  • twohundredandonetwohundredandone Registered Users Posts: 66
    endikux said:

    nothing against the Coatl but this DLCs main spotlight is the Beastmen, Troglodon and Coatl is cool but its about the Beastmen really

    Ya, like the other two "lizardmen" DLC were only about skaven and empire.

    People think the Lizardmen have had 3 DLC but really they've never had a single one.
    I agree about The Prophet and the Warlock, Tehenhauin had several issues at launch. Thankfully some have been fixed (with minor poison buff this DLC), but he is still overshadowed by Ikit. Someone mentioned that it was due to delays with 3k, I'm not sure if that true. Either way, there was plenty of content there that I was happy with (Salamanders and Engine of the Gods), but the bugs/issues have kept me from playing a Cult of Sotek campaign.
    For the The Hunter and the Beast though, I think the Lizardmen did get more out of it than the Empire. People were upset with the Horde mechanic (and I understand the complaints), but together the Dread Saurian and Nakai's attack animations were more than the Empire got (aka one OP multiplayer leader for a bit).

    In general though I see what you mean. I'm excited for the Oracle, but the Chameleon stalkers seem a bit weak (especially with their low ammo) and the coatl is ugly with really wonky animations. All the charlemagnes were spent on the beastmen.

    I'm happy that the beastmen have a solid roster with cool units now (Gorghon and Jabberslythe!), but as a big lizardmen fan a lot of my hype was lost with the underwhelming skirmishers and the lack of a true coatl.
  • eomateomat Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,129
    I do find it's animations to be a bit weird. Sometimes it just hovers with wings outstretched. Visually that's a bit weird. I find the head okay. The snake head looked better but it's not bad. Gives it a unique appearance amongst the Lizardmen.
  • John_KimbleJohn_Kimble Registered Users Posts: 1,160
    eomat said:

    I do find it's animations to be a bit weird. Sometimes it just hovers with wings outstretched. Visually that's a bit weird. I find the head okay. The snake head looked better but it's not bad. Gives it a unique appearance amongst the Lizardmen.

    It's because they decided to not have him properly land on the ground when fighting ground units. So he's perpetually flying and hovering, even when he's stuck and trying to disengage to take off. So he looks like he's flying in slow-mo, and the flow of its animations just looks janky as hell as a result.
    Other flyers like Dragons and Eagles actually land, and when they're on the ground they walk before taking flight. Makes them look much more polished when interacting with ground units.

    Had they given the Coatl slithering ground animations (like Medusa or Necropolis Knights), while still keeping the attack animations he has now (which look fine), there wouldn't have been any issue really.
  • MaedrethnirMaedrethnir Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,899

    Jesus Christ why are you people arguing against the Coatl speaking?

    A: It’s almost certainly not going to happen.

    B: If it does, the “well it’s canon now so I guess I like it” crowd will accept it.

    C: If you’re someone who can’t abide the idea, one post of “ I think it’s a stupid idea but to each their own” should be more than enough discussion.

    One guy saying he wishes the Coatl spoke is not going to cause a redesign of a unit most never heard of but now champion as proof of GW/CA infallibility so y’all can probably relax.

    I could care less if it could talk or not. It's the nitpicking to the umpteenth degree, with the lack of consistency that is nauseating. Really, infallibility in video game design when it comes to talking Coatls, and the type of earrings it isn't wearing?

    There is a difference in saying, "I think it would be cool and loreful if the Coatl could talk" compared to "Can you believe that CA did not design the Coatl to talk? CA is so lazy!". Especially when the same argument could have been made about Dragons and other similar creatures for years, but never was.

    Put an Ice Witch on a bear and many complain it's the most overpowered and unloreful unit ever. Put an Oracle Skink on a Troglodon, that can basically fill any niche on a battlefield and no one bats an eye. Only difference is the year the lore and content was written.

    There is no lack of consistency here. I have been saying this for years.
    animacja-sygn-3.gif


  • PocmanPocman Registered Users Posts: 4,819

    Jesus Christ why are you people arguing against the Coatl speaking?

    A: It’s almost certainly not going to happen.

    B: If it does, the “well it’s canon now so I guess I like it” crowd will accept it.

    C: If you’re someone who can’t abide the idea, one post of “ I think it’s a stupid idea but to each their own” should be more than enough discussion.

    One guy saying he wishes the Coatl spoke is not going to cause a redesign of a unit most never heard of but now champion as proof of GW/CA infallibility so y’all can probably relax.

    I could care less if it could talk or not. It's the nitpicking to the umpteenth degree, with the lack of consistency that is nauseating. Really, infallibility in video game design when it comes to talking Coatls, and the type of earrings it isn't wearing?

    There is a difference in saying, "I think it would be cool and loreful if the Coatl could talk" compared to "Can you believe that CA did not design the Coatl to talk? CA is so lazy!". Especially when the same argument could have been made about Dragons and other similar creatures for years, but never was.

    Put an Ice Witch on a bear and many complain it's the most overpowered and unloreful unit ever. Put an Oracle Skink on a Troglodon, that can basically fill any niche on a battlefield and no one bats an eye. Only difference is the year the lore and content was written.

    People are nitpicking because nothing with the Coatl is at it should. Not the animations, not the basic design, nothing.

    So yeah, people in that context typically get negative, making what would be minor nitpicks into bigger issues.


    ANd the ice with comparision is just absurd.
  • Stevo1765Stevo1765 Registered Users Posts: 37
    Quite a few casters have highlighted the Coatl.
  • MarcusLiviusMarcusLivius Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 996
    Fair enough all, I think the Coatl looks good and its design fits the lore well enough, aside from the animation jank. I can understand if you were expecting a snake head...etc why you would be disappointed.

    Best wishes playing or not playing the DLC this coming week as you see fit.

  • TheTrueLordAndyTheTrueLordAndy Registered Users Posts: 687
    I like the unit. The serpent head issue doesn't bother me that much.
  • MaedrethnirMaedrethnir Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,899
    Pocman said:

    Jesus Christ why are you people arguing against the Coatl speaking?

    A: It’s almost certainly not going to happen.

    B: If it does, the “well it’s canon now so I guess I like it” crowd will accept it.

    C: If you’re someone who can’t abide the idea, one post of “ I think it’s a stupid idea but to each their own” should be more than enough discussion.

    One guy saying he wishes the Coatl spoke is not going to cause a redesign of a unit most never heard of but now champion as proof of GW/CA infallibility so y’all can probably relax.

    I could care less if it could talk or not. It's the nitpicking to the umpteenth degree, with the lack of consistency that is nauseating. Really, infallibility in video game design when it comes to talking Coatls, and the type of earrings it isn't wearing?

    There is a difference in saying, "I think it would be cool and loreful if the Coatl could talk" compared to "Can you believe that CA did not design the Coatl to talk? CA is so lazy!". Especially when the same argument could have been made about Dragons and other similar creatures for years, but never was.

    Put an Ice Witch on a bear and many complain it's the most overpowered and unloreful unit ever. Put an Oracle Skink on a Troglodon, that can basically fill any niche on a battlefield and no one bats an eye. Only difference is the year the lore and content was written.

    People are nitpicking because nothing with the Coatl is at it should. Not the animations, not the basic design, nothing.

    So yeah, people in that context typically get negative, making what would be minor nitpicks into bigger issues.


    ANd the ice with comparision is just absurd.
    Technically, if nothing with the Coatl is as it should, then it isn't really nitpicking. It's a righteous cause!

    Stevo1765 said:

    Quite a few casters have highlighted the Coatl.

    Highlighted how? Positively or negatively?
    animacja-sygn-3.gif


  • GodKillaGodKilla Registered Users Posts: 10
    I watched Book of Grudges do a battle as Lizardmen with one coatl and one regiments coatl against I think Skaven and I'm not very excited for it either. Taurox and the new beastmen seem much more interesting.
  • Prince_AlucardPrince_Alucard Registered Users Posts: 556
    Random thing I noticed, I'm not sure if anyone has ever even pointed this out before or what.





    But it does have snake fangs. Just thought that was interesting as I swear I thought I saw them in the trailer, guess I was right. But for awhile I was like eh, but be a beak like the griffon's.


    I can still see why people do not like it, but I don't really mind it. Coatl was described as a bizarre snake/bird hybrid thing, something different from the usual LM dinos. Though it does it does kinda resemble a salamander with the horns and fins. It was always a somewhat vague unit, the descriptions of it not even sure whether or not it really even exists.


    Though the outrage over the coatl will likely be nothing compared to the outrage over the K'Daii destroyer I imagine. Because people have so many different ideas of what that even is and CA's is bound to be different.
  • joproulx99joproulx99 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,250
    It should be like wow's wind serpents, when on the ground they use a "flying cobra" stance.


    "Fear me mortals, for I am the Anointed, the favored Son of Chaos, the Scourge of the World. The armies of the gods rally behind me, and it is by my will and by my sword that your weakling nations shall fall."

    ~ Archaon, Lord of the End Times
  • twohundredandonetwohundredandone Registered Users Posts: 66
    edited July 11

    Random thing I noticed, I'm not sure if anyone has ever even pointed this out before or what.





    But it does have snake fangs. Just thought that was interesting as I swear I thought I saw them in the trailer, guess I was right. But for awhile I was like eh, but be a beak like the griffon's.


    I can still see why people do not like it, but I don't really mind it. Coatl was described as a bizarre snake/bird hybrid thing, something different from the usual LM dinos. Though it does it does kind of resemble a salamander with the horns and fins. It was always a somewhat vague unit, the descriptions of it not even sure whether or not it really even exists.


    Though the outrage over the coatl will likely be nothing compared to the outrage over the K'Daii destroyer I imagine. Because people have so many different ideas of what that even is and CA's is bound to be different.
    There weren't multiple interpretations of a coatl though, it was pretty clear what a feathered serpent is supposed to look like. No one was out there excited for a beaked snake. The K'Daii destroyer fans might be disappointed when that implemented because there's multiple ways to go about it, but for a coatl there was really only one. Instead they did something different that alienated the coatl fans and left everyone else at "eh". As this post is titled, no one seems excited about the coatl, something that easily (and cheaply) could have been avoided.

  • saweendrasaweendra Registered Users Posts: 14,656
    Is the old coatl model copy rightble for Gw?
    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 12,385
    edited July 12


    Why does it have breast? It is supposed to be a snake, right?

    This one is nice.


    Post edited by jamreal18 on
  • Fingolfin_the-GoldenFingolfin_the-Golden Registered Users Posts: 2,058
    jamreal18 said:

    <

    Why does it have breast? It is supposed to be a snake, right?

    What? Is there some sort of high elf mist in the air clouding peoples minds?
  • VictuzVictuz Sao Paulo, BrazilRegistered Users Posts: 413

    jamreal18 said:

    <

    Why does it have breast? It is supposed to be a snake, right?

    What? Is there some sort of high elf mist in the air clouding peoples minds?
    I think he meant that there's a bulk on the Coatl's chest.
  • Fingolfin_the-GoldenFingolfin_the-Golden Registered Users Posts: 2,058
    Victuz said:

    jamreal18 said:

    <

    Why does it have breast? It is supposed to be a snake, right?

    What? Is there some sort of high elf mist in the air clouding peoples minds?
    I think he meant that there's a bulk on the Coatl's chest.
    A bulk? Omg. Debacle.
    But in seriousness, thanks for clearing that up.
    This is getting to an insane level of nitpicking though.
Sign In or Register to comment.