Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 vipoid wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

It...does?
I mean, I wouldn't call a dreadnought nor a sentinel sophisticated. I mean, they have exhaust pipes jutting out of them.
The only other race that uses exhaust pipes are Orks.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Imperial Aesthetic. It has a nice baroque-gothic-industrial thing going for it. It's certainly ugly, but it's an cool sort of ugly

But, in that case, isn't SM armour a bit too... smooth? If you see what I mean.

It just seems an odd contrast when we have unsophisticated-looking dreadnoughts, and cybernetics that are almost Orky... yet SM armour is perfectly rounded and smooth.

That's because SM armor comes from a time when engineers knew how to make rounded edges
Pre-heresy stuff tends to look smoother. It looks aethestically different to me, anyway.

In no order:

- ALL the non-FW flyers except maybe the Ork ones. They either look a little out of place for me (Eldar, Tau, Dark Eldar) or just look silly (The Imperium's flying shoeboxes, Necron green burnt croissants, and the mix of tyranid pelican- I mean Harpies and Hellturkeys.

- I wouldn't mind the Grimnar sled if it were more Radaghast-ish and less floating blue fruit bowl with wolves.

- Grey Knight baby carriages.

- Bloodthirster. I actually like the non-FW daemon models, (especially daemon princes) but this one just doesn't look threatening at all. It looks like it's going to whine at the enemy.

- Lord of Skulls. I DO like the idea of a centaur-ish mech, but this looks like the khornate cousin of that robot from The Jetsons.

The scythes aren't that silly. Unless you count the exposed cockpit.
Seriously, what the feth?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
The scythes aren't that silly. Unless you count the exposed cockpit.
Seriously, what the feth?

Yeah. Good point. I suppose they give off a sort of slick feel to them.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

That's because SM armor comes from a time when engineers knew how to make rounded edges
Pre-heresy stuff tends to look smoother. It looks aethestically different to me, anyway.

Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining that.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:That's because SM armor comes from a time when engineers knew how to make rounded edges
Pre-heresy stuff tends to look smoother. It looks aethestically different to me, anyway.

A-... are you sure?

 Lynata wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:That's because SM armor comes from a time when engineers knew how to make rounded edges
Pre-heresy stuff tends to look smoother. It looks aethestically different to me, anyway.

A-... are you sure?

Spoiler:

I'll be seeing those 3 in my nightmares tonight...

vipoid wrote:I'll be seeing those 3 in my nightmares tonight...

You're welcome!

.

 Lynata wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:That's because SM armor comes from a time when engineers knew how to make rounded edges
Pre-heresy stuff tends to look smoother. It looks aethestically different to me, anyway.

A-... are you sure?

Spoiler:

Compared to the metal tracked boxes, metal walking box with guns and metal flying boxes, yes, yes I am sure.
Also, those models are old. The FW versions are a fairer example

 Lynata wrote:
A-... are you sure?

Spoiler:

The first time I saw this, I missed the two at the bottom.

That blue guy should really have a guitar.

 vipoid wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
A-... are you sure?

Spoiler:

The first time I saw this, I missed the two at the bottom.

That blue guy should really have a guitar.

Heh, funny you should mention that...



This is an old noise marine. The true form of noise marine.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Also, those models are old. The FW versions are a fairer example

They may be old (2009, and still in the online store), but they're GW's take on them, same as GW also designed Elysians in a different way to FW.
Besides, even the FW minis on that photo look more boxy and edgy (heh) than, say, MK VII armour.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:This is an old noise marine. The true form of noise marine.

I still like that one more than the current incarnation.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Needs Drummer Marines.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Pre-heresy stuff tends to look smoother. It looks aethestically different to me, anyway.

Except for Mk II-IV armor, which looks like how you'd build power armor if you didn't have the technology to actually build power armor, lol.

 vipoid wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

It...does?
I mean, I wouldn't call a dreadnought nor a sentinel sophisticated. I mean, they have exhaust pipes jutting out of them.
The only other race that uses exhaust pipes are Orks.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Imperial Aesthetic. It has a nice baroque-gothic-industrial thing going for it. It's certainly ugly, but it's an cool sort of ugly

But, in that case, isn't SM armour a bit too... smooth? If you see what I mean.

It just seems an odd contrast when we have unsophisticated-looking dreadnoughts, and cybernetics that are almost Orky... yet SM armour is perfectly rounded and smooth.

The only thing I see smooth on Marines are the shoulder pads. The joints look like a post-industrial chainmail, and the rest of the armor looks like a post-industrial plate armor.

Also, if everything else in the imperium is clunky and mechanical, then maybe the problem is the Marines, rather than the everything else.

I went back through the posts and tallied them by army.

Squats 1 General
Dark Angels 3 Vehicles and Robes
Blood Angels 3 Sanguine Guard, Mesto, and Naming conventions
Orks 6 General and Junk theme
Sisters 8 General
Necrons 8 General, Drivers
Eldar 8 Helmets, Wraithknight
Dark Eldar 9 General
Chaos M. 9 Too much Detail, Dino-machines general
Tau 15 Crisis Suits, General
Grey Knights 18 Dreadknight, General
Nids 18 Ranged Weapons, General
Demons 19 General, Lord of Skulls
Space M. 22 Centurions Scale, Too much Detail
IG 29 Taurox, Lack of Females, Catachan
Space W. 28 Logan, Wolves, Flyer
Other 51 Skulls, Lack of Females, Scale, Imperial Flyers, New Models in General

This is kind of a funny thread . Tell me I am not the only one who noticed how fickle you folk are.

Page 1 I hate A and B and C but love 1 and 2 and 3

Page 2 I hate 1 and 2 and 3 But love A and B and C

Followed by both sides saying who would buy these crap models

So looks like gamesworkshop knows how to sell models to everyone after all.

1) Skulls. They're freaking insane on GW product. the buildings are covered in them, the trenches are covered in them, the armour is covered in them. Are we sure the Imperium isn't actually Khornate?

FW seems to understand insignia; skulls are rare (Death Korps Grenadier facemasks, some insignia on 40k Marines, but nowhere near GW equivalents) and the 30k ones have very nice tasteful insignia, such as Unifcation Wars honours embellished on a chestpiece here, a lightning bolt there, a legion specific marking on a gauntlet or helmet, nothing insane like, say, Sternguard.

2) Space Wolves. I've been following 40k since grade school (would have been 2nd edition I think, my memory is fuzzy and I don't have the books from then), and once upon a time Space Wolves were okay. They were space vikings, and the worst thing you could really say was their amount of facial hair wouldn't work in a helmet. Big whoop, artistic license.

Now we've got wolves riding wolves with wolf escorts lead by Wolf Wolfborn backed up by Murderfang's murderclaws and murderlust from the world of murdercide.

feth spacewolves. They're everything wrong with 40k faction design by GeeDubs.

3) Model scale. Vehicles are 1/56, infantry are sort-of 1/48 with heads at 1/35 and guns at, hell, 1/2. Tiny tanks with massive gun barrels and infantry with normal bodies and bobbleheads, and helmetless guys having heads as large as their comrades' helmets bother me. Some factions are better than others on that front, and newer infantry models are certainly better on scale; the Dark Eldar range has pretty solid scaling, and marines, provided their all helmeted are alright as well, though too short to match their fluff descriptions, but look at a Catachan, Cadian or Eldar Failcast models and it's awful at anything more than 2-3 feet away. The vehicle thing isn't unique to GW, so I'm willing to be slightly more forgiving, but somewhat ironically, whereas the infantry kits have been getting better over time for scale, the vehicles are actually getting worse. the Taurox is an abomination of shapes and scales, while the Hammerhead and Piranha, despite being a decade old, actually seem to match Tau infantry scale. I don't get it.

I'll stick to my sexy Death Korps with human proportions, or my Victoria Miniatures' Not Praetorians for heroic scale done right.

4) Naming conventions. I think this is the most evident bleedover from fantasy, but nothing in 40k makes any sense from a naming standpoint. Why is it every Imperial subfaction has their own missile type with their chief adjective in front of it? Blood missiles, Psy-Shock Missiles, Frost Missiles, alongside Blood Claws and Blood Talons and Frost Claws and Frost Axes and Nemesis Force ____. I recall the older vehicle kits having thigns like "Mk. XXVII Basilisk" and things like that on it, a little bit of recognition we're actually in a Sci-Fi setting where the powers that be, at least for humans (and Tau, as it were) like alpha-numeric designations for ease of recognition alongside flavourful nicknames.

It's a little thing, but I'd like to see more recognition of things like the a Bolter not just being a "Bolter," but a Godwyn Pattern .998 Boltgun, or the Cadian lasgun being the Mk. XI Accatran Lasgun or whatever. A veneer of realism, or connection to reality or established elements of sci-fi, even in fluff text only, can go a long way, even if applied only sparingly. And the codexes and rulebook have been hacking that back more and more in favour of fanciful, unimaginative fantasy names for things. To this day, if I hear someone wanting to play Guard, I hand them the 4th edition codex; that will make you interested in the Guard, their myriad of regiments, variations of wargear and approaches to warfare, not this bland, boring, hollow 6th edition codex.

5) Not purely aesthetic, but related to it; the fundamental divorce between fluff and the game. 40k succeeds in spite of its bad ruleset and horrendously incompetent and spiteful company because of the setting. Space Marines are awesome, the Imperial Guard is awesome, Orks are mind-blowingly awesome, the universe is rich, huge, complicated, messy and full of stories to uncover and create for yourself. Maybe its time the game actually reflect that; people want their Chaos Legions, people want their Chapters (their the only ones to get any kind of satisfaction, and I fething love that my Minotaurs are actually Minotaurs with the rules to represent them), people want their Imperial Guard Reimgents, Craftworlds, Kabals, Klans, Hive Fleets, Septs. They want Space Marine "armies" of a dozen dudes fighting off many times their number, an endless horde of Tyranids coating the battlefield in a tide of chitinous horror, of twisted champions of the Dark Gods tearing apart all who stand before them. This can be done, with effort and dedicated you could very well balance it (video games have been doing it for ages) . Playing 40k rarely feels anything like the fluff, and that is, to me, the biggest thematic weakness in 40k.

One thing that really irritates me is that models are supposed to be WISIWIG... yet GW makes this as difficult as possible.

For example, what if I want my IG CCS to have 3 plasmaguns and a vox caster. Well, I can't, because the pack only comes with one plasmagun. Likewise, one meltagun, one sniper rifle, one flamer, one Heavy Flamer.

Worse still, the IG infantry packs don't contain a single plasmagun or meltagun. And, bear in mind that these are also supposed to be the models for Veterans - who can take 3 special weapons per squad.

Why am I being charged premium prices (almost £2 per model for guardsmen) for boxes that don't even include all the available weapons - let alone sufficient quantities of them?

Also, while I'm complaining, why is the Power Fist on the right arm when all other melee weapons are on the left? It seems to be there purely to screw over anyone who might want a power fist and a pistol.

 MajorStoffer wrote:

5) Not purely aesthetic, but related to it; the fundamental divorce between fluff and the game. 40k succeeds in spite of its bad ruleset and horrendously incompetent and spiteful company because of the setting. Space Marines are awesome, the Imperial Guard is awesome, Orks are mind-blowingly awesome, the universe is rich, huge, complicated, messy and full of stories to uncover and create for yourself. Maybe its time the game actually reflect that; people want their Chaos Legions, people want their Chapters (their the only ones to get any kind of satisfaction, and I fething love that my Minotaurs are actually Minotaurs with the rules to represent them), people want their Imperial Guard Reimgents, Craftworlds, Kabals, Klans, Hive Fleets, Septs. They want Space Marine "armies" of a dozen dudes fighting off many times their number, an endless horde of Tyranids coating the battlefield in a tide of chitinous horror, of twisted champions of the Dark Gods tearing apart all who stand before them. This can be done, with effort and dedicated you could very well balance it (video games have been doing it for ages) . Playing 40k rarely feels anything like the fluff, and that is, to me, the biggest thematic weakness in 40k.

Agreed.

MajorStoffer wrote:a Godwyn Pattern .998 Boltgun

Nitpick: Those are actually two distinct models. I've seen a lot of people assume the latter is a calibre. It's not. The original source says "model 998 boltgun", and it has the same standardised .75 cal as every other boltgun.

Also, don't we already have different bolter and lasgun patterns in the fluff? Just from GW's own books and off the top of my head, I remember names like Godwyn, Godwyn-De'az, Mars, Necromunda, Triplex, ... what exactly are you asking for here?

MajorStoffer wrote:40k succeeds in spite of its bad ruleset and horrendously incompetent and spiteful company because of the setting. Space Marines are awesome, the Imperial Guard is awesome, Orks are mind-blowingly awesome, the universe is rich, huge, complicated, messy and full of stories to uncover and create for yourself. Maybe its time the game actually reflect that; people want their Chaos Legions, people want their Chapters (their the only ones to get any kind of satisfaction, and I fething love that my Minotaurs are actually Minotaurs with the rules to represent them), people want their Imperial Guard Reimgents, Craftworlds, Kabals, Klans, Hive Fleets, Septs. They want Space Marine "armies" of a dozen dudes fighting off many times their number, an endless horde of Tyranids coating the battlefield in a tide of chitinous horror, of twisted champions of the Dark Gods tearing apart all who stand before them. This can be done, with effort and dedicated you could very well balance it (video games have been doing it for ages) . Playing 40k rarely feels anything like the fluff, and that is, to me, the biggest thematic weakness in 40k.

Well, if you just want big battles, I'd recommend trying to get into Epic40k. This is really where the setting shines. Traditional 40k TT is just skirmishes, Epic is about the battles! GW having stopped to support this game really sucks, but I suppose the skirmishes were just more popular because the player feels closer to the action with the bigger models.

If, on the other hand, you're asking for the exaggerated Movie Marine rules where your 12 models faceroll through an entire army, I'm pretty sure this is only fun for the one playing them. You can't have everyone win here, and I'm pretty sure that this "awesome" Imperial Guard regiment or Ork tribe stops feeling so awesome if they get pwned by a couple dudes with Black Library-style plot armour. Not to mention that this would homogenise the armies even more. Who would actually invest thousands of dollars into that "tide of chitinous horror" just to get to the same points cost as your one Marine squad, whose faction already benefits from constant exposure? Is a 50% "market share" not enough?

 Lynata wrote:

MajorStoffer wrote:a Godwyn Pattern .998 Boltgun

Nitpick: Those are actually two distinct models. I've seen a lot of people assume the latter is a calibre. It's not. The original source says "model 998 boltgun", and it has the same standardised .75 cal as every other boltgun.

Also, don't we already have different bolter and lasgun patterns in the fluff? Just from GW's own books and off the top of my head, I remember names like Godwyn, Godwyn-De'az, Mars, Necromunda, Triplex, ... what exactly are you asking for here?

MajorStoffer wrote:40k succeeds in spite of its bad ruleset and horrendously incompetent and spiteful company because of the setting. Space Marines are awesome, the Imperial Guard is awesome, Orks are mind-blowingly awesome, the universe is rich, huge, complicated, messy and full of stories to uncover and create for yourself. Maybe its time the game actually reflect that; people want their Chaos Legions, people want their Chapters (their the only ones to get any kind of satisfaction, and I fething love that my Minotaurs are actually Minotaurs with the rules to represent them), people want their Imperial Guard Reimgents, Craftworlds, Kabals, Klans, Hive Fleets, Septs. They want Space Marine "armies" of a dozen dudes fighting off many times their number, an endless horde of Tyranids coating the battlefield in a tide of chitinous horror, of twisted champions of the Dark Gods tearing apart all who stand before them. This can be done, with effort and dedicated you could very well balance it (video games have been doing it for ages) . Playing 40k rarely feels anything like the fluff, and that is, to me, the biggest thematic weakness in 40k.

Well, if you just want big battles, I'd recommend trying to get into Epic40k. This is really where the setting shines. Traditional 40k TT is just skirmishes, Epic is about the battles! GW having stopped to support this game really sucks, but I suppose the skirmishes were just more popular because the player feels closer to the action with the bigger models.

If, on the other hand, you're asking for the exaggerated Movie Marine rules where your 12 models faceroll through an entire army, I'm pretty sure this is only fun for the one playing them. You can't have everyone win here, and I'm pretty sure that this "awesome" Imperial Guard regiment or Ork tribe stops feeling so awesome if they get pwned by a couple dudes with Black Library-style plot armour. Not to mention that this would homogenise the armies even more. Who would actually invest thousands of dollars into that "tide of chitinous horror" just to get to the same points cost as your one Marine squad, whose faction already benefits from constant exposure? Is a 50% "market share" not enough?

I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about winning every time. In fact, most battles are supposed to seem desperate and come down to the line. They're saying that Marines don't feel like marines from the fluff. In the game they're kind of useless and can't do much but be expensive objective holders. They'd rather spend more points for fewer but tougher marines that make the player feel like they're in the game. As it is, it just doesn't feel like that at all. No one said anything about steam rolling their opponent.

MWHistorian wrote:I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about winning every time. In fact, most battles are supposed to seem desperate and come down to the line. They're saying that Marines don't feel like marines from the fluff. In the game they're kind of useless and can't do much but be expensive objective holders. They'd rather spend more points for fewer but tougher marines that make the player feel like they're in the game. As it is, it just doesn't feel like that at all. No one said anything about steam rolling their opponent.

How exactly would you realise that, though, whilst still avoiding the issues I listed?

Plus, the fluff provides many different interpretations of Marine toughness - are we talking GW Marines, Black Library Marines, FFG Marines, etc ...

The problem is that everyone wants to feel awesome. And in a game like this, everyone deserves to feel awesome, because feeling awesome is fun. However, that is obviously an issue all by itself - as the saying goes, "if everyone is special, no one is". To make one party feel more awesome would automatically include making the opposing party less awesome. I'm sure it would be possible for some armies in the game, but even those would require a re-work of their fluff to give greater emphasis on how much all their troops suck and that they only have a chance because of numbers. Even the Imperial Guard isn't presented that way. Everyone has at least one elite/special/veteran/whatever unit that goes against such stigma!

There are a number of hurdles GW would have to surmount to actually make the game represent the fluff. The business model makes asymmetrical balance more challenging; in a video game having a couple tough marines against a horde of orks is easy enough to do because no one is paying a price per model in real world money to do so, but who's to say GW couldn't rejigger their prices to fit that model? Their cost of production is virtually nil (back in the day, GW employees paid for models by their weight, they cost so little to produce).

Balancing fluffier armies just wouldn't be difficult from a gameplay standpoint if your points system works, it'd require more testing and effort than I think GW could do, but is by no means the biggest hurdle. If they designed the game so that a 1500 point army cost X dollars no matter the faction, you could do whatever you wanted balance wise, and still make money, and not encourage one army over another for financial reasons as occurs now. GW already does this within model ranges; Terminators, Sternguard, Warriors, Crisis Suits; these require no more plastic nor cost to produce than Cadians or Tactical Marines, but their greater game impact and player need for less of them means higher prices.

GW couldn't just swap the ruleset to make more powerful marines (they don't need to fit one author's interpretation 100%, but they're just expensive cannon fodder under the current rules, which is a massive immersion breaker. The abominable Dawn of War books are the only place they're as disposable as the tabletop), swarm tyranids which are actually attractive vs big stompy bugs and diversity within a codex like they had in the 4th and 3.5 books, that's just part of what would need to be done for my "ideal" 40k to work. They'd need re-done pricing and/or box contents (say, every troop kit is $40, but should represent similar points values, so 10 tac marines, 30 Guardsmen, 20 Guardians, etc) alongside the rules changes.

It'll never happen under the current GW business approach, but I can dream can't I? I don't think anyone really wants more bland codexes divorced from the setting with fodder marines and Guard toting around more firepower than Terminators and Tyranid armies completely devoid of Termagants and Hormagaunts if they can avoid it, to say nothing of Codex Heldrake and Cultists.

 Lynata wrote:

MWHistorian wrote:I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about winning every time. In fact, most battles are supposed to seem desperate and come down to the line. They're saying that Marines don't feel like marines from the fluff. In the game they're kind of useless and can't do much but be expensive objective holders. They'd rather spend more points for fewer but tougher marines that make the player feel like they're in the game. As it is, it just doesn't feel like that at all. No one said anything about steam rolling their opponent.

How exactly would you realise that, though, whilst still avoiding the issues I listed?

Plus, the fluff provides many different interpretations of Marine toughness - are we talking GW Marines, Black Library Marines, FFG Marines, etc ...

The problem is that everyone wants to feel awesome. And in a game like this, everyone deserves to feel awesome, because feeling awesome is fun. However, that is obviously an issue all by itself - as the saying goes, "if everyone is special, no one is". To make one party feel more awesome would automatically include making the opposing party less awesome. I'm sure it would be possible for some armies in the game, but even those would require a re-work of their fluff to give greater emphasis on how much all their troops suck and that they only have a chance because of numbers. Even the Imperial Guard isn't presented that way. Everyone has at least one elite/special/veteran/whatever unit that goes against such stigma!

Make marines fewer in number but tougher? I don't know. I was just trying to say what I thought the other guy was talking about because I felt that you had misunderstood.

Yeah, it's not hard. You make a version of the rules that doesn't render the Space Marines less resilient and capable.

I mean, the term "GW Marines" is fairly irrelevant if we're talking about game stats. The toughness of Space Marines on the tabletop has fluctuated as the rules have changed. They get tougher, then costlier in points, then weaker, then cheaper. In 2nd Edition they were the only troops that could rapid fire. Then everyone could rapid fire. Their armor save was fairly impressive at one time, then it was largely negated by most elites and heavies.

The reason why Space Marines aren't good on the tabletop is simply one of economics, lol. If you only needed 20 of them, you would only buy 20-30 of them. And Space Marines keep this whole thing afloat. On the flip side, who would buy 200 Tyranids or IGuard or Orks when the other guy buys the Strike Force box and is done?

We'll never see an "accurate" depiction of Space Marines (or any other faction) on the tabletop because that would spell doom for Games Workshop.

What they could do is make the marines themselves stronger, but make them rely on non-marine elements that you have to buy (like, you need 3 non-marine infantry units for every marine unit or some nonsense like that)

Something like Astartes Auxilia (something I made up, not in current fluff, obviously)- Chapter Serfs that help out the Space Marines in combat.

Sort of like the IG, except these guys would be closer to the chapter and as such get slightly better gear and training.

Gameplay wise, they could be like stormtroopers with boltguns.

This may require retcons though.

MWHistorian wrote:Make marines fewer in number but tougher? I don't know. I was just trying to say what I thought the other guy was talking about because I felt that you had misunderstood.

Sure, that's the intention, but it doesn't address the consequences. How would it affect other players' enjoyment of the game to see their units get outmatched so badly? I don't believe it's possible to portray both sides in a conflict as equally awesome unless you actually do portray them as being in close proximity.

There could also be an appeal in playing an obvious underdog who just zergs their enemy to death, but for that they'd have to change the fluff of said armies, as currently I don't think any existing official faction in 40k could fill this role. With the sole exception of a Valhallan pure infantry force, I suppose. Maybe Death Korps, too? But even Orks and 'nids would need a "nerf" to their organisation to get rid of the more powerful units.

MajorStoffer wrote:If they designed the game so that a 1500 point army cost X dollars no matter the faction, you could do whatever you wanted balance wise, and still make money, and not encourage one army over another for financial reasons as occurs now. GW already does this within model ranges; Terminators, Sternguard, Warriors, Crisis Suits; these require no more plastic nor cost to produce than Cadians or Tactical Marines, but their greater game impact and player need for less of them means higher prices.

This is true. Though I could see an appeal in fewer models also requiring less time (and tools) to paint, as well as upsized armies being more difficult to transport, which could also have an effect on purchases.

MajorStoffer wrote:every troop kit is $40, but should represent similar points values, so 10 tac marines, 30 Guardsmen, 20 Guardians, etc

That sounds very reasonable, actually, at least as far as my interpretation (shaped from GW's codex fluff) is concerned. I must apologise for the kneejerk-reaction - when people demand tougher Marines I'm used to debates about alleged small arms immunity and Movie Marines rules. Unfortunately I too can't see the company going for such a pricing model.

I still wish they'd bring back Epic 40k, though ...

Oh yeh, Epic looks like fun.
It has the scale of apocalypse, but without the logistical problems of needing an oversized table and 6 cases.

Well, both tyranids' and eldar guns look like sex toys. What a shame.
Agree, daemonettes became weird and unpleasant. And so are sisters' faces. Also, a herald or a greater daemon of Nurgle(don't remember for sure) looks like a shapeless piece of god-knows-what, most likely $#|T.
I personally don't like the set of gretchins. They are a lot worse than new gunz crew.
Tankbusta are too old-fashioned, they definitely must be redone.
That's for my opinion.