pelicaniforce wrote: ADB and forge world who supposedly represent the background right are fetishizing it and it’s pretty bad.
40k and HH are fascist propaganda at this point.
The Lore has always been fascist propaganda, it just seems more threatening now because the world is embracing fascism.
GW now has this narrative about a manichean clash of titans. It used to be that the characters were proles who lived in and fought for a totalitarian system. At the time, living in the north of England, they had this awareness that the IRA were blowing up English targets and the USSR were engaged in an existential showdown with your government and might wipe you out, and you knew that those people had a bit of a point because the UK government was stepping all over you and your neighbors’ communities and didn’t value you at all. Then while you knew this it wasn’t exactly within your ability to just disassociate yourself from the government, or to bring your town somehow over to the side of the republicans or heaven forefend the soviets, whom you were fairly convinced were an evil empire of mind control and starvation. Many of the stories included the protagonist being crushed either by a venal official or just by a remote bureaucracy and climate of suspicion. It was very clear that the protagonists were being used by a giant machine that didn’t act in their interests and that due to where they were born they had very little control over anything.
With the centralization of BL prompts and the Horus Heresy, there are two sides, one of them is mighty and righteous and the other is conniving. It’s downright Wagnerian. Atm the narrative is that maybe Wotan the god of wisdom treats his kids a bit badly, but at least he isn’t the physically weak and greedy kor phaeron and Erebus who steal a magic knife to cowardly have the chosen son stabbed in the back with it. That was ample material for indoctrinating a nation at the time. There aren’t any protagonists trapped in a faceless machine, because they run the war machine now. Even though the imperium is still portrayed as a bit cartoonishly villainous, that’s entirely superficial.
And the subtle condemnation seems to have gotten more and more subtle of late, to the point of nonexistence, since it's difficult to maintain the sort of background criticism of a system when you sprawl out as much as 40k does with so many writers.)
Yeah well the Imperium isn’t a separate thing to the main characters anymore. You’d have people trying to take care of their immediate comrades and defend them against the unjust imperial bureaucracy, and occasionally to do the right thing on a slightly wider scale. Now the characters are actually in charge of the whole thing.
Strg Alt wrote: Too true. Experienced Shadow Runners would use around ten dice for attacks & defence. Though that might have changed over time. Last time I have played was twenty years ago.
Gave up on it half way through 5th edition, the dice inflation was real. Got busted senseless by a public library computer that was rolling 15 dice against me. Doesn't help people were conniving ways to roll 20-30 dice on things starting out by abusing the snot out of poorly thought out stats.
Space Marines shouldn’t be an army. They should be an Elite slot in an Imperial Guard army. And the selection should be for Tacticals only. Maybe Terminators too, in squads of 1-3 models, all with heavy/specialist weapons (Assault Guns, Cyclone Missiles, Lightning Claws, Thunderhammer & Stormshield, etc. - no Storm Bolters & Power Fist)
Considering the ratio of marine to IG, as well as their operational “partnership”, this makes a lot more sense to me than “an entire army of space marines”.
Stormonu wrote: Here’s one I’ve been thinking about recently:
Space Marines shouldn’t be an army. They should be an Elite slot in an Imperial Guard army. And the selection should be for Tacticals only. Maybe Terminators too, in squads of 1-3 models, all with heavy/specialist weapons (Assault Guns, Cyclone Missiles, Lightning Claws, Thunderhammer & Stormshield, etc. - no Storm Bolters & Power Fist)
Considering the ratio of marine to IG, as well as their operational “partnership”, this makes a lot more sense to me than “an entire army of space marines”.
I made this thought experiment a while back and it might actually have been a good idea. It's basically one Codex for the entire Imperium of Man. It removes a lot of the bloat, keeps pretty much all factions beside Custodes, Sister of Silence and inquisition alive ad operate under the idea that most unit have a lot of option when it comes to weapon loadout and veterency bonus. It would still be a large codex though with lots of options. Considering the meta right now, it would change much to the appearence of armies on the tabletop.
Spoiler:
Codex Imperium of Man
HQ
Imperial Guard Commander
HQ choice that automatically comes with specialists as bodyguards and support. Provides mostly tactical bonuses to the entire army thanks to their knowledge of warfare.
Space Marine Lord
HQ choice that has the option of an honored guard that can count some specialists. Provides a small moral bonus to Space Marines and infantry in general and is an extremely powerful fighter, especially in close combat. Can unlock an honor guard squad of Space Marines.
Techpriest Dominus
HQ choice that has the option of a cadre of bodyguards that are very powerful, more then the techpriest itself that provides mostly bonus to vehicles and Adeptus Mechanicus units. Can unlock a techpriest bodyguard unit.
Sister of Battle Living Saint
HQ choice that has the option for an honored guard. Provides a good moral bonus to Sisters of Battle and infantry in general and is a good and very mobile combatant.
Elites
Space Marine Squad
Elite infantry unit that comes with heavy armor and defense, medium firepower, good close combat and exceptional moral. They can be equipped as devastators, terminators, assault, stealth or for tactical flexibility. They are the Swiss knife of elite units.
Platoon of elite stealth-drop guards armed with precise high armor penetration low strength weapons. Can take a few extra weapon, an optional shorter range higher firepower unit with a more mobility after deployment and a leader unit with a bit more close-combat skills that provides more precision and moral.
Ogryn Squad
A squad of cheap, big, dumb close combat unit that can also serve as a tar pit unit or as a mobile cover for the rest of the troop. Can switch from purely close combat to short range heavy, if imprecise firepower. While capable of causing respectable damage, it’s mostly a sponge unit.
Ratling Squad
A squad of cheap and fragile stealth and support sniper fire unit design to pin down or harass the enemy weaker unit or try to pick out their specialists without hurting the rest of the squad. Mostly efficient as a “debuff” unit.
Sicaran Squad
A fast moving, low-mid defense, high damage assassin-like unit that can be either equipped purely for close combat or gain a little bit more defense, short range firepower and less close combat.
Troops
Imperial Guard Platoon (2-6 Imperial Guard Squad, 0-2 Special Weapon Unit, 0-2 Fire Support Unit, 1 Command Squad, 0-1 Sentinel Squadron)
The bread and butter of the Imperium a platoon of troops composed of cheap cannon-fodders that can be armed with a few “weak” special and heavy weapons. They can be followed by better trained Special Weapon units who can have several “weak” special weapons. They can also have a few units providing support with “cheap” heavy weapons. They are led by a small command unit that helps with moral and makes the whole thing mildly efficient. The entire thing can be escorted by fast moving walkers armed with a heavy weapon for extra punch and resilience.
A unit of cyborg enhance troops with better armor and much more powerful weapons than Imperial Guards. They can alter from short range assault firepower to long range precision firepower or cheaper mid range low firepower depending on the loadout. They can have a few special weapon tied to their basic loadout. They can be supported by heavily armored, slow and slightly less precise, but much more powerfully armed servitors. The Alpha Skitarii is a powerful champion that can boost units he stands in or very, very, very close to.
Sister of Battle Choir
A squad of elite troops with very good armor, good close-combat and shooting attack and very good moral. They lack a lot in flexibility as they don’t come in platoon size, neither do they have access to special and heavy weapons beside flamers, but they are ideal to kill light infantry and will hold their line even when face against the best.
Dedicated Transport
Space Marine Rhino
A fast transport tank with a light cannon for close support. It can transport entire Space Marines Squads safely and efficiently. Once dismounted, the tank can still provide descent support to the Space Marines. The cannon can be chosen between a few choices.
Space Marine Drop Pod
A very cheap choice to deploy Space Marines where you want them and when you want them. Once deployed, they are immobile, but do possess two light weapons to add some oomph to the Space Marine once they make their decent.
Imperial Guard Chimera
A surprisingly well armored and armed transport tank design for the good ol’ Imperial Guard infantry, probably too costly to equip every single squad with one, but a few lucky and important ones can certainly use the protection and the impressive firepower.
Sister of Battle Repressor
A very well armored transport tank designed to transport Sisters of Battle in combat. Unlike other transport vehicle, it’s more designed as a mobile bunker than a transport and close support tank.
Tempestus Scion Taurox Prime
A very fast, very heavily armed, but very fragile transport tank designed to transport Tempestus Scion into warzones. It’s also the amongst the costliest too.
Fast Attack
Space Marine Predator
A light and fast tank with an average armor and very good weapons that can be designed for infantry/light vehicle hunting or anti-tank duty. Its reliable, versatile, fast and has a very well trained crew.
Imperial Guard Salamander Recon Tank Squadron
A cheap, open-top, lightly armored, medium firepower tank thank can also extract or insert small squads of Imperial guardsmen who are caught in a tight spot. The tank can be equipped to deal with other light vehicle or flame infantry out of cover. What they lack in quality they take back in numbers.
Imperial Guard Valkyrie
A fighter plane which can carry impressive weapons, good armor and potentially transport capacity for a few extra points. The pilot can be Tempestus trained for extra efficiency. They are extremely fast, but they cost quite a bit.
Sister of Battle Seraphim Choir
Elite Sisters of Battle equipped with pistols and with a powerful jetpack that allows them true flight. They are specialised in coming down form the sky gun blazing, providing some moral boost then jumping back up to reappear later and repeat the same trick.
Adeptus Mechanicus Dragoons Squadron
A Skitarii soldier armed like a jousting knight on a swift war walker which possess an average fire power. They are a form of heavy cavalry unit capable of shattering the enemy in a single charge.
Heavy Support
Imperial Guard Leman Russ Squadron
A slow, heavy and heavily armed tank with several option of cannons. They move slowly up the field blasting everything in sight. They aren’t fancy, but they sure as hell can destroy a target efficiently.
Imperial Guard Mobile Artillery Squadron
If big guns don’t work, try even bigger guns says the smart Imperial Guard officer. These long range cannons might be mounted on fragile and very slow platforms, but they pack a devastating punch, can operated in group and fire outside of line of sight
Adeptus Mechanicus Onagre Dunecrawler
A war walker and medium armored tank whose equipped with a versatile array of powerful weapon. Its more reliable then the Leman Russ, but maybe less powerful overall. All of this allows it to come relatively cheap and in large numbers.
Space Marine Stormraven Gunship
What if a heavily armored and armed tank could fly? That’s what the Stormraven does. It’s a very fast flyer armed nearly as well as a Leman Russ, piloted by a Space Marine tandem and even capable of transporting a squad into the fray. Really, it’s just as versatile and powerful as the Space Marines themselves.
Space Marine Dreadnaught
A Heavier and stronger war walker designed mostly for close combat operated by a deceased hero of a Space Marine Chapter. It compensates its slow speed by being able to deploy via Drop Pod and once it reaches a target, it crushes it. It’s long range firepower isn’t not be underestimated too much though.
Lord of War
Imperial Knight
A massive war walker with more strength in close combat than a Dreadnaught, more firepower than a Leman Russ and a truly massive defense. It costs an arm and a leg and should it be destroyed it’s almost always in a spectacular detonation that can kill friends and foe.
Land Raider
An extremely tough, very well armed, fast tank that can also transport a small army of Space Marines. It’s almost impossible to slow down and is the second cheapest Lords of War of the Imperium
Baneblade
Leman Russ and Basilisk combined in one massive tank platform. A true behemoth of war that slowly drags itself up field to pulverise its target.
Deathstrike Missile Launcher
Game over in a missile form. Mostly just for gak and giggles though. The payload is almost impossible to shoot before the last turn or two of the game.
All shoot twice/fight twice abilities should be removed. Such big spikes in damage output are very difficult to balance correctly so just get rid of them.
pelicaniforce wrote: ADB and forge world who supposedly represent the background right are fetishizing it and it’s pretty bad.
40k and HH are fascist propaganda at this point.
The Lore has always been fascist propaganda, it just seems more threatening now because the world is embracing fascism.
I always thought it was condemning fascism. Like, the Imperium is obviously fascist and theocratic, and the lore goes gleefully about describing just how absolutely and utterly terrible life in the Imperium is and how terrible the people who rule it are.
It's also supposed to be funny. Like, friendly fire isn't funny IRL, but we laugh about how the IG goes gleefully about launching artillery strikes against their own troops, and the Inquisition executes planets for knowing of its existence. There are civil wars over where to store paperwork.
Sometimes, though I question it's effectiveness. The insertion of humor, while it's what makes the setting fun and endearing, somewhat undermines the sentiment because they're kind of comically stupid and over the top and a far cry from the real fascists. That said, it's a cartoony wargaming setting, I don't think delving too heavily into being a political tract should be its first priority, and the humor is what makes it stand out from other generic sci fi settings and actually makes it fun.
Asherian Command wrote: Knights were a mistake and should've never been introduced to the setting.
There are reasonable odds that Knights have been part of the setting for longer than you've been playing the game. I know that's the case for me, and I've been collecting and/or gaming with 40k stuff for a good 20 years now...
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, the Imperium has always been a fascist theocratic regime lampooned and hamstrung by its own ridiculousness.
that is like saying something is a comunist capitalist type of regime. Fasist are all about the separation of church and state, and tight link between the goverment and the non public sector. In a theocracy, nothing can exist outside of it, and all public positions are doubled, by exactly the same positions within the church hierarchy, with the church ones always being superior and being able to over turn any decisions made by non clergy officials.
As political systems go the empire is closest to communism. it has cult of personality, and official dialectic that goes through every strata of society. It even has the same type collective head of state, and the super inefficient type of economy that is fueled by working citizents like slaves, while at the same time the whole thing is called The Imperium of Man.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, the Imperium has always been a fascist theocratic regime lampooned and hamstrung by its own ridiculousness.
that is like saying something is a comunist capitalist type of regime. Fasist are all about the separation of church and state, and tight link between the goverment and the non public sector. In a theocracy, nothing can exist outside of it, and all public positions are doubled, by exactly the same positions within the church hierarchy, with the church ones always being superior and being able to over turn any decisions made by non clergy officials.
As political systems go the empire is closest to communism. it has cult of personality, and official dialectic that goes through every strata of society. It even has the same type collective head of state, and the super inefficient type of economy that is fueled by working citizents like slaves, while at the same time the whole thing is called The Imperium of Man.
Just no. Nothing you said has anything to do with communism, and the imperium is far too class structured, with wealthy nobles, lots of privleges for groups that don't apply to proletariat, poverty crushed workers, and religious trappings everywhere. It's as far from communism as it's possible to get.
I find it tacky when people paint their Knights in the exact same colors and livery as the Space Marine chapter they are allied with. As if they are being operated by the Chapter itself. You could make an argument for particularly devoted Freeblades but I still am not a fan of this practice. At the end of the day its their models and they can do whatever they want but.. yeah. Not a fan.
Sometimes, though I question it's effectiveness. The insertion of humor, while it's what makes the setting fun and endearing, somewhat undermines the sentiment because they're kind of comically stupid and over the top and a far cry from the real fascists. .
I disagree pretty strongly with this. The humor is a bizarre byproduct of these obscene political systems and the ridiculous oximoronicisms that ideologs use justify them. Go read The Gulag Archipelago or The Black Book of Communism, there is a really disgusting kind of cosmic black humor that underlines these regimes.
The first real life example I can think of off the top of my head is about a Russian soldier who was imprisoned when returning from the Eastern Front after WWII. He was imprisoned because he surrendered to the Enemy, something that Russian soldiers were forbidden to do. Only he had both his legs blown off before capture so he didn't exactly have a say in the matter. Oh well, off to the Gulag with him. It's so insane and ridiculous it becomes funny in a really sickening kind of way.
So yeah, I think the "insertion of humor" into 40k is just something that's inevitable when you tell story in a Fascist setting.
TheCustomLime wrote: I find it tacky when people paint their Knights in the exact same colors and livery as the Space Marine chapter they are allied with. As if they are being operated by the Chapter itself. You could make an argument for particularly devoted Freeblades but I still am not a fan of this practice. At the end of the day its their models and they can do whatever they want but.. yeah. Not a fan.
Agreed. This annoys me quite a bit too. I know anything can be handwaved when it comes to the fluff of "your dudes" but this is a particularly egregious example. It's like if you painted an Imperial Guard regiment as Blood Angels. It simply contradicts the established fluff.
Wired4War wrote: Strength and toughness should be removed and use the to wound stat from Sigmar.
So a Guardsman should find it as easy to wound a Grot as a Warlord Titan?
There may be a reason that idea is unpopular...
It's almost like a game where the variation in the toughness of models is less extreme can use a system that doesn't need to account for it, or something.
Deep down we all know that the system will never be great, or even good. Yet we can not devorce ourselves from GW. No matter what they do, we will keep coming back, whether that be a couple of weeks, or even decades.
We all come back to GW.
Because we are addicted, even to the point of secretly getting a thrill out of their bad rule writing.
For GW, they have helped to mould the perfect customer base.
I think its because you pick up 40k, or even AOS, you spend a lot of money on the product... you want to know that there will be people to play against.
Rules don't matter. You want people to play against.
GW games pretty much guarantee that you will have people to play against for the most part, no matter how crappy the rules.
If people could just enmasse move over to a different system, then GW would be forced to make 40k a good game to try to win them back.
But that takes work, that invalidates in some peoples' case several thousands of dollars and several thousand hours worth of hobbying.
auticus wrote: I don't think its because we are addicted.
I think its because you pick up 40k, or even AOS, you spend a lot of money on the product... you want to know that there will be people to play against.
Rules don't matter. You want people to play against.
GW games pretty much guarantee that you will have people to play against for the most part, no matter how crappy the rules.
If people could just enmasse move over to a different system, then GW would be forced to make 40k a good game to try to win them back.
But that takes work, that invalidates in some peoples' case several thousands of dollars and several thousand hours worth of hobbying.
Also, the 40k universe is immersive and fun. The universe of Dropzone Commander, for example, is just kind of boringly normal. 40k is colorful and funny.
auticus wrote: I don't think its because we are addicted.
I think its because you pick up 40k, or even AOS, you spend a lot of money on the product... you want to know that there will be people to play against.
Rules don't matter. You want people to play against.
GW games pretty much guarantee that you will have people to play against for the most part, no matter how crappy the rules.
If people could just enmasse move over to a different system, then GW would be forced to make 40k a good game to try to win them back.
But that takes work, that invalidates in some peoples' case several thousands of dollars and several thousand hours worth of hobbying.
Yeah pretty much this. If I got online tomorrow and found out that some small game exploded in popularity and now dwarfs the 40k playerbase significantly, (and simultaneously reduced the 40k playerbase,) I’d probably immediately start researching which army I’m going to play in it.
I think Knights should stay in the fluff; or in another game system or something. Having them in 40k ruins the scale of the game, which has already slowly eroded over time. I miss the days when a Land Raider was the biggest most badass looking points sink you could face. Some people had Baneblades from FW but all the forge world gak was crap people didn’t play against much.
I miss named characters being opponents permission only.
I think there are way, waaay too many factions now.
I miss the old AP system.
I don’t think 8th plays that all quickly.
I think CP and stratagems pretty much fundamentally shatter game balance.
I think they should do away with FOC's / Detachments altogether. I'd rather see some kind of limit per point value. Something like, no more than one of a unit per 500 points played (or part thereof). Typical troop units could be exempt, things like Tactical Marines, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, that sort of thing.
I'd also like to make it so you could choose one other unit in your codex to make exempt. That way, if you want to play White Scars with all the Bikes, go ahead. Blood Angels with Assault Squads, or Death Company Brigades, have at'er. Deathwing for everybody! Tau Crisis suits as your main unit? Done. Saim-Hann bike armies? Iyandan Ghost armies? Done and done.
The cat's out of the bag now, and it ain't going back. So let people play how they want to play. Why try to build a fake restriction when every army winds up with ways to "cheat" around it?
Make Command Points a pre-game then per-turn thing. Don't give someone 25 CP on the first turn then expect them to not Alpha the snot out of their opponent.
Make Command Points a per-point-level thing. One CP per turn per 500 points played, plus 1 so long as your Warlord is alive sort of deal. Balance the CP cost of strategems in this new structure. Make strats that effect single units cheap, unless those units cost 400+ points each, in which case make them 3 points a pop for the simple ones, 5 or more for the "Good" ones. Make it a choice to spend now or save up for something awesome next turn.
The longer I play, the less I care about exact balance. Being within 10% across a well constructed army is fine, and will result in good games.
The longer I play, the more I want to try Power Level. I think it would just change what's powerful, and doesn't make it any less accurate, across the spread of an Army. Take the upgrades, they're fun to play with!
I think the faith system in the new SoB codex is fine. The powers provide some fairly significant force multiplication for squads and also have zero consequences for failure, aside from burning a resource that can only be used for faith powers anyway. They fulfill a happy medium between psychic powers, which can literally kill your caster with a bad roll, and orders, which are arguably overpowered due to having zero chance of failing.
greatbigtree wrote: I think they should do away with FOC's / Detachments altogether. I'd rather see some kind of limit per point value. Something like, no more than one of a unit per 500 points played (or part thereof). Typical troop units could be exempt, things like Tactical Marines, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, that sort of thing.
Indeed something similar to the old Fantasy system with a maximum percentage of your army spend on a specific type (let say no more than 20% in any given choice except troops which must be at least 20% and have no maximum). I personnaly would require a minimum of 30% of the army point cost should be Troop Choice without counting transports.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, the Imperium has always been a fascist theocratic regime lampooned and hamstrung by its own ridiculousness.
that is like saying something is a comunist capitalist type of regime. Fasist are all about the separation of church and state, and tight link between the goverment and the non public sector. In a theocracy, nothing can exist outside of it, and all public positions are doubled, by exactly the same positions within the church hierarchy, with the church ones always being superior and being able to over turn any decisions made by non clergy officials.
As political systems go the empire is closest to communism. it has cult of personality, and official dialectic that goes through every strata of society. It even has the same type collective head of state, and the super inefficient type of economy that is fueled by working citizents like slaves, while at the same time the whole thing is called The Imperium of Man.
Just no. Nothing you said has anything to do with communism, and the imperium is far too class structured, with wealthy nobles, lots of privleges for groups that don't apply to proletariat, poverty crushed workers, and religious trappings everywhere. It's as far from communism as it's possible to get.
Unironically making haphazard connections to socialism/communism while displaying a total lack of even an elementary knowledge of political theory has become something of a meme at this point.
Wired4War wrote: Strength and toughness should be removed and use the to wound stat from Sigmar.
So a Guardsman should find it as easy to wound a Grot as a Warlord Titan?
There may be a reason that idea is unpopular...
It's almost like a game where the variation in the toughness of models is less extreme can use a system that doesn't need to account for it, or something.
I'd say that there is still fairly substantial variation - wounding a Goblin vs. doing noticeable damage to a Steam Tank, airship or dragon.
Of course, if it were an accurate comparison, AOS would actually have to be a game...
Wired4War wrote: Strength and toughness should be removed and use the to wound stat from Sigmar.
So a Guardsman should find it as easy to wound a Grot as a Warlord Titan?
There may be a reason that idea is unpopular...
It's almost like a game where the variation in the toughness of models is less extreme can use a system that doesn't need to account for it, or something.
I'd say that there is still fairly substantial variation - wounding a Goblin vs. doing noticeable damage to a Steam Tank, airship or dragon.
Of course, if it were an accurate comparison, AOS would actually have to be a game...
At least if it did become a game 40k might too.
A long shot I know...
Games Workshop are a relatively tiny company who've managed to create a relatively big IP whilst creating a relatively niche product. The fact that they are aggressive in protecting that is entirely understandable.
Balancing a game around how armies should play is fine. If you want to play a different style with them, that's cool, the options are even there, but they will likely be more expensive and/or inferior to similar options in armies based around that playstyle. You're creating yourself a challenge, embrace it or play Wood Elves with bows and light cavalry not ranked infantry.
This hobby really isn't crazy expensive if you buy, buiild paint before buying again and don't feel the need to constantly chop and change units.
SHUPPET wrote: Tyranid parts look terrible in conversions as they are immediately recognisable and it dispels whatever the conversion is trying to sell.
What about my conversion for someone with a krakenbone sword made from a bonesword? Seems pretty fitting.
TheCustomLime wrote: I find it tacky when people paint their Knights in the exact same colors and livery as the Space Marine chapter they are allied with. As if they are being operated by the Chapter itself. You could make an argument for particularly devoted Freeblades but I still am not a fan of this practice. At the end of the day its their models and they can do whatever they want but.. yeah. Not a fan.
Oh, never seen this, but I'm a big fan. I do this with aspect warriors, and I'm pondering it for my daemon army.
I really like it when an army looks uniform, has something in common and an overarching theme, and isn't just a technicolor riot.
Or bare plastic, but I'd honestly prefer primed to the rainbow effect.
MarsNZ wrote: Unironically making haphazard connections to socialism/communism while displaying a total lack of even an elementary knowledge of political theory has become something of a meme at this point.
I can't help but laugh when Tau are referred to as communists. A society with a rigid caste system...
Nobody cares about your home brewed chapter's complex lineage. If someone asks what chapter/craftworld/whatever you play, "I made it up" is enough of a response. The next time someone tries to regale me with their 10,000 years of lineage, I'll simply scoop my army while they natter incessantly and head somewhere with less self-absorption.
In a similar vein, there is a section on this forum for your fandex. Use it. I find it highly unlikely that the gaming populace as a whole will find your work remotely balanced, NOR will they want to ever use it, and spamming it on every other 40K thread isn't going to change that.
Finally, when someone asks lore questions, your "fanon" is inconsequential and has no place in the conversation. There's a section of the forums for THAT as well.
SHUPPET wrote: Tyranid parts look terrible in conversions as they are immediately recognisable and it dispels whatever the conversion is trying to sell.
What about my conversion for someone with a krakenbone sword made from a bonesword? Seems pretty fitting.
That sounds like it does fit. If it deliberately incorporates the origin then it might just work. You know what I'm talking bout tho
TheCustomLime wrote: I find it tacky when people paint their Knights in the exact same colors and livery as the Space Marine chapter they are allied with. As if they are being operated by the Chapter itself. You could make an argument for particularly devoted Freeblades but I still am not a fan of this practice. At the end of the day its their models and they can do whatever they want but.. yeah. Not a fan.
Oh, never seen this, but I'm a big fan. I do this with aspect warriors, and I'm pondering it for my daemon army.
I really like it when an army looks uniform, has something in common and an overarching theme, and isn't just a technicolor riot.
Or bare plastic, but I'd honestly prefer primed to the rainbow effect.
Hey, what you like is what you like. I find it more important that models are painted appropriately for what they are trying to represent than the an entire force are painted in the exact same color scheme. Cohesiveness in painting technique and basing will do wonders to make an army look like it belongs together.
Modern 40k as a setting is stale and stupid, with a constant 1up marine never allowing the setting to really stay true to its grim dark feel. And when they have try to grim dark it up it’s done in a rather throw away way, and without much care to the setting as a whole.
Rule of cool is now hinting at how to make something not cool at all.
Bremon wrote: I think Knights should stay in the fluff; or in another game system or something. Having them in 40k ruins the scale of the game, which has already slowly eroded over time. I miss the days when a Land Raider was the biggest most badass looking points sink you could face. Some people had Baneblades from FW but all the forge world gak was crap people didn’t play against much.
I miss named characters being opponents permission only.
I think there are way, waaay too many factions now.
I miss the old AP system.
I don’t think 8th plays that all quickly.
I think CP and stratagems pretty much fundamentally shatter game balance.
TheCustomLime wrote: I find it tacky when people paint their Knights in the exact same colors and livery as the Space Marine chapter they are allied with. As if they are being operated by the Chapter itself. You could make an argument for particularly devoted Freeblades but I still am not a fan of this practice. At the end of the day its their models and they can do whatever they want but.. yeah. Not a fan.
I'm 100% with you here, all too often allied stuff in general just gets the same paint scheme applied as the parent force, when such makes no sense in the background. With a lot of armies, it's like watching a WW1 game where US forces are fighting in Zouve colors just because they're allied with the French
Knights are particularly egregiously abused in this regard because they're so easy to just add to any force with the 8E army building rules, but Knight Households and Titan Legions are independent forces with their own command/logistics/transport structures and their own proud livery, they are not going to just take the colors and heraldry of someone else above their own, and a Space Marine chapter isn't usually going to be too keen on other groups just using their colors and heraldry, there's a lot of battlefield command & control/IFF issues with that and some serious questions of honor and presumption.
TheCustomLime wrote: I find it tacky when people paint their Knights in the exact same colors and livery as the Space Marine chapter they are allied with. As if they are being operated by the Chapter itself. You could make an argument for particularly devoted Freeblades but I still am not a fan of this practice. At the end of the day its their models and they can do whatever they want but.. yeah. Not a fan.
I'm 100% with you here, all too often allied stuff in general just gets the same paint scheme applied as the parent force, when such makes no sense in the background. With a lot of armies, it's like watching a WW1 game where US forces are fighting in Zouve colors just because they're allied with the French
Knights are particularly egregiously abused in this regard because they're so easy to just add to any force with the 8E army building rules, but Knight Households and Titan Legions are independent forces with their own command/logistics/transport structures and their own proud livery, they are not going to just take the colors and heraldry of someone else above their own, and a Space Marine chapter isn't usually going to be too keen on other groups just using their colors and heraldry, there's a lot of battlefield command & control/IFF issues with that and some serious questions of honor and presumption.
I get why people do it, but it does feel tacky
/i'msometimesjudgemental.
It'd be like adding a Guilliman/Ultramarines detachment to your Cadians and painting them all in army green and even putting the Cadian gate insignia on Guilliman! Yes, it matches but... like you said, there is a whole lot of wrong with that. The most I've seen of Knights using Space Marine iconography is House Hawkshroud integrating chapter badges into their heraldry when the Astartes in question honor them. But they don't repaint their bloody Knights.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this practice is tacky.
Hmmm, this has me thinking about how I painted my Knight. I did the same camo pattern as my Guard as a base, but I made it very heraldic on top of it. I hope the general effect is that it matches the army but also stands out, rather than being either identical or completely separate. Some bad phone pictures:
it might be good if GW went under, their gameline was bought out by a rich fan or group of wealthy gamers who focused more on making the games affordable to a larger number of people.
I could see making "peon" units a little less detailed but a lot cheaper to you can afford base troops easier while leaving models that aRE USUALLY USED IN SMALLER NUMBERS JUST AS DETAILED AS THEY ARE NOW.. Sorry, caps key.,
I'd like to see rules written to be a good balanced game not a constant shifting of unit power to make people buy more overpriced models.
Trickstick wrote: Hmmm, this has me thinking about how I painted my Knight. I did the same camo pattern as my Guard as a base, but I made it very heraldic on top of it. I hope the general effect is that it matches the army but also stands out, rather than being either identical or completely separate. Some bad phone pictures:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
No, that works great. Firstly the gold and the heraldry as I say sets it apart and secondly that it is beautifully executed. I really like out there cammo schemes.
Trickstick wrote: Hmmm, this has me thinking about how I painted my Knight. I did the same camo pattern as my Guard as a base, but I made it very heraldic on top of it. I hope the general effect is that it matches the army but also stands out, rather than being either identical or completely separate. Some bad phone pictures:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
If you're painting your knights with matching colors that is something different. Like, for example, if you paint a House Raven Knight using the same reds as the Blood Angels you want to ally it with that's perfectly fine. I wanted to paint up a House Cadmus Knight to match my Salamanders before going with Terryn. It's just slapping on the same iconography as if to imply the Knight is part of a Space Marine chapter/guard regiment is what I don't particularly care for.
Not sure if this is unpopular or not, but here we go;
Pre-Gathering Storm 40k was fine. It was a setting not a storyline, a setting focused on the Imperium being poised at the edge of a cliff.
With 10,000 years of history and an entire galaxy to play in, there was plenty of room for practically any story you wanted to tell, and any combination of forces you wanted to face off.
And it isn't like the crowd that Dakka seems to think is the most important - the tournament circuit - really cares anyway...
This, so much this. A tank doesn't care if you shoot it with an AK47 or a mortar, you're going to bounce either way. Having a stronger weapon doesn't magically make you do more damage to something that you're still to weak to reliably penetrate.
This, so much this. A tank doesn't care if you shoot it with an AK47 or a mortar, you're going to bounce either way. Having a stronger weapon doesn't magically make you do more damage to something that you're still to weak to reliably penetrate.
This is the old system, from back in 2nd edition! I can see your side but the other system had disadvantages. It made certain ap values much better than others. An ap3 gun was so much better than an ap4 gun. Now more weapons are worth taking.
This, so much this. A tank doesn't care if you shoot it with an AK47 or a mortar, you're going to bounce either way. Having a stronger weapon doesn't magically make you do more damage to something that you're still to weak to reliably penetrate.
This is the old system, from back in 2nd edition! I can see your side but the other system had disadvantages. It made certain ap values much better than others. An ap3 gun was so much better than an ap4 gun. Now more weapons are worth taking.
When's the last time you saw someone take a Grav cannon? Or a flamer?
The issue was, and is still, with costing. The difference is that under the old system you always knew what your weapon could pen, whereas in 8th edition a -1 AP is much, much more valuable when firing on certan targets than on others.
Techpriestsupport wrote: it might be good if GW went under, their gameline was bought out by a rich fan or group of wealthy gamers who focused more on making the games affordable to a larger number of people.
I could see making "peon" units a little less detailed but a lot cheaper to you can afford base troops easier while leaving models that aRE USUALLY USED IN SMALLER NUMBERS JUST AS DETAILED AS THEY ARE NOW.. Sorry, caps key.,
I'd like to see rules written to be a good balanced game not a constant shifting of unit power to make people buy more overpriced models.
yeah, yeah, I can dream.
did you see the 40k official podcast ? Mr Goodwin discussed the importance of graduating the level of detail from base troops going up thru the ranks up to special characters.
Clearly there is still internal drive to do this, but sometimes it slips through the net.
I think 99% of dreadnoughts/titans posed in a "running" pose look terrible, like they're in the process of falling right over because of how unbalanced they are.
This, so much this. A tank doesn't care if you shoot it with an AK47 or a mortar, you're going to bounce either way. Having a stronger weapon doesn't magically make you do more damage to something that you're still to weak to reliably penetrate.
This is the old system, from back in 2nd edition! I can see your side but the other system had disadvantages. It made certain ap values much better than others. An ap3 gun was so much better than an ap4 gun. Now more weapons are worth taking.
2nd edition was ridiculous. 3rd was basically the pinnacle of the game for me. Marines weren’t worried about cover because they were basically superheroes.
To be honest, I even miss the old S/T spread; I loved when heavy bolters would rip Guardians and guardsmen to ribbons on a 2+ to wound, and not 3+ to wound followed by a 6+ save.
There were entire armies that AP five and four were useless for. Could GW have done a better job? No not at all. You can do better, rules can be better, but any company is never going to do it:
shyzo wrote: If you could change 5 things in the core rules, what would those be?
Hmm, tough to decide what my top 5 would be, but here's a few:
1. Armour Saves are only negated if AP is less than the armour value, if AP is equal it's a -2 penalty to the save, and if the AP is one worse (higher) then it's a -1. This means that AP4 weapons reduce marines to 4+, while AP3 reduces them to 5+, and AP2 or better punches straight through. It makes weapons with an AP value that's close a bit more useful, particularly AP4 weapons which are currently pretty underwhelming thanks to the large amounts of 3+ armour out there.
I like the AP modifier system, and don’t mind to-hit modifiers... but the entire system would be better with D10’s. You could then have + 2 or +3 strength be more meaningful, as each point of difference would be +1 to the roll, essentially, up to 5 points difference, at which point you either auto-pass / auto-fail. Though I think a “natural 10 succeeds regardless” would keep small arms from being completely useless against Knights and the like.
I think the current rules are the best you can do with a d6, though to-hit modifiers should be capped at +/- 1.
pelicaniforce wrote: There were entire armies that AP five and four were useless for.
Quite liked it that way.
With the system posted above bolters could knock aspect warriors and necron warriors down to 5+ and actually be dangerous WOAH. but marines didn’t get scratched. Way better than either third edition or 2nd and eighth editions
Yeah I loved the old ap system except that 1. Chaplains were bad at fighting marines and you’d think a predator mounted autocannon would at least dint power armor and 2. Bolter marines couldn’t kill storm troopers or fire warriors very well.
The heavy bolted was such a common and good looking weapon, but it was poop. The ap4 weapon options on terminator squads were pointless, the heavy flamer might as well not exist. I just think bolters should get -1 against like dire avengers.
Apple fox wrote: Modern 40k as a setting is stale and stupid, with a constant 1up marine never allowing the setting to really stay true to its grim dark feel. And when they have try to grim dark it up it’s done in a rather throw away way, and without much care to the setting as a whole.
Rule of cool is now hinting at how to make something not cool at all.
I dislike "Spess Muhreen" H8Rs. Its soooo 2000's.
Also, IoM H8Rs. Why? Isn't it a quarter past popular to rant about 40k's poster boys?
A basic Guardsman should be 10 points. Adjust everything else up by a factor of 2.5, now there's enough granularity to properly price the rest of the field.
Nothing can be priced properly while Guardsmen are 4 ppm. Nothing.
Rather than points per model, units should have fixed size options. You could have 5 marines for 55 points and then 10 Marines for 95. This would more accurately reflect the value of access to upgrades, and give incentive to using larger squads.
Chaos Marines could have options for 5, 10, and 20 man units.
I think Tau work in units of 6 to 12? Battle suits could be increments of 3?
GW should revert to the 3rd/4th edition to-wound rules. Wound on 4 + attack S - target T. No more S4 bolt guns or dudes with sticks doing chip damage to tanks, T5 and T6 actually mean something against the majority of weapons again. Necrons can have their "always wound on 6s" rule back since they need help as is.
The Newman wrote: GW should revert to the 3rd/4th edition to-wound rules. Wound on 4 + attack S - target T. No more S4 bolt guns or dudes with sticks doing chip damage to tanks, T5 and T6 actually mean something against the majority of weapons again. Necrons can have their "always wound on 6s" rule back since they need help as is.
The Newman wrote: GW should revert to the 3rd/4th edition to-wound rules. Wound on 4 + attack S - target T. No more S4 bolt guns or dudes with sticks doing chip damage to tanks, T5 and T6 actually mean something against the majority of weapons again. Necrons can have their "always wound on 6s" rule back since they need help as is.
Aside from S3 wounding on 5's instead of 6's, what's wrong or changed with T5/6 units relative to most weapons in the game? Particularly as S7/8/9 isn't wounding on 2's anymore.
greatbigtree wrote: Rather than points per model, units should have fixed size options. You could have 5 marines for 55 points and then 10 Marines for 95. This would more accurately reflect the value of access to upgrades, and give incentive to using larger squads.
Chaos Marines could have options for 5, 10, and 20 man units.
I think Tau work in units of 6 to 12? Battle suits could be increments of 3?
That's horrifyingly boring and kills choice more than anything. Now if you need a few points for something you can take a man from each squad away but with blocks you just end up with a situation of being five points shy of something but no way to get it without removing whole units.
Kanluwen wrote: Commissars are, and always will be, useless trash that belong in the lore and not on the battlefield.
Meanwhile, in the lore, they are constantly on the battlefield.
In the Lore they make a difference on the battlefield though...
And in the lore, they're also in the backfield scheming like a bunch of petulant children when their authority isn't respected thanks to them actually being deskjockeys.
Also the only good interaction with a Commissar is in "Cadian Blood".
Spoiler:
When the Cadians deal with him for insulting their regimental honor.
Kanluwen wrote: Also the only good interaction with a Commissar is in "Cadian Blood".
Well maybe if you just ignore two of Black Library's best series that are centred on Commissars, or one off novels like Dead Men Walking with major Commissar characters.
Kanluwen wrote: Also the only good interaction with a Commissar is in "Cadian Blood".
Well maybe if you just ignore two of Black Library's best series that are centred on Commissars, or one off novels like Dead Men Walking with major Commissar characters.
You mean the one where the Commissar doesn't summarily execute everyone he meets and is the exception to the rule of "Commissars aren't Commanders"? And the other one where the Commissar's a big coward?
Oh and while we're at it, let's not forget that the main crux of the issue for "Dead Men Walking" was that the commissar in question had to keep his Regiment from crazed suicide charges.
Kanluwen wrote: Also the only good interaction with a Commissar is in "Cadian Blood".
Well maybe if you just ignore two of Black Library's best series that are centred on Commissars, or one off novels like Dead Men Walking with major Commissar characters.
You mean the one where the Commissar doesn't summarily execute everyone he meets and is the exception to the rule of "Commissars aren't Commanders"? And the other one where the Commissar's a big coward?
Oh and while we're at it, let's not forget that the main crux of the issue for "Dead Men Walking" was that the commissar in question had to keep his Regiment from crazed suicide charges.
Sound like good interactions to me. There is a wide spectrum of Commissars in the vastness of the 41st millenium, of which these are some examples.
Most book characters arent about filling the archetype perfectly. When we get Ultramarines characters in videogames and books, they're always willing to flex on the codex astartes. When we get basix guardsmen books, they're not the ones that all killed in the first 5 minutes of battle. When we get Chaos Marine books, they generally dont center on following the insane characters. When we get books on Inquisitors, it's almost never about the "burn everyone who looks slightly out of place in the hab square" types.
Vaktathi wrote: Most book characters arent about filling the archetype perfectly. When we get Ultramarines characters in videogames and books, they're always willing to flex on the codex astartes. When we get basix guardsmen books, they're not the ones that all killed in the first 5 minutes of battle. When we get Chaos Marine books, they generally dont center on following the insane characters. When we get books on Inquisitors, it's almost never about the "burn everyone who looks slightly out of place in the hab square" types.
"by the book" characters aren't good character in mot cases. Especially in war drama. These characters have a tendecy to be dull and predictable. For a story to work, the character needs to get himself or herself in trouble once in a while.
Vaktathi wrote: Most book characters arent about filling the archetype perfectly. When we get Ultramarines characters in videogames and books, they're always willing to flex on the codex astartes. When we get basix guardsmen books, they're not the ones that all killed in the first 5 minutes of battle. When we get Chaos Marine books, they generally dont center on following the insane characters. When we get books on Inquisitors, it's almost never about the "burn everyone who looks slightly out of place in the hab square" types.
What do you mean? Every game I have seen has had Ultramarines announcing very firmly that said action is not supported by the Codex Astartes.
Vaktathi wrote: Most book characters arent about filling the archetype perfectly. When we get Ultramarines characters in videogames and books, they're always willing to flex on the codex astartes. When we get basix guardsmen books, they're not the ones that all killed in the first 5 minutes of battle. When we get Chaos Marine books, they generally dont center on following the insane characters. When we get books on Inquisitors, it's almost never about the "burn everyone who looks slightly out of place in the hab square" types.
What do you mean? Every game I have seen has had Ultramarines announcing very firmly that said action is not supported by the Codex Astartes.
That doesn't sound like it's supported by the Codex Astartes...
Games Workshop should change the points systems so 2,000 points is 40,000 points (flavor win). Players that think points are the best way to find balance have even more granularity. While the gap between points and power levels is large enough for it to feel like there is a reason between the two.
greatbigtree wrote: Rather than points per model, units should have fixed size options. You could have 5 marines for 55 points and then 10 Marines for 95. This would more accurately reflect the value of access to upgrades, and give incentive to using larger squads.
Chaos Marines could have options for 5, 10, and 20 man units.
I think Tau work in units of 6 to 12? Battle suits could be increments of 3?
Dysartes wrote: The Ciaphas Cain books are fun, even if they're not likely to be the most accurate representation of Commissar interactions.
You have to remember there is a lot of internal dialogue going on in the Ciaphas Cain novels. You get a really intimate look at what a man is truly thinking about in the 41st millennium. Cain is absolutely not a coward, the amount of times he rushes into danger because he knows he has to despite being scared gakless is too many to count. The definition of courage is not the absence of fear, it is the ability to deal with fear and get your job done anyway.
To be fair, the first short story featuring Ciaphas Cain involves him committing desertion in the face of the enemy (which fails when he runs into a giant horde of nids).
I can't think of any such egregious examples later though. He does stuff like trying to get posted to safe cushy assignments, but seemingly refuses to give in to cowardice in battle.
I've always thought Dark Eldar were a blast, even back prior to the reboot. I've a ton of the old models, including the Lady Gaga looking Archon. And a ton of the warriors and gimp wyches. One day I think I will bring them back to their full glory.
The Newman wrote: GW should revert to the 3rd/4th edition to-wound rules. Wound on 4 + attack S - target T. No more S4 bolt guns or dudes with sticks doing chip damage to tanks, T5 and T6 actually mean something against the majority of weapons again. Necrons can have their "always wound on 6s" rule back since they need help as is.
Aside from S3 wounding on 5's instead of 6's, what's wrong or changed with T5/6 units relative to most weapons in the game? Particularly as S7/8/9 isn't wounding on 2's anymore.
I meant that T5 and T6 (and T3/4) wouldn't be functionally identical against quite so much of the field.
I do remember how annoying it was to have T7-8 targets that were just utterly immune to small arms fire, but that was also at a time when units couldn't split their fire. I think the current system makes different weapon strengths not mean enough
40k fiction about space marines is extremely hard to read. Its hard to make spartain warrior monk's interesting and compelling. Most of them are very cookie cutter and hard to find one 40k novel distinctly different than any other.
Frontline989 wrote: 40k fiction about space marines is extremely hard to read. Its hard to make spartain warrior monk's interesting and compelling. Most of them are very cookie cutter and hard to find one 40k novel distinctly different than any other.
40K is a fantasy setting, not a sci-fi one. Those who try to make sense of it with science-based or rationalist thinking are missing the point. Nothing in 40K is supposed to be remotely scientifically plausible. That's a feature, not a bug.
Similarly, it is a mistake (IMO) to think of 40K as being set in our future. If some Ordo Chronos inquisitor travelled 38,000 years into her past, she would not end up on our version of early 21st century Earth. There's no Warp in our version of reality, and no malevolent gods reflecting and amplifying everybody's worst impulses and most selfish and destructive emotions. That should make a huge difference. Some historical events in our reality might have also occurred in 40K's past, but that doesn't imply that everything happened the same way. The influence of Chaos ought to make everything in the 40K version of reality just that bit worse. We get hints of this in some BL novels. The 40K setting's version of William Blake was described as living during a period of tyranny and oppression, whereas the real Blake lived during an age of unprecedented enlightenment and revolution. The implication is that what we call the Enlightenment might not have happened in 40K's past.
Duskweaver wrote: 40K is a fantasy setting, not a sci-fi one. Those who try to make sense of it with science-based or rationalist thinking are missing the point. Nothing in 40K is supposed to be remotely scientifically plausible. That's a feature, not a bug.
This is one of those things that baffles me no end. You would have thought the fact there are Elves, Orc(k)s and Dwarves in space would be a massive clue, but apparently not. You constantly see posts about how people want "modern" looking IG tanks or not have HTH be so prominent (or eliminate it entirely) it's like they want to take out everything quirky and unique about 40k and make it into yet another clone of several other sci fi franchises out there.
Duskweaver wrote: 40K is a fantasy setting, not a sci-fi one. Those who try to make sense of it with science-based or rationalist thinking are missing the point. Nothing in 40K is supposed to be remotely scientifically plausible. That's a feature, not a bug.
This is one of those things that baffles me no end. You would have thought the fact there are Elves, Orc(k)s and Dwarves in space would be a massive clue, but apparently not. You constantly see posts about how people want "modern" looking IG tanks or not have HTH be so prominent (or eliminate it entirely) it's like they want to take out everything quirky and unique about 40k and make it into yet another clone of several other sci fi franchises out there.
can you imagine how dated 40k would look if it was built around what was 'modern' or seemed 'futuristic' from day 1 (1975?). They made a smart move by putting lasers and cannons on early / mid 20th century tanks; hint Leman Russes and Land Raiders ALWAYS looked dated! That's the Charm!
People wanting a modern 40k are asking to put modern head light arrays on a classic car.
Formosa wrote: Chaos space marines codex fails more than any other codex at capturing the theme and nature of chaos both in rules and fluff
That's an unpopular opinion? I always felt like GW never gave much care in making the basic CSM stuff feel different than their Imperium equivalent (at least since I started playing 40k) outside of anything directly involving the four main gods.
Primaris models have weird proportions. Their legs look too long and yet the overall design somehow still feels really lumpy and inelegant. The subtle "dynamic" posing comes off as really awkward in many of the sculpts. Old Marneus is so much better than new Marneus.
Mr. Burning wrote: Space Marines of all flavours except chaos should be junked from the next rules revision onward
why?
Because feth YEAH CHAOS!!!!!!!!!!1!!! or something. It's been this way ever since Chaos Codex 3.5 came out. I picture Chaos fans clutching the book in one hand, cutting themselves with the other, blaring HIM in the background, and dreaming of the glory days of having EVERYBODY'S cake and eating it, too.
slave.entity wrote: Primaris models have weird proportions. Their legs look too long and yet the overall design somehow still feels really lumpy and inelegant. The subtle "dynamic" posing comes off as really awkward in many of the sculpts. Old Marneus is so much better than new Marneus.
You may need to clarify that last point, dude - I think PriMarneus is the fourth version of the character (or at least the third)
Mr. Burning wrote: Space Marines of all flavours except chaos should be junked from the next rules revision onward
why?
Because feth YEAH CHAOS!!!!!!!!!!1!!! or something. It's been this way ever since Chaos Codex 3.5 came out. I picture Chaos fans clutching the book in one hand, cutting themselves with the other, blaring HIM in the background, and dreaming of the glory days of having EVERYBODY'S cake and eating it, too.
Nope.
I've been around since before chaos was really fleshed out. and never played with 3.5 so missed that love in apparently.
I prefer my Loyalist Marines to be semi mythical angels of death. Paradoxically I'm all for Chaos to be the prime antagonist and renegades in power armour to be valiantly held back by the might of the IG who also fight Xenos of many flavours. Just think in canon and table top they are better represented this way.
Still, GW have had loads of my cash over the years for power armoured dudes. Maybe I am just jaded.
40k is massively unwieldy above 750 points. GW should triple the point cost of every single unit so there's enough room to price things properly, but not increase the game size at all in the process.
AegisGrimm wrote: -Knights and superheavy tanks have no place in a standard 40k game, or possibly even non-Epic games.
That's not an unpopular opinion, that's a cold hard fact.
Mr. Burning wrote: Space Marines of all flavours except chaos should be junked from the next rules revision onward
why?
Because feth YEAH CHAOS!!!!!!!!!!1!!! or something. It's been this way ever since Chaos Codex 3.5 came out. I picture Chaos fans clutching the book in one hand, cutting themselves with the other, blaring HIM in the background, and dreaming of the glory days of having EVERYBODY'S cake and eating it, too.
Nope.
I've been around since before chaos was really fleshed out. and never played with 3.5 so missed that love in apparently.
I prefer my Loyalist Marines to be semi mythical angels of death. Paradoxically I'm all for Chaos to be the prime antagonist and renegades in power armour to be valiantly held back by the might of the IG who also fight Xenos of many flavours. Just think in canon and table top they are better represented this way.
Still, GW have had loads of my cash over the years for power armoured dudes. Maybe I am just jaded.
I think we ALL are. And 3.5 was more than "love", it was an abomination remembered fondly ONLY by those who ran the MANY power builds within.
Duskweaver wrote: 40K is a fantasy setting, not a sci-fi one. Those who try to make sense of it with science-based or rationalist thinking are missing the point. Nothing in 40K is supposed to be remotely scientifically plausible. That's a feature, not a bug.
Nope, absolutely disagree. It is a sci-fi setting with fantasy elements, similar to star wars (except darker obviously). So, which one of us has the truly "unpopular" opinion?
Formosa wrote: Chaos space marines codex fails more than any other codex at capturing the theme and nature of chaos both in rules and fluff
That's an unpopular opinion? I always felt like GW never gave much care in making the basic CSM stuff feel different than their Imperium equivalent (at least since I started playing 40k) outside of anything directly involving the four main gods.
Just take a look at the long line of people on this site alone that defend the chaos codex from 4th onwards, even 3.5 didnt go far enough but was a step in the right direction
Mr. Burning wrote: Space Marines of all flavours except chaos should be junked from the next rules revision onward
why?
Because feth YEAH CHAOS!!!!!!!!!!1!!! or something. It's been this way ever since Chaos Codex 3.5 came out. I picture Chaos fans clutching the book in one hand, cutting themselves with the other, blaring HIM in the background, and dreaming of the glory days of having EVERYBODY'S cake and eating it, too.
w1zard wrote: a sci-fi setting with fantasy elements, similar to star wars (except darker obviously).
Star Wars is also a fantasy setting.
Seriously, though, I know there isn't really a hard line between sci-fi and fantasy. But if you put fictional universes on a scale from Asimov and Clarke at one end to Tolkien at the other, 40K is way over towards the Tolkien end. It's literal magic and wizards and demons and orcs and elves. Even the 'technology' might as well be magic for all the rigor with which it is 'explained'. The space-orcs and space-elves have technology that explicitly is magic. The tyranids would be completely non-functional in our reality because (amongst other things) biological material does not have sufficient energy density to use it as stuff like starship fuel. Starships and firearms don't make a fantasy setting into a sci-fi one. Nobody tries to claim that Spelljammer isn't fantasy, so why the reluctance to view 40K the same way?
As a scientifically literate person, if you want to actually enjoy 40K and not end up in a permanent frustrated rage with it, you have to view it as fantasy IMO. If you judge it as sci-fi, then it just looks appallingly bad.
-2nd edition was really not bad to play if everyone involved played with restraint.
So long as you didn't play against Eldar, or either of the two particularly nasty Space Wolf builds, 2nd edition was the bomb.
Playing with restraint is recommended with each edition of 40K as each can be broken by a particular combination of units. 2nd was by far the most detailed version of 40K and thanks to the Dark Millenium boxed set provided you with a plethora of great templates and even rules for constructing your own vehicles. The last one was especially an Ork´s wet dream. And nowadays afaik the Orks can´t even bring a looted wagon to the battlefield. LOL!
Mr. Burning wrote: Space Marines of all flavours except chaos should be junked from the next rules revision onward
why?
Because feth YEAH CHAOS!!!!!!!!!!1!!! or something. It's been this way ever since Chaos Codex 3.5 came out. I picture Chaos fans clutching the book in one hand, cutting themselves with the other, blaring HIM in the background, and dreaming of the glory days of having EVERYBODY'S cake and eating it, too.
Nope.
I've been around since before chaos was really fleshed out. and never played with 3.5 so missed that love in apparently.
I prefer my Loyalist Marines to be semi mythical angels of death. Paradoxically I'm all for Chaos to be the prime antagonist and renegades in power armour to be valiantly held back by the might of the IG who also fight Xenos of many flavours. Just think in canon and table top they are better represented this way.
Still, GW have had loads of my cash over the years for power armoured dudes. Maybe I am just jaded.
I think we ALL are. And 3.5 was more than "love", it was an abomination remembered fondly ONLY by those who ran the MANY power builds within.
To be fair, the 3.5E chaos book had by far the best presentation, feel, and customizability to it of any book for many editions. Even without actually playing the game, that book was just a fun read, especially relative to the older pamphlet 3.0 codex, I don't think any other book has quite captured the background feel the same way since even in the non-rules elements of the book. It was abuseable, absolutely, but it's not like there weren't other similarly broken armies at the time (Eldar for example), and it's not like we haven't seen stuff since in subsequent editions that makes almost anything from that era look downright tame by comparison.
Duskweaver wrote: As a scientifically literate person, if you want to actually enjoy 40K and not end up in a permanent frustrated rage with it, you have to view it as fantasy IMO. If you judge it as sci-fi, then it just looks appallingly bad.
Scientifically literate person here. I don't. The setting has just enough pseudo-science to maintain suspension of disbelief, and the whole idea of the warp is actually interesting and pretty much unique to 40k. Star wars is actually much worse in that regard then 40k is (lightsabers lol). There is a difference between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi sure, but just because the setting trends more towards soft sci-fi doesn't mean it is more similar to Tolkien than Asimov. A lot of the background for the 40k universe came from Dune, which is undeniably sci-fi.
40k may have "orks" but they are nowhere close to Tolkien's orcs.
Formosa wrote: Chaos space marines codex fails more than any other codex at capturing the theme and nature of chaos both in rules and fluff
That's an unpopular opinion? I always felt like GW never gave much care in making the basic CSM stuff feel different than their Imperium equivalent (at least since I started playing 40k) outside of anything directly involving the four main gods.
Just take a look at the long line of people on this site alone that defend the chaos codex from 4th onwards, even 3.5 didnt go far enough but was a step in the right direction
Chaos equipment is comprised of dated and broken tech. Here are a few things that are different from the imperial wargear:
Source Chaos Codex 2nd:
- Kombi-Bolters instead of Storm Bolters. The chaos version is supposed to be inferior in the fluff but GW managed to botch the implementation for the game as Kombi-Bolters were in some ediitons more effective in short range.
- Dangerous plasma weapons instead of more reliable and safer imperial version. Well, GW threw this nice difference out of the window and today there is no difference between the too.
- No functioning targeters on heavy weapons as opposed to the Imperium´s version. Chaos forces don´t have the same resource level like the loyalists and can´t replace damaged gear as swiftly. Today there is no such thing as targeters for heavy weapons any more.
- Autocannon/Reaper Autocannon for infantry instead of the more sophisticated assault cannon. Also no thunder hammers and storm shields.
- Difference in dreadnought role. The entombment of a chaos champion is a punishment and drives the occupant insane resulting in errant and unpredictable behaviour like the Kane Cyborg in Robocop 2 showed due to the withdrawal effects of a drug. This is the most interesting of chaos units that provided me and my fellow gamers with the most of joy in our past battles as you never could be sure that he would follow your orders and would blow up your own tank or annihilate your infantry at inopportune moments. How much more chaotic can you become? But to my utter disgust I had to learn that not a small amount of chaos players resented this unit as it was not as reliable as the imperial one and felt themselves slighted by GW (again) for not providing them with "competitive" unit.
On the other hand the imperial version is a prestigious way for an imperial hero of mankind to prolong his service to the Emperor.
-CSM infantry are equipped by default with bolt pistol, bolter and chainsword and the imperial version (Tacticals, Devastators) lack the chainswords. It shows the emphasis for chaos units to close the distance for their foes in order to rip & tear. But since 5th marines of any kind are laughed off the board for their rather meager damage output as everybody and his dog can pack a more serious punch than a round of bolter fire. And this is not a healthy development for the game. If you want today exciting action with your marines you have to play the Deathwatch boardgame.
-SM have apothecaries to care for their wounded as opposed to CSM who don´t have a use for a unit such as this. Anybody who needs the help of another is deemed a weakling and needs to be weeded out from the rest because only the strong have the right to flourish and prosper.
-Chaos did also had no access to techmarines & chaplains in the past but GW deemed it necessary to throw this important distinction into the trash bin as well.
I could go on with the vehicles but I don´t feel inclined to do so right now. Only one thing for me to say here: Chaos dinobots SUCK. Oh and the flying hellturkey is not better in any way. Why? Well, they look horrible imo and no amount of crazy ass over the top rules writing will the change my mind about them. Always remember folks: Rules change each edition as units are hit by the ugly nerf bat but ugly units always stay ugly regardless of edition.
Duskweaver wrote: As a scientifically literate person, if you want to actually enjoy 40K and not end up in a permanent frustrated rage with it, you have to view it as fantasy IMO. If you judge it as sci-fi, then it just looks appallingly bad.
Scientifically literate person here. I don't. The setting has just enough pseudo-science to maintain suspension of disbelief, and the whole idea of the warp is actually interesting and pretty much unique to 40k. Star wars is actually much worse in that regard then 40k is (lightsabers lol). There is a difference between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi sure, but just because the setting trends more towards soft sci-fi doesn't mean it is more similar to Tolkien than Asimov. A lot of the background for the 40k universe came from Dune, which is undeniably sci-fi.
40k may have "orks" but they are nowhere close to Tolkien's orcs.
I don't know about unique, other than the extremes they took it. The Marvel Universe has a psychic realm for much longer than 40K has been around, though it is called the Astral Plane instead of the Warp. This realm has creatures in it that are pure thought, including characters like the Shadow King. Sometimes powerful psionics can even pull these creatures in to the physical realm (which lead to the creation of the character Onslaught, though that was generated well after 40K).
One of the biggest problems of declarations of "hard sci-fi", "soft sci-fi", "space fantasy", and "space opera" is how little we know about our universe and all its potential extensions. It is pretty arrogant to say a futurist story is "soft sci-fi" if you are basing it on the knowledge of a specie that has yet to leave their PLANETARY system.
For myself, "hard" is more do they establish their own laws and keep them there, Battletech and the Honorverse are pretty solid here. "Soft" is that they don't explain the tech, it just works from their own perspective, Asimov's books tend to fit here. "Space opera" is more about having macguffins to propel the story for the people, both Star Trek with their "miracle of the week" and Star Wars both fit in to this category. "Space fantasy" often mixes some interplanetary concepts, but the actual tech seems to run shallow, with Dune actually fitting this dynamic almost perfectly. Now, those are MY definitions, just so I can keep my mind open as to possibilities for what WE can do.
Duskweaver wrote: As a scientifically literate person, if you want to actually enjoy 40K and not end up in a permanent frustrated rage with it, you have to view it as fantasy IMO. If you judge it as sci-fi, then it just looks appallingly bad.
Scientifically literate person here. I don't. The setting has just enough pseudo-science to maintain suspension of disbelief, and the whole idea of the warp is actually interesting and pretty much unique to 40k. Star wars is actually much worse in that regard then 40k is (lightsabers lol). There is a difference between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi sure, but just because the setting trends more towards soft sci-fi doesn't mean it is more similar to Tolkien than Asimov. A lot of the background for the 40k universe came from Dune, which is undeniably sci-fi.
40k may have "orks" but they are nowhere close to Tolkien's orcs.
It is entirely too hard to not point out that magnetically bottled plasma would behave exactly like a light saber except for the fact that A) current technology needs a machine the size of a house to generate that beam and B) even if you could miniaturize that machine into a sword handle the beam would be hot enough to kill the wielder and eveyone else within 20 feet of them.
Also, Dune is totally a fantasy setting. There's no plausible explanation in current science for how anything in that universe works.
If I was asked cold what the definitions were:
Fantasy: "A wizard did it."
Soft SciFi: "A techno-wizard did it IN SPACE!"
Hard SciFi: "Some technology we're on the edge of (immersive VR, flying cars) or something modern science suggests might be possible (wormholes, psycho-history) has panned out and become commonplace."
Chaos equipment is comprised of dated and broken tech. Here are a few things that are different from the imperial wargear:
Imperial tech consists of lost tech and tech they do not understand and yet they receive new units at more than 3 times the rate chaos does, if not worse.
- Kombi-Bolters instead of Storm Bolters. The chaos version is supposed to be inferior in the fluff but GW managed to botch the implementation for the game as Kombi-Bolters were in some ediitons more effective in short range.
Retconned, Heresy era bolters depending on type are either as good if not better that the godwyn pattern, but i dont expect that to be shown in rules, its too granular a demand, a bolter is a bolter game wise.
- Dangerous plasma weapons instead of more reliable and safer imperial version. Well, GW threw this nice difference out of the window and today there is no difference between the too.
Also more powerful and able to overcharge, now all plasma can overcharge, however several chaos ones do not have a choice and must always be the more powerful shot with the chance to inflict a mortal wound.
- No functioning targeters on heavy weapons as opposed to the Imperium´s version. Chaos forces don´t have the same resource level like the loyalists and can´t replace damaged gear as swiftly. Today there is no such thing as targeters for heavy weapons any more.
Retconned: novels with chaos marines show they have the same set of targeting software in their helms, all marine types still have them but there is no rule for it.
- Autocannon/Reaper Autocannon for infantry instead of the more sophisticated assault cannon. Also no thunder hammers and storm shields.
Retconned: imperials now have access to infantry autocannons on terminators, terminators that should not be in the imperial arsenal but only for chaos, good job GW
- Difference in dreadnought role. The entombment of a chaos champion is a punishment and drives the occupant insane resulting in errant and unpredictable behaviour like the Kane Cyborg in Robocop 2 showed due to the withdrawal effects of a drug. This is the most interesting of chaos units that provided me and my fellow gamers with the most of joy in our past battles as you never could be sure that he would follow your orders and would blow up your own tank or annihilate your infantry at inopportune moments. How much more chaotic can you become? But to my utter disgust I had to learn that not a small amount of chaos players resented this unit as it was not as reliable as the imperial one and felt themselves slighted by GW (again) for not providing them with "competitive" unit.
On the other hand the imperial version is a prestigious way for an imperial hero of mankind to prolong his service to the Emperor.
This is largely the same, however the hellbrute is bonded to the dreadnought now, also imperials use leviathans which drive the occupant insane over time in much the same manner as old chaos dreads and eventually kills them.
-CSM infantry are equipped by default with bolt pistol, bolter and chainsword and the imperial version (Tacticals, Devastators) lack the chainswords. It shows the emphasis for chaos units to close the distance for their foes in order to rip & tear. But since 5th marines of any kind are laughed off the board for their rather meager damage output as everybody and his dog can pack a more serious punch than a round of bolter fire. And this is not a healthy development for the game. If you want today exciting action with your marines you have to play the Deathwatch boardgame.
Expanded upon depending on legion modus operandi, but yes chaos lost this option and i agree its for the worse.
-SM have apothecaries to care for their wounded as opposed to CSM who don´t have a use for a unit such as this. Anybody who needs the help of another is deemed a weakling and needs to be weeded out from the rest because only the strong have the right to flourish and prosper.
Retconned or expanded upon: chaos also have apothecaries in the fluff and the TT, death guard can take them although they have a different role as befits nurgle.
-Chaos did also had no access to techmarines & chaplains in the past but GW deemed it necessary to throw this important distinction into the trash bin as well.
chaos has always had both depending on legion, word bearers for chaplains and iron warriors for techmarines, or at least analogues.
I could go on with the vehicles but I don´t feel inclined to do so right now. Only one thing for me to say here: Chaos dinobots SUCK. Oh and the flying hellturkey is not better in any way. Why? Well, they look horrible imo and no amount of crazy ass over the top rules writing will the change my mind about them. Always remember folks: Rules change each edition as units are hit by the ugly nerf bat but ugly units always stay ugly regardless of edition.
here is what we lack
Traitor guard as an army
Drop pods
Deamon engines of many many different types
Warp tech based weapons and vehicles
in codex heresy era vehicles
World eaters unique units
Emperors children unique units
Thousand sones unique units
Death guard unique units
Night lords unique units
etc.
large armoury of options to emphasise the warlord esqe nature of chaos lords and chaos characters
veteran skills
mutations
deamon weapons and relics
land raider variants
I could go on but suffice to say the chaos codex is bloody awful at doing what it is supposed to do, be a chaos marine codex.
If I was asked cold what the definitions were:
Fantasy: "A wizard did it."
Soft SciFi: "A techno-wizard did it IN SPACE!" (And there is an implied or stated scientific explanation behind how the techno-wizard did it) Hard SciFi: "Some technology we're on the edge of (immersive VR, flying cars) or something modern science suggests might be possible (wormholes, psycho-history) has panned out and become commonplace."
I added my own caveat on the underlined part, but otherwise I agree with you. It still doesn't make soft sci-fi analogous to fantasy.
Charistoph wrote: For myself, "hard" is more do they establish their own laws and keep them there, Battletech and the Honorverse are pretty solid here. "Soft" is that they don't explain the tech, it just works from their own perspective, Asimov's books tend to fit here. "Space opera" is more about having macguffins to propel the story for the people, both Star Trek with their "miracle of the week" and Star Wars both fit in to this category. "Space fantasy" often mixes some interplanetary concepts, but the actual tech seems to run shallow, with Dune actually fitting this dynamic almost perfectly. Now, those are MY definitions, just so I can keep my mind open as to possibilities for what WE can do.
I always viewed "hard sci-fi" as something that played close to real life science as possible whilst leaving a little wiggle room for something creative. A good example would be "The Expanse" T.V. series.
Regardless, I don't know why people are trying to define Dune as a "fantasy" or even "space fantasy" setting. Like, if you look up the literal definition of "Science Fiction" Dune is listed as an example for feths sake. Seriously, type "Science Fiction" into google right now it's like the second thing that pops up.
Charistoph wrote: For myself, "hard" is more do they establish their own laws and keep them there, Battletech and the Honorverse are pretty solid here. "Soft" is that they don't explain the tech, it just works from their own perspective, Asimov's books tend to fit here. "Space opera" is more about having macguffins to propel the story for the people, both Star Trek with their "miracle of the week" and Star Wars both fit in to this category. "Space fantasy" often mixes some interplanetary concepts, but the actual tech seems to run shallow, with Dune actually fitting this dynamic almost perfectly. Now, those are MY definitions, just so I can keep my mind open as to possibilities for what WE can do.
I always viewed "hard sci-fi" as something that played close to real life science as possible whilst leaving a little wiggle room for something creative. A good example would be "The Expanse" T.V. series.
And you missed my reason for that by skipping the previous paragraph. Quite simply, there is so little we do know about our universe that I don't like keeping "hard sci-fi" to what little we do know. By that definition, Voyage to the Moon was hard sci-fi based on what we knew at the time it was written.
w1zard wrote: Regardless, I don't know why people are trying to define Dune as a "fantasy" or even "space fantasy" setting. Like, if you look up the literal definition of "Science Fiction" Dune is listed as an example for feths sake. Seriously, type "Science Fiction" into google right now it's like the second thing that pops up.
Have you actually read Dune? Have you read the rest of the series? You could literally write the book to be 7,000 years in the past, and the only things that would change would be the missing lasguns and talk about moving fiefdoms from planet to planet.
Charistoph wrote: Quite simply, there is so little we do not know about our universe that I don't like keeping "hard sci-fi" to what little we do know.
You're missing the point here. Hard science fiction isn't defined by how accurate it is decades after it's created, it's about the creator's intent. Hard SF is a work that attempts to reasonably extrapolate from known technology and science, minimizing the level of handwaving/space wizards/etc. It may turn out to get things wrong, but the intent was there. Soft SF gets more imaginative in its "what if"s and is willing to fudge the science a bit if it's necessary for plot or theme reasons. Space opera is just a heroic fantasy story with a superficial aesthetic layer of rockets and lasers and such replacing the swords and horses.
So, for example, the Honorverse is fairly soft. Yeah, it has some internal consistency (except when the author screws up things like the size of ships relative to their mass), but it's all just space magic. And it's space magic where the primary goal is not to extrapolate from known science/history/etc and imagine a future world, it's space magic that exists to have Napoleonic-era sailing fleets to go with the rest of its inspiration in real-world history.
Charistoph wrote: Have you actually read Dune? Have you read the rest of the series? You could literally write the book to be 7,000 years in the past, and the only things that would change would be the missing lasguns and talk about moving fiefdoms from planet to planet.
Yes, I have read Dune, at least the first two books. Enlighten me about these other fantasy series where movement between places are controlled by a navigator's guild whose members are hopped up on drugs that made them psychic and almost immortal, or a fantasy series where nuclear bombs, personal energy shields, laser guns, and cloning are commonplace.
People don't seem to understand the difference between sci-fi with fantasy elements (Dune and 40k), and straight fantasy (LOTR).
Charistoph wrote: Quite simply, there is so little we do not know about our universe that I don't like keeping "hard sci-fi" to what little we do know.
You're missing the point here. Hard science fiction isn't defined by how accurate it is decades after it's created, it's about the creator's intent. Hard SF is a work that attempts to reasonably extrapolate from known technology and science, minimizing the level of handwaving/space wizards/etc. It may turn out to get things wrong, but the intent was there. Soft SF gets more imaginative in its "what if"s and is willing to fudge the science a bit if it's necessary for plot or theme reasons. Space opera is just a heroic fantasy story with a superficial aesthetic layer of rockets and lasers and such replacing the swords and horses.
So, for example, the Honorverse is fairly soft. Yeah, it has some internal consistency (except when the author screws up things like the size of ships relative to their mass), but it's all just space magic. And it's space magic where the primary goal is not to extrapolate from known science/history/etc and imagine a future world, it's space magic that exists to have Napoleonic-era sailing fleets to go with the rest of its inspiration in real-world history.
No, I get their point. My counter-point still stands. There is so much we don't know about our universe that we cannot definitively call something "hard" or "soft" in relation to possibilities. The Honorverse could well be hard. Star Trek could well be hard. But because we know so little, it is presumptive of us to say what is possible or not. A hundred years ago, breaking the sound barrier or going to the moon would be considered soft by those standards. A world-wide communication system that can fit in the palm of your hand was incredibly soft. We have all of that today as hard because of the things we have learned about our universe. We will continue to learn more about our universe and can put some science fiction in to science fantasy and some in to definitive science fiction.
w1zard wrote:
Charistoph wrote: Have you actually read Dune? Have you read the rest of the series? You could literally write the book to be 7,000 years in the past, and the only things that would change would be the missing lasguns and talk about moving fiefdoms from planet to planet.
Yes, I have read Dune, at least the first two books. Enlighten me about these other fantasy series where movement between places are controlled by a navigator's guild whose members are hopped up on drugs that made them psychic and almost immortal, or a fantasy series where nuclear bombs, personal energy shields, laser guns, and cloning are commonplace.
Not necessarily navigators, but wizards or sorcerers who are addicted to their own power. After all, the Navigator's Guild was a guild of wizards, as were the Bene Gesserit (who were often referred to as witches with cause). Any knowledge or science that cannot be explained by the observer will seem like magic. The ability for the Navigators to safely guide a ship across light years would be magic. The Bene Gesserit to control a person with the Voice would also seem to be like magic. They were a feudal government where the soldiers fought with swords, knives, and shields. That is a very fantasy atmosphere where the space aspects were largely incidental.
As for nuclear bombs, read up on something called a "Light Web" from the Sword of Truth book series. Humorously, there is the Wiz series where someone used a combination of magic to create the "ultimate water balloon" by compressing water to a fusion state (read The Wizardry Cursed).
Lord of the Rings had a variant of cloning in the creation of some of the monster creatures.
w1zard wrote:People don't seem to understand the difference between sci-fi with fantasy elements (Dune and 40k), and straight fantasy (LOTR).
And you seem to not recognize that "space fantasy" was one of the descriptors used, not just fantasy.
Dune suffers from having a too imagnative world and violating a core rule of world building. That it comes off as alien to its viewer. Great book, but man was it hard to sink your teeth in.
Charistoph wrote: And you seem to not recognize that "space fantasy" was one of the descriptors used, not just fantasy.
If by "space fantasy" you mean soft sci-fi then yes we agree, but "space fantasy" isn't a genre. The closest thing to "space fantasy" would be "science fantasy".
By that definition, Dune is science fiction, not science fantasy because it always has a scientific or rational explanation for all of the "supernatural" elements in the story. IE there is no such thing as "prophecies" merely stories implanted in primitive societies by the bene gesserit generations ago to serve a useful purpose in the future.. etc. Although I will admit, the psychic navigators is kind of stretching it. 40k sounds like science fantasy under the definition given, but science fantasy is a sub-genre of science fiction.
Hrm, the Prophecy stuff is pretty much a matter of interpretation. Dune is pretty Space Fantasy. Yeah, there's ostensibly technobabble about most of the stuff, but it could just as easily be magic the way it's described and referred to and much of it really falls apart under serious scrutiny. The universe is set among the noble elite of competing fuedal houses of a human Imperium with a rigid caste system, reliant on mystical orders of magicians evolved/trained people to do things in place of machines (often in place of things we've had machines to do for decades), a heavy reliance on hand to hand combat with blades in battle scenes, combat and battle is kept to very tactical levels and is relatively limited and decisive (the Harkonnen never bomb anyone from orbit for example, nobody ever calls in artillery support), etc.
There's some science fiction in Dune, but it really leans way more heavily in the Space Fantasy realm of things, which I think is fair to say is a thing on its own, even if it's not really recognized as a major category of its own. You could take Dune, repaint it, keep the storyline intact, and have it work just as well as a Fantasy story without changing any fundamental major plot point. Planets become realms or islands. The Spice remains the Spice. The Guild controls, something, maybe water navigation. The Bene Gesserit remain what they're considered already in Dune, Witches. The Fremen...remain unchanged. The Imperium...basically remains unchanged. The Atreides and Harkonnen remain...unchanged. Paul & Chani, The Baron and The Emperor, Feyd and Rabban, nothing really need change.
I love the Khorne Lord of skulls model, even over the Kytan Ravager model. I think its a terrible oversight that LOS didn't get a point drop in chapter approved. :(
Oh, I'm sure this is an unpopular opinon; I'd like to see 30% fewer factions, and more effort spent on updating/maintaining the remaining armies with model updates, etc. GW is way over the number of factions they can realistically support without having 4-5 year gaps for armies, which isn't a good thing for the consumer.
Elbows wrote: Oh, I'm sure this is an unpopular opinon; I'd like to see 30% fewer factions, and more effort spent on updating/maintaining the remaining armies with model updates, etc. GW is way over the number of factions they can realistically support without having 4-5 year gaps for armies, which isn't a good thing for the consumer.
If you include all armies (I mean ALL armies including Sister of Silence, Assassins, Ynnaries, Ultramarines as seperate then Space Marines, Inquisition) plus a few extras like the missing two Gods of Chaos army and a potential Black Legion exclusive. GW could refresh all its armies in a minimal of 2 and half year or so by releasing a new army every month which they have shown they can do. Let's be conservative and say 3 and a half year to let some exclusive time to Age of Sigmar and others. Three years and a half before getting new rules and potentially a few new models isn't all that bad. A well designed model should have a life expectancy of at least 10-12 years before looking too derp to live. Should we assume that an edition should last around 4 to 6 years (longer is better in my opinion), then it all seem to fall in place nicely. We even have room for more armies. Now the only problem I can see is the fact that GW doesn't want to treat all its armies equally since some sell a hell of a lot more then others (also the army diversity is actually lower then number alone might imply since a lot of them are Space Marines customisation). Marines sold so much that GW had no other choice than basically reboot completely the line to keep on milking them.
Charistoph wrote: And you seem to not recognize that "space fantasy" was one of the descriptors used, not just fantasy.
If by "space fantasy" you mean soft sci-fi then yes we agree, but "space fantasy" isn't a genre. The closest thing to "space fantasy" would be "science fantasy".
By that definition, Dune is science fiction, not science fantasy because it always has a scientific or rational explanation for all of the "supernatural" elements in the story. IE there is no such thing as "prophecies" merely stories implanted in primitive societies by the bene gesserit generations ago to serve a useful purpose in the future.. etc. Although I will admit, the psychic navigators is kind of stretching it. 40k sounds like science fantasy under the definition given, but science fantasy is a sub-genre of science fiction.
By "Space Fantasy", I mean that it is set in space, but it largely operates on Fantasy concepts and tropes. The first three books of Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern would be considered "fantasy" until you reach the end of The White Dragon, and they introduce the fact that humans are not native creatures of Pern.
Weis and Hickman's Death Gate Cycle almost qualifies as "space fantasy", just lacking the "space" part in favor of "dimensional worlds", as it deals with magic being developed by humanity in the future and then they blow the world up, spreading it across several realms.
Vaktathi handles the rest pretty well.
Vaktathi wrote:Hrm, the Prophecy stuff is pretty much a matter of interpretation. Dune is pretty Space Fantasy. Yeah, there's ostensibly technobabble about most of the stuff, but it could just as easily be magic the way it's described and referred to and much of it really falls apart under serious scrutiny. The universe is set among the noble elite of competing fuedal houses of a human Imperium with a rigid caste system, reliant on mystical orders of magicians evolved/trained people to do things in place of machines (often in place of things we've had machines to do for decades), a heavy reliance on hand to hand combat with blades in battle scenes, combat and battle is kept to very tactical levels and is relatively limited and decisive (the Harkonnen never bomb anyone from orbit for example, nobody ever calls in artillery support), etc.
There's some science fiction in Dune, but it really leans way more heavily in the Space Fantasy realm of things, which I think is fair to say is a thing on its own, even if it's not really recognized as a major category of its own. You could take Dune, repaint it, keep the storyline intact, and have it work just as well as a Fantasy story without changing any fundamental major plot point. Planets become realms or islands. The Spice remains the Spice. The Guild controls, something, maybe water navigation. The Bene Gesserit remain what they're considered already in Dune, Witches. The Fremen...remain unchanged. The Imperium...basically remains unchanged. The Atreides and Harkonnen remain...unchanged. Paul & Chani, The Baron and The Emperor, Feyd and Rabban, nothing really need change.
The Navigators could be sailing chaotic seas by magic sense or magi in charge of arcane portals between islands, and one would see little difference in the story itself.
Elbows wrote:Oh, I'm sure this is an unpopular opinon; I'd like to see 30% fewer factions, and more effort spent on updating/maintaining the remaining armies with model updates, etc. GW is way over the number of factions they can realistically support without having 4-5 year gaps for armies, which isn't a good thing for the consumer.
Not unpopular by me. The Imperium itself could easily be reduced to just 3-4 core armies (Guard, Marines, Mechanicum, and maybe Sisters) with the rest of the Imperium solely as supplemental Slot add-ons (especially the Knights) like the Daemonhunters and Witch Hunters of old. The Eldar should get their act a little better, with the Harlequins and Ynnarri being supplemental ala the Knights, instead of being recognized as their own thing. Which leaves Chaos being the only one that makes sense being either split up or combined, but even then, I could easily set them up as the Daemonic, the Renegade, and the Cults.
As fascinating as the semantic debate over the difference between science fiction and science fantasy may be, it's not the topic of this thread. Let it go, folks.
There should be an official inquisitor in 40k names "Obiwan Sherlock Clouseau". He was the first named inquisitor in the original rogue trader book and should be made a character.
He could have the Clouseau rule which means attacks aimed at him have a chance of hitting a nearby friendly model.
And look at this guy, you know you want to paint him.
insaniak wrote: As fascinating as the semantic debate over the difference between science fiction and science fantasy may be, it's not the topic of this thread. Let it go, folks.
Well it IS about opinions which are unpopular, and some of the considerations as to the nature of 40K can be unpopular, such as what to call the story format, i.e. sci-fi, space fantasy, etc.
If they have more than 5 wounds, killing an opponent's named character should be worth victory points. Ten thousand orks dying to slay Guilliman is a victory for the orks.
Of course, that comment should be irrelevant, because primarchs shouldn't be playable in matched play.
Games Workshop are clearly producing stock at their capacity rate, yet still sell out. Until they can develop further production facilities (from what I understand the factory is almost constantly running) demand is exceeding supply so the market suggests prices for new releases should be higher.
Hankovitch wrote: If they have more than 5 wounds, killing an opponent's named character should be worth victory points. Ten thousand orks dying to slay Guilliman is a victory for the orks.
Of course, that comment should be irrelevant, because primarchs shouldn't be playable in matched play.
-2nd edition was really not bad to play if everyone involved played with restraint.
So long as you didn't play against Eldar, or either of the two particularly nasty Space Wolf builds, 2nd edition was the bomb.
Playing with restraint is recommended with each edition of 40K as each can be broken by a particular combination of units. 2nd was by far the most detailed version of 40K and thanks to the Dark Millenium boxed set provided you with a plethora of great templates and even rules for constructing your own vehicles. The last one was especially an Ork´s wet dream. And nowadays afaik the Orks can´t even bring a looted wagon to the battlefield. LOL!
After 8th I am even more convinced the 2nd was and remains the best that GW will ever produce. They could resurrect it and retcon all the most recent primaris girlyman bad dream garbage but why waste good... Ummm... Bad IP right? Anyways i wish that they would.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Techpriestsupport wrote: There should be an official inquisitor in 40k names "Obiwan Sherlock Clouseau". He was the first named inquisitor in the original rogue trader book and should be made a character.
He could have the Clouseau rule which means attacks aimed at him have a chance of hitting a nearby friendly model.
And look at this guy, you know you want to paint him.
The RPG elements should return. There should be less board gamey dice rolling math hammer and more identification with the warlord and personalization even where this doesnt add up to win buttons and min max optimization.
Instead GW went the other way with monopose sprue design to ward off second supplier shoulder pad replacement and orher modification and the toyification of ork vehicles with admittedly fun though again monopose buggy designs with trademark names that no one wants to use or remember and special rules that could be associated with hobbyist mods but that are difficult to convert and even worse that go together in an all of nothing SuperBuggy(tm)(cr) prepackage.
Hasbro wanna be posers have taken over the ship.
This is the true Heresy of our era.
Will will stand idly by and see the old gods laid so low for what? Corporate greed?
Do we sell our loyalty to the vision of the emporer for plastic crack and Duncan's voice repeating over and over <paint name> (tm)(cr) thin coats.... Thin coats....
Wake brothers and to arms. Take that snazzwagon(tm) (cr) and cut it up. Chop it in half. Modify it and make it your own for today we hobby and tomorrow GW will have lobbied the thugs in government to make it illegal. It is their IP after all...
Oh and this terrain here. This is hard cover. You get a minus 2 to hit. And cannot target models that are not visible to firing models so without LoS you wont be removing casualties. Yeah my dudes dont run into machine guns from cover just because the rest of their unit got caught in the open and one more thing... Plasma explodes on an unmodified 1. Every time. Just that easy...
O yeah. And every faction has something like plasma. That is some weapon tech that fills a hole in their available tools but that is just outside their abilities to manage and maintain. So orks have lots of gunz that explode on 1s and even eldar have distort cannons which might drift onto their own units if their intended target is close enough due the nature of ripping holes in the fabric of the universe... And so on and so on...
Color does not equal complexity.
Hankovitch wrote: If they have more than 5 wounds, killing an opponent's named character should be worth victory points. Ten thousand orks dying to slay Guilliman is a victory for the orks.
Of course, that comment should be irrelevant, because primarchs shouldn't be playable in matched play.
-2nd edition was really not bad to play if everyone involved played with restraint.
So long as you didn't play against Eldar, or either of the two particularly nasty Space Wolf builds, 2nd edition was the bomb.
Playing with restraint is recommended with each edition of 40K as each can be broken by a particular combination of units. 2nd was by far the most detailed version of 40K and thanks to the Dark Millenium boxed set provided you with a plethora of great templates and even rules for constructing your own vehicles. The last one was especially an Ork´s wet dream. And nowadays afaik the Orks can´t even bring a looted wagon to the battlefield. LOL!
After 8th I am even more convinced the 2nd was and remains the best that GW will ever produce. They could resurrect it and retcon all the most recent primaris girlyman bad dream garbage but why waste good... Ummm... Bad IP right? Anyways i wish that they would.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Techpriestsupport wrote: There should be an official inquisitor in 40k names "Obiwan Sherlock Clouseau". He was the first named inquisitor in the original rogue trader book and should be made a character.
He could have the Clouseau rule which means attacks aimed at him have a chance of hitting a nearby friendly model.
And look at this guy, you know you want to paint him.
The RPG elements should return. There should be less board gamey dice rolling math hammer and more identification with the warlord and personalization even where this doesnt add up to win buttons and min max optimization.
Instead GW went the other way with monopose sprue design to ward off second supplier shoulder pad replacement and orher modification and the toyification of ork vehicles with admittedly fun though again monopose buggy designs with trademark names that no one wants to use or remember and special rules that could be associated with hobbyist mods but that are difficult to convert and even worse that go together in an all of nothing SuperBuggy(tm)(cr) prepackage.
Hasbro wanna be posers have taken over the ship.
This is the true Heresy of our era.
Will will stand idly by and see the old gods laid so low for what? Corporate greed?
Do we sell our loyalty to the vision of the emporer for plastic crack and Duncan's voice repeating over and over <paint name> (tm)(cr) thin coats.... Thin coats....
Wake brothers and to arms. Take that snazzwagon(tm) (cr) and cut it up. Chop it in half. Modify it and make it your own for today we hobby and tomorrow GW will have lobbied the thugs in government to make it illegal. It is their IP after all...
Oh and this terrain here. This is hard cover. You get a minus 2 to hit. And cannot target models that are not visible to firing models so without LoS you wont be removing casualties. Yeah my dudes dont run into machine guns from cover just because the rest of their unit got caught in the open and one more thing... Plasma explodes on an unmodified 1. Every time. Just that easy...
O yeah. And every faction has something like plasma. That is some weapon tech that fills a hole in their available tools but that is just outside their abilities to manage and maintain. So orks have lots of gunz that explode on 1s and even eldar have distort cannons which might drift onto their own units if their intended target is close enough due the nature of ripping holes in the fabric of the universe... And so on and so on...
Color does not equal complexity.
I wouldn't say this customizable warlord idea is unpopular at all.
Especially for certain armies it was way better, (renegades in 7th) now the index might aswell be named a bunch of murderhobos raided a munitorum Arsenal.
8th edition is the best edition of 40k ever produced.
There is nothing wrong with min-maxing, soup, aiming to win, etc.
Rules should be tight as possible and followed to the letter.
40k has massively benefitted from the removal of garbage-tier lore like the fabled Obiwan Inquisitor.
The loss of templates and random scatter dice was potentially the greatest triumph for the forces of good in the 21st century.
99.9% of 40k memes are not, and never will be funny. Anyone who still posts Angry Marine/Heresy! memes should be deported to some kind of labour camp.
The Astra Militarum/Imperial Guard community possesses a horrendous tendency to repeat the same jokes, anecdotes and stories - all of which come down to "Isn't it cool that there's normal people fighting against super soldiers!" It's not. It's really, really not.
CAAC is worse than WAAC.
Cheating at tournaments should be some sort of capital offence punished by roaming firing teams.
You're right, blood reaper - those are some unpopular opinions.
Here's a Dakka-specific one - people who don't use the spoiler tags, especially when quoting massive posts to add a couple of lines to the end, should get more MOD attention than they do...
Here's a Dakka-specific one - people who don't use the spoiler tags, especially when quoting massive posts to add a couple of lines to the end, should get more MOD attention than they do...
Report them when you see them. Otherwise, we can only do anything about them if we happen to stumble across them...
Here's a Dakka-specific one - people who don't use the spoiler tags, especially when quoting massive posts to add a couple of lines to the end, should get more MOD attention than they do...
Report them when you see them. Otherwise, we can only do anything about them if we happen to stumble across them...
It is annoying as heck for Mobile use to make spoilers.
Wibe wrote: "Vs army" specific rules and stratagems don't belong in Matched play.
It is narrative themed rules that don't belong in a competitive game.
I think the opinion of Mutilators being awesome is much more unpopular. I swear I must have been the only one to use them in 6/7th!
You are right, actually, get rid of mini dexes and fold them into bigger ones (not GK, Assasins, etc but inquisition.)
Remove knights completely in games off 2000 pts and under.
Remove mechanics and abilities that ignore base mechanics. F.e Don't allow relic jumps to ignore overwatch.
Here's a Dakka-specific one - people who don't use the spoiler tags, especially when quoting massive posts to add a couple of lines to the end, should get more MOD attention than they do...
Report them when you see them. Otherwise, we can only do anything about them if we happen to stumble across them...
It is annoying as heck for Mobile use to make spoilers.
Then trim the response down to just the bit you're actually replying to.
Having said that, what is so hard about manually typing the two spoiler tags on mobile?
See also: huge freaking images not being put in spoiler tags.
I hate when people 'quote' entire posts that contain dozens of lines of text, images and everything. One has to scroll past all that stuff again. Very enjoyable, especially on mobile phone.
Hawky wrote: I hate when people 'quote' entire posts that contain dozens of lines of text, images and everything. One has to scroll past all that stuff again. Very enjoyable, especially on mobile phone.
Pretty sure this is a very popular opinion.
Here's one that will likely be unpopular:
All of the new Chaos marines so far have been kind of underwhelming, with the exception of Obsidius Mallex. The BSF Black Legion models are really chunky-looking in terms of proportions. Haarken is even worse. Somehow his posing and proportions make him look extremely squat and he neither feels like a nimble jump pack Raptor nor a hulking Chaos lord. It's like the sculptor was trying to go both directions and ended up with this weird, squat middle ground. Many of the new CSM sculpts seem to be characterized by a strange sense of unintended chonk.
Hawky wrote: I hate when people 'quote' entire posts that contain dozens of lines of text, images and everything. One has to scroll past all that stuff again. Very enjoyable, especially on mobile phone.
Pretty sure this is a very popular opinion.
Here's one that will likely be unpopular:
All of the new Chaos marines so far have been kind of underwhelming, with the exception of Obsidius Mallex. The BSF Black Legion models are really chunky-looking in terms of proportions. Haarken is even worse. Somehow his posing and proportions make him look extremely squat and he neither feels like a nimble jump pack Raptor nor a hulking Chaos lord. It's like the sculptor was trying to go both directions and ended up with this weird, squat middle ground. Many of the new CSM sculpts seem to be characterized by a strange sense of unintended chonk.
Peak CSM are still the DV Chosen.
I can agree with you, albeit do you regard raptors as good models or bad?
Harkon is imo just terrible, and DG is ehhhh. (DG really depends on how they are painted.)
Angron was right about the hypocrisy of the Emperor.
Russ knows he is a hypocrit.
The 40k Space Wolves are the worst Marine faction by far, they are laughably awful. Wolf Claus riding his wolf sleigh pulled by wolves wearing, wolf fur and wielding wolf weapons.
The 40k Space Wolves are the worst Marine faction by far, they are laughably awful. Wolf Claus riding his wolf sleigh pulled by wolves wearing, wolf fur and wielding wolf weapons.
This.
It's not even visual design, Space Wolves come off like babies first DnD character and barely even fit into 40k.
The whole, 'noble savage' who defends the little guy (unlike the Chad Marines Malevolent who just dab on about any civilian population they can get their hands on) and can get away with just about anything when it comes to defying authority is so bland and boring.
The 40k Space Wolves are the worst Marine faction by far, they are laughably awful. Wolf Claus riding his wolf sleigh pulled by wolves wearing, wolf fur and wielding wolf weapons.
Is it really any worse than the vampires called Blood Angels, with their spiritual liege, Bloodman, suffering from blood frenzy and carrying blood weapons...?
There are plenty of silly naming conventions in 40k. It seems odd that people get hung up on it for the Space Wolves specifically.
The 40k Space Wolves are the worst Marine faction by far, they are laughably awful. Wolf Claus riding his wolf sleigh pulled by wolves wearing, wolf fur and wielding wolf weapons.
Is it really any worse than the vampires called Blood Angels, with their spiritual liege, Bloodman, suffering from blood frenzy and carrying blood weapons...?
There are plenty of silly naming conventions in 40k. It seems odd that people get hung up on it for the Space Wolves specifically.
Yep. Blood Angels suffer the same stupid naming conventions. The difference honestly is the models. BA models still look like marines. Sanguinary guard get plenty of flak for sure. But DC and BA marines still look like proper marines. SW look ridiculous. BA don't have a unit of half-bat marines.
So yes, BA suffer bood McBlood dude with his blood-fist. But they arent cartoon characters on the table.
Here's a Dakka-specific one - people who don't use the spoiler tags, especially when quoting massive posts to add a couple of lines to the end, should get more MOD attention than they do...
Report them when you see them. Otherwise, we can only do anything about them if we happen to stumble across them...
It is annoying as heck for Mobile use to make spoilers.
Then trim the response down to just the bit you're actually replying to.
Having said that, what is so hard about manually typing the two spoiler tags on mobile?
See also: huge freaking images not being put in spoiler tags.
Trimming down to the parts you want is substantially harder on a mobile device than adding the spoiler tags.
The 40k Space Wolves are the worst Marine faction by far, they are laughably awful. Wolf Claus riding his wolf sleigh pulled by wolves wearing, wolf fur and wielding wolf weapons.
This.
It's not even visual design, Space Wolves come off like babies first DnD character and barely even fit into 40k.
The whole, 'noble savage' who defends the little guy (unlike the Chad Marines Malevolent who just dab on about any civilian population they can get their hands on) and can get away with just about anything when it comes to defying authority is so bland and boring.
indeed, and the worst part is that they want to be this, and at the same time want to be multiple other contradictory things.
They try to be the noble savage, dark brooding executioner, joking prankster, secret werewolf, stoic hero, defender of the little guy, unquestioning right hand killer of the big boss, cunning tactical genius, furry enthusiasts, crazed berzerker, barely disguised X-Men ripoff, Norse Raiders, etc all at the time time.
They don't know what they want to be, try to be everything, and come off looking like a goofy tween's tryhard fanfic.
Space Wolves have lots of potential, they *can* be a cool faction. GW just...borked it.
Chaos Space Marines are handled lazily by GW, and feel like they're just some punchmeat evil spikey bad guys for the Space Marines to beat up.
Horus Heresy players are the main reason I don't play Horus Heresy.
Primaris Marines are better scaled than old Marines, and I like using their legs and torso to make 'regular marines'.
Sisters of Battle aren't that special, and people are going to whine about them when they come out.
I don't care if you glue chick heads on your Space Marines, do whatever you want with your property but don't demand I accept your fanfiction as fact.
Rotor Cannons should be a thing for Marines. Because reasons.
Shadow War: Armageddon was a waste of money.
Beakies look dumb.
Blanchitsu models look like they smell awful.
gwarsh41 wrote: The worst part of the hobby isn't the price, it's the toxicity that players can bring, especially on the internet.
The most toxic elements of the players are:
1- the neckbeards that do nothing but whine about what other people like
2- the neckbeards that try to turn every 40k discussion into some kind of activist lecture
3- the neckbeards that don't wash themselves and their clothing
4- the neckbeards that 'quit after third edition' and are still around complaining
5- the neckbeards that whine about every release because it's not something they play
6- the neckbeards that call people 'incels' but are also incels
7- the neckbeards that always bring up squats (and never had them)
8- the neckbeards that always bring up Sisters of Battle (and never had them)
9- the neckbeards that scream about how Horus Heresy is a better game
10- the neckbeards that religiously defend Spikeybits and Bell of Lost Souls
1- the neckbeards that do nothing but whine about what other people like
2- the neckbeards that try to turn every 40k discussion into some kind of activist lecture
3- the neckbeards that don't wash themselves and their clothing
4- the neckbeards that 'quit after third edition' and are still around complaining
5- the neckbeards that whine about every release because it's not something they play
6- the neckbeards that call people 'incels' but are also incels
7- the neckbeards that always bring up squats (and never had them)
8- the neckbeards that always bring up Sisters of Battle (and never had them)
9- the neckbeards that scream about how Horus Heresy is a better game
10- the neckbeards that religiously defend Spikeybits and Bell of Lost Souls
Your list is missing 'Gamers who refer to people with different opinions as 'Neckbeards'...
1- the neckbeards that do nothing but whine about what other people like
2- the neckbeards that try to turn every 40k discussion into some kind of activist lecture
3- the neckbeards that don't wash themselves and their clothing
4- the neckbeards that 'quit after third edition' and are still around complaining
5- the neckbeards that whine about every release because it's not something they play
6- the neckbeards that call people 'incels' but are also incels
7- the neckbeards that always bring up squats (and never had them)
8- the neckbeards that always bring up Sisters of Battle (and never had them)
9- the neckbeards that scream about how Horus Heresy is a better game
10- the neckbeards that religiously defend Spikeybits and Bell of Lost Souls
Your list is missing 'Gamers who refer to people with different opinions as 'Neckbeards'...
Gotta agree there. I also think the word “toxic” is overused and doesn’t sound cool anymore.
1- the neckbeards that do nothing but whine about what other people like
2- the neckbeards that try to turn every 40k discussion into some kind of activist lecture
3- the neckbeards that don't wash themselves and their clothing
4- the neckbeards that 'quit after third edition' and are still around complaining
5- the neckbeards that whine about every release because it's not something they play
6- the neckbeards that call people 'incels' but are also incels
7- the neckbeards that always bring up squats (and never had them)
8- the neckbeards that always bring up Sisters of Battle (and never had them)
9- the neckbeards that scream about how Horus Heresy is a better game
10- the neckbeards that religiously defend Spikeybits and Bell of Lost Souls
Your list is missing 'Gamers who refer to people with different opinions as 'Neckbeards'...
I ranked that just below "people who think 'not taking a shower, whining non-stop, and behaving irrationally' is the same thing as 'disagreeing about a matter of preference' and it didn't make the list, either.
EDIT: I don't mean 'matters of preference' and 'having a different opinion'.
I mean, let me clarify:
-People who won't quit bringing up Squats and Sisters? Yeah, that gets annoying. People screaming about them non-stop. GW could release a statement about Duncan's mother being in the Hospital, or some kind of Charity drive, or a new fantasy battle Ogre and these guys come in screaming about how terrible GW is for not giving them their squats or sisters. And they're usually the people who've never even played with those units, or even seen them. Yeah, you can think they're cool and never have owned them- but not to this degree.
-Horus Heresy IMHO is quite honestly a more balanced game. However, I despised the community as much as I enjoy the game, so I went back to 40k. Still doesn't stop those seldom HH players from showing up in every discussion about 40k to tell us how stupid we are for enjoying something that more than 5 people in town are playing.
-Spikey Bits and BOLS are ran by scumbags. Don't defend scum.
I can agree with you, albeit do you regard raptors as good models or bad?
Harkon is imo just terrible, and DG is ehhhh. (DG really depends on how they are painted.)
Raptors are.... not great. I realize the DV Chosen could be considered just as spikey as raptors, but the difference lies in spike distribution and proportion. DV Chosen have a nice variety to their shape design whereas the raptors are largely covered in tons of uniformly sized, uniformly distributed spikes which essentially adds a layer of "fuzziness" to their silhouettes. The posing is also still an issue for me but at least they're not as squat-looking as Haarken. Proportionally the raptors look much better than Haarken.
I think it has to do with the length and thickness of the thighs. Haarken's thighs are squat barrel shapes that flow directly into a pair of equally squat barrel shapes that form the lower legs. Raptors and old marines tend to have more tapered thighs and more flared ankles which produces a nice downward sweep that is more visually pleasing and helps marines feel like their feet are firmly planted in the ground.
New marines just have so much... chonk. I don't know how else to put it. Old marines have proportions more like a linebacker. Super broad shoulders in contrast to relatively tapered legs. Someone who can run fast but will still barrel through a concrete wall. The new BSFCSM just look very... round.
I think that's a point in their favor. Which other models are so evocative of a certain aesthetic that they provoke an olfactory response?
A picture of cat feces in a litterbox provokes an olfactory response, too- and I'm not really sure that's a good quality to share. I get it, it's a manner of preference and an art style. But it's not mine and the few Blanchitsu models I've seen in person just didn't look like something I wanted to touch.
Luciferian wrote: Again, you're just cementing my opinion of why they're so great
LMAO, I understand where you're coming from, man. I get it.
But, I suppose I like a bit of a... cleaner look? I mean, something gross like Poxwalkers and zombies would be perfect for Blanchitsu. Also, industrial terrain and such. But when I've seen it done to guardsmen, Marines, and eldar... it just looks really, really bad IMHO.
I guess that's what I'm trying to say. Plus, much of the Blanchitsu crowd is outright hostile in =][= gaming groups, if you're not playing the game to their standards the way they think it should be played.
1- the neckbeards that do nothing but whine about what other people like
2- the neckbeards that try to turn every 40k discussion into some kind of activist lecture
3- the neckbeards that don't wash themselves and their clothing
4- the neckbeards that 'quit after third edition' and are still around complaining
5- the neckbeards that whine about every release because it's not something they play
6- the neckbeards that call people 'incels' but are also incels
7- the neckbeards that always bring up squats (and never had them)
8- the neckbeards that always bring up Sisters of Battle (and never had them)
9- the neckbeards that scream about how Horus Heresy is a better game
10- the neckbeards that religiously defend Spikeybits and Bell of Lost Souls
Your list is missing 'Gamers who refer to people with different opinions as 'Neckbeards'...
Oh, you beat me to the punch. It's the godwin's law of nerddom. Someone has a difference of opinion to me, eventually he'll get called a "Neckbeard" because the word has lost all meaning and every nerd wants to be totes "not like other nerds".
Oh, you beat me to the punch. It's the godwin's law of nerddom. Someone has a difference of opinion to me, eventually he'll get called a "Neckbeard" because the word has lost all meaning and every nerd wants to be totes "not like other nerds".
Not taking a shower isn't a "difference of opinion"
Whining non-stop isn't a "difference of opinion"
Screaming that people are stupid for not enjoying 30k is not a "difference of opinion"
And yes, I am exponentially a better person than anyone who does any of the above.
Oh, you beat me to the punch. It's the godwin's law of nerddom. Someone has a difference of opinion to me, eventually he'll get called a "Neckbeard" because the word has lost all meaning and every nerd wants to be totes "not like other nerds".
Not taking a shower isn't a "difference of opinion"
Whining non-stop isn't a "difference of opinion"
Screaming that people are stupid for not enjoying 30k is not a "difference of opinion"
And yes, I am exponentially a better person than anyone who does any of the above.
Cherry picking examples that support what you said does not change the full quote is there for everyone to see. Calling people "neckbeards" for liking things you don't like is childish and it's like you've run out of insults. Just like with Godwin's law.
Grimtuff wrote: Cherry picking examples that support what you said does not change the full quote is there for everyone to see. Calling people "neckbeards" for liking things you don't like is childish and it's like you've run out of insults. Just like with Godwin's law.
I chose 'neckbeards' because the forum doesn't allow me to use more appropriate and accurate terms.
Stop acting like it's an ethnic slur.
Show me on the post which of them hurt you, because as I've always said- "Blindly cast a stone at the swine pen, and the one that ends up squealing is the one you hit".
I chose 'neckbeards' because the forum doesn't allow me to use more appropriate and accurate terms.
Stop acting like it's an ethnic slur.
I'm not. Stop putting words in my mouth. It's a tired phrase that says more about the person saying it as they all of a sudden want to tar other nerds as the worst kind of nerd because they're "not like other g̶i̶r̶l̶s̶ nerds"
You know what it means, you know what it describes. Someone who doesn't like 40k is not; by definition, a "neckbeard".
Grimtuff wrote: Someone who doesn't like 40k is not; by definition, a "neckbeard".
At no point did I even allude to people not liking 40k as being 'neckbeards'.
I don't know particularly where you drew that from. I thought I was rather clear about the worst types of people.
I swear, one of my friends has a mentally disabled uncle that screamed the N-word in a store full of black people and the outrage was only slightly worse than yours.
Grimtuff wrote: Someone who doesn't like 40k is not; by definition, a "neckbeard".
At no point did I even allude to people not liking 40k as being 'neckbeards'.
I don't know particularly where you drew that from. I thought I was rather clear about the worst types of people.
I swear, one of my friends has a mentally disabled uncle that screamed the N-word in a store full of black people and the outrage was only slightly worse than yours.
It's almost like you're turning this into some absurd activist lecture. "Bro".
Dai wrote: It's almost like you're turning this into some absurd activist lecture. "Bro".
"Bro", I'm not sure where you're getting this, but if you met the criteria I mentioned earlier, then I hope you don't think I have any reason at all to apologize or retract the statement.
insaniak wrote: Go you honestly not see the problem with complaining about 'toxicity' while simultaneously insulting people?
If me disliking any of those things is 'toxic' to the people who exhibit those behaviors, then I hope it's thorough and excruciating in the toxicity.
I fail to see how literally any of those behaviors warrants me respecting them as a 'difference of opinion' or a matter of personal preference. If you can identify one of those things that can simply be summarized as 'just a different preference', then by all means- be my guest and we can discuss it.
If it's the word 'neckbeard' that bothers you and a few others, then I recommend learning to use a razor and shaving gel/cream.
The specific wording used is not the issue. The attitude is.
When you insult someone because their personal hygene doesn't meet your standards, they don't suddenly say 'Oh, heavens, I shall change my habits forethwith!' They just think you're a donkey-cave, and the end result of that is more toxicity, not less.
The same goes for any of the things on your list. Fighting fire with fire works for wildfires. It doesn't work for people.
"It´s your mini. You can do whatever you want with it." as a response for when you pitch an idea to be used in a multiplayer context.
I know it's my mini. But when I game there will be another person also taking part in that game, so I'd like to guage the response of other people to my idea before I commit time and money to it.
When you insult someone because their personal hygene doesn't meet your standards, they don't suddenly say 'Oh, heavens, I shall change my habits forethwith!' They just think you're a donkey-cave, and the end result of that is more toxicity, not less.
Also, when you assume my appearance based on the stereotypical image of a "Neckbeard" I'm not exactly going to respond kindly. I have a full time job, I shower daily, have a shaven head and have never in my life owned a trillby.
Who knew simply having a beard made one a "Neckbeard"?
insaniak wrote: When you insult someone because their personal hygene doesn't meet your standards, they don't suddenly say 'Oh, heavens, I shall change my habits forethwith!' They just think you're a donkey-cave, and the end result of that is more toxicity, not less.
Or the embarrassment tends to have them either A- Go fix it, or B- Go away. What they think of me after isn't at all a concern for me as long as they do one or the other. Problem solved, win-win.
insaniak wrote: The same goes for any of the things on your list. Fighting fire with fire works for wildfires. It doesn't work for people.
I beg to differ that applying fire to a human being is very effective at persuading them to change their behavior.
nareik wrote: "It´s your mini. You can do whatever you want with it." as a response for when you pitch an idea to be used in a multiplayer context.
I know it's my mini. But when I game there will be another person also taking part in that game, so I'd like to guage the response of other people to my idea before I commit time and money to it.
But... it's your mini? If you want to do something other than modelling for a game play advantage or being confusing in regards to WYSIWYG, who cares what anyone else thinks?
Grimtuff wrote: Also, when you assume my appearance based on the stereotypical image of a "Neckbeard" I'm not exactly going to respond kindly. I have a full time job, I shower daily, have a shaven head and have never in my life owned a trillby.
Who knew simply having a beard made one a "Neckbeard"?
I've got a beard. I shave my neck. Like an adult.
"Neckbeard" implies that the person isn't really 'having a beard' as much as they are 'not shaving at all'. It implies a slovenly, lazy appearance.
nareik wrote: "It´s your mini. You can do whatever you want with it." as a response for when you pitch an idea to be used in a multiplayer context.
I know it's my mini. But when I game there will be another person also taking part in that game, so I'd like to guage the response of other people to my idea before I commit time and money to it.
Like, to ask them if it looks cool?
Because I don't ask peoples' permission to use a conversion or kitbash I made, as long as it accurately represents what it's supposed to be. If they don't like the cosmetics of it, they have the following options:
A- Go buy, assemble, and paint the models that they would like me to use instead
B- Get over it and play the game
C- Go away so I can play with an actual reasonable adult that wants to have fun.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I beg to differ that applying fire to a human being is very effective at persuading them to change their behavior.
This is a simplistic and inaccurate view about behavior modification, one commonly espoused by uneducated people who usually have no idea what they are talking about.
A person having bad hygiene regularly (and I have known a few) is almost always the result of a mental health issue. Sure, if they are bad enough to where it is distracting everyone in they store, they should be carefully taken aside, ejected from the store and told to clean before they return. But, I fail to see how publicly shaming them, insulting them, or using violence against them addresses the root cause of the hygiene issue.
Using a hammer to smash square pegs into round holes just results in broken pegs or broken holes. Go figure.
w1zard wrote: This is a simplistic and inaccurate view about behavior modification, one commonly espoused by uneducated people who usually have no idea what they are talking about.
If you're assuming that I would approve of, attempt, or even assert literally applying fire to the body of another human being- I think you've missed something. It's a joke. I'm not sure how that's not obvious.
w1zard wrote: A person having bad hygiene regularly (and I have known a few) is almost always the result of a mental health issue. Sure, if they are bad enough to where it is distracting everyone in they store, they should be carefully taken aside, ejected from the store and told to clean before they return. But, I fail to see how publicly shaming them, insulting them, or using violence against them addresses the root cause of the hygiene issue.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If you think I am foolish enough to start lighting the mentally ill on fire, let me stop that train of thought. I get they can't help it, and sometimes it takes a friendly little talk with them or whoever is their 'guardian' or someone like that close to them. Discrete, quiet, polite, helpful. No problem.
Even when they're not- and I've run into quite a few that think Axe body spray is "bath in aerosol form" and just negates the need for deodorant, doing laundry, etc.- I'm all about pulling them aside and being real with them about their odor, but not being a jerk about it- "Hey, dude, you smell pretty bad. You gotta take care of that, people are noticing it." But, in my experience (which is no more or less valid than your anecdotal experience)- there are a few that don't really care, and will absolutely blow you off because their fun game time is more important than how everyone feels.
So, yeah- then a bit of shaming works. And if you can't understand how effective public shaming is, then you're probably in no place to call someone 'uneducated'... or you've at least not been paying attention to the effectiveness of Social Media's Shaming Fetish and how it compliments the Outrage Fetish.
w1zard wrote: Using a hammer to smash square pegs into round holes just results in broken pegs or broken holes. Go figure.
And it also is a good way to show you how effective a hammer can be.
This is a joke, too. I don't literally believe this is a way to determine the effectiveness of a hammer. I thought I'd make that joke clear, since the last one apparently wasn't.
Word Bearers should be the poster boys of the Chaos Space Marines.
I hate it when people recommend a certain color to add onto my models in order to make it "pop." If that's your only advice then I immediately assume you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Crimson Devil wrote: What you fail to recognize is when your attitude alienates people from the beginning, your jokes are going to fall flat.
You're not reading the room correctly.
Oh, it was a joke. And it wasn't hilarious, but it was a joke and that's the point.
Given the list of criteria, you'll have to excuse me- if said types of persons are bothered by what I say, then I'm perfectly fine with their alienation. The people I listed as being toxic- well, let's just say if they think I'm a terrible person and go to great lengths to avoid me then this is a feature and not a bug, the system is working as intended. I hope you're not under the impression that I'm trying to win over the sorts of people I mentioned, because it's quite the opposite.
If so, you're not reading me correctly.
And I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no way a reasonable human being would have looked at the statement and taken it literally.
You really do need to make the joke clear or better yet save time and just don’t bother. They are very poor quality jokes. This whole page has been an unpleasant display of bad manners on your part Doritos man. When you make such assertions about others you set your self up for a fall from grace. I’d rather game with a pleasant smelly person than an arrogant bloke smelling like roses. There isn’t an emoji for the face your comments produced on me, somewhere between baffled at what I was reading and tasting something a bit off.
Andykp wrote: You really do need to make the joke clear or better yet save time and just don’t bother. They are very poor quality jokes. This whole page has been an unpleasant display of bad manners on your part Doritos man. When you make such assertions about others you set your self up for a fall from grace. I’d rather game with a pleasant smelly person than an arrogant bloke smelling like roses. There isn’t an emoji for the face your comments produced on me, somewhere between baffled at what I was reading and tasting something a bit off.
Well, if that's what upsets you- thank you for letting me know that my personal standards of what I will tolerate from others is effective enough to drive away the exact sort of people I don't want anywhere near me.
You've done me wonders by helping.
Absolutely nothing I said was unwarranted. The only way to be offended by my criteria, was to fit the criteria. Fact.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: So, yeah- then a bit of shaming works. And if you can't understand how effective public shaming is, then you're probably in no place to call someone 'uneducated'... or you've at least not been paying attention to the effectiveness of Social Media's Shaming Fetish and how it compliments the Outrage Fetish.
Public shaming is usually only effective in making sure people hide the shamed behavior better, not in changing it. For example, do you really think a person who goes on a racist diatribe on public media is going to have their opinion changed by people down-voting them, shaming them, and making death threats toward them? It is more likely that their views will become even more entrenched and they simply refrain from making public statements in the future, pushing the problem under the rug so to speak. Applying this to the issue of "smelly 40k neckbeards", as you pointed out, they will just do something like spray on axe thinking it "covers" or "masks" the problem without really addressing the underlying issue.
I also tend to think of public shaming as a juvenile behavior more befitting high school teenagers rather than adults, and think using public shaming as a mechanism to enforce social compliance is as outdated and immoral as using lynch mobs to enforce legal justice. I absolutely disagree and am disgusted by current trends toward this behavior in social media.
Andykp wrote: You really do need to make the joke clear or better yet save time and just don’t bother. They are very poor quality jokes. This whole page has been an unpleasant display of bad manners on your part Doritos man. When you make such assertions about others you set your self up for a fall from grace. I’d rather game with a pleasant smelly person than an arrogant bloke smelling like roses. There isn’t an emoji for the face your comments produced on me, somewhere between baffled at what I was reading and tasting something a bit off.
Well, if that's what upsets you- thank you for letting me know that my personal standards of what I will tolerate from others is effective enough to drive away the exact sort of people I don't want anywhere near me.
You've done me wonders by helping.
Absolutely nothing I said was unwarranted. The only way to be offended by my criteria, was to fit the criteria. Fact.
I don’t fit your criteria at all. Not one of them. And you haven’t driven me away. It’s very unlikely we would ever meet anyway. But most of all I’m not offended by you. I just find your attitude arrogant and unpleasant. I’m in no way hurt or upset just felt the need to let some one know he was being arrogant and not impressing anyone. I can only assume you are trying to be cool. It’s failing. U are just coming across as an unpleasant person.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The thing that has surprised me most is looking at your profile is that you are at least in your twenties. If you were 15 it would at least explain your bravado.
w1zard wrote: Public shaming is usually only effective in making sure people hide the shamed behavior better, not in changing it.
Oh, you misinterpret me. I don't care if they change it. It'd be great if they did. But if they have those behaviors away from me and hide it, it's still a win for me. And most people.
Still not sure how a list of things summarized and simplified as:
-People who place their own recreation as a priority above caring for themselves and respecting the comfort (and health) of others
-People who constantly whine about everything in the game while talking down on those that are enjoying themselves
-Degrading other people while having the exact same characteristics
-People that deliberately create division in recreational activities
-Deliberately defending cheaters and scammers
...how anything on that list can be defensible. Call them neckbeards, call them losers, call them a bag of boogers in the California sun and slap a Rasin label on them for all I care. Those are, by definition, toxic behaviors... and to be honest, however you choose to deal with them is on you, but 'intolerance' for those things kinda should be the default setting, man.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: I just find your attitude arrogant and unpleasant. I’m in no way hurt or upset just felt the need to let some one know he was being arrogant and not impressing anyone. I can only assume you are trying to be cool. It’s failing. U are just coming across as an unpleasant person.
I'm trying to be relatively normal. Most people are very much on the same level of tolerance. Maybe not on these sites, but yeah- it's pretty standard.
And you think I'm an unpleasant person? Okay. Perfect. Arrogant? No, the word you want to use is "certain".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: I don’t fit your criteria at all. Not one of them.
Then by all means, please- explain to me what about it bothers you or has you so upset that you find it 'wrong'. I'm completely baffled that some very reasonable things to be disgusted by are somehow abnormal or terrible.
I haven’t claimed to upset and haven’t said I find you saying these things wrong. I am the kind of person who dislikes and feels the need to confront bullies, and that mate is how U are coming across on here. You may not be in real life, it may be bravado and trying to be cool but it’s certainly childish and unpleasant. Maybe in the circles you move in this behaviour is the norm, but if it is, as I said I would rather hang out with smelly nice people. And trust me, arrogant is the word. A certain kind of something maybe but such language isn’t allowed on here.
My unpopular opinion is that this back and forth. tit for tat discussion is unhelpful especially after I posted a warning in this thread. So it is now closed.
Thanks,
ingtaer.
and not impressing anyone. I can only assume you are trying to be cool. It’s failing. U are just coming across as an unpleasant person.