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

Commisar Wolfie wrote:considering that wiki will let anyone make edits to the pages it is kinda hard to take it as fact.

Let's not bring it up again

1) Point Guardsmen at enemy
2) Give Guardsmen Quebec Alcohol
3) ???
4) Profit!!!

3) is tell them to charge.

Emperors Faithful wrote:1) Point Guardsmen at enemy
2) Give Guardsmen Quebec Alcohol
3) ???
4) Profit!!!

3) Give him ugly alien to shoot

I think that the way the Imperial Guard fights is often determined by the avaiable equipment. Let us take the Leman Russ for example. It is slow. Realy slow. In fact it will most likely never be able to work as part of a highly mobile tank formation which will make encircling and destroying the enemy much more difficult which might in turn demand a completely different strategic approach to warfare from the Imperial Guard's generals.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Coa wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:1) Point Guardsmen at enemy
2) Give Guardsmen Quebec Alcohol
3) ???
4) Profit!!!

3) Give him ugly alien to shoot

And a Commisar at his back, just in case the ugly aliens decides to shoot back.

Brother Coa wrote:

Blacksails wrote:
What does the Bible have to do with wikipedia? The Bible is not a source for facts, its a religious text. I don't even know what you're trying to prove now...

Wikipedia isn't bad, it's just not academic and should not be used to back up claims like a Japanese nuclear weapon at the end of WWII.

The Bible, really?

Isn't it obvious? People believe in that what is written in a bible. And there is no prof that Jesus ever existed beside stories about him from his followers. Even so, people don't judge the sources of the text, if they are true or not. And they judge Wikipedia who has valid sources for all of it's claims.

And hard to call the world's biggest encyclopedia non academic stuff... And does Wikipedia give links and book pages where you can find the actual source? I call that valid source of information, no matter if it's not academic book ( imagine if Wikipedia is a book... ).

How many people disbelieve and question the bible including translations, missing sources, lack of proof, and missing books. A fair few to say the least. This doesn't help your point.

Wikipedia is worse than most encyclopedias and honestly listing an encyclopedia as a source at a post secondary level is frowned upon if not outright disallowed. Also the threshold for Wikipedia is verifiability not truth or proof. Even many of the sources on Wikipedia are often suspect which is why I asked for a real cited peer reviewed source. Anything less and you're not worth my time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:

If Airpower alone can win wars, why wasn't North Vietnam crushed? The US never actually invaded it, but they conducted one of the largest bombing campaigns against it in human history.

Poor RoE, lack of bunker busting weapons, not being allowed to bust out the big guns like nukes. All issues that 40k never has.

Bollocks. How would more bunker busting weapons have suddenly swung an ineffective campaign into a total victory?

The Viet Cong, hid in tunnels that were resistant to regular munitions so bunker busters would clearly help with caving those in. Also, once the US was allowed to fight properly and forced a pitched battle the won every fight. The RoE was also poor because it was supposed to be a hearts and minds campaign.

As for Nukes, the Imperium can hardly go around nuking everything. They do in some cases, Krieg being one of them, but it quickly becomes apparent that such methods make the planet unlivable.

Yes they can, if they lose a planet they can rebuild in space quicker than repairing war damage on a planet.

Of course it's effective, air superiority is a huge factor in modern warfare. But you can't win wars on airpower alone.

You can when that air power can scour a world clean.

I fail to see how a space station is ever going to produce more than a Forge World.

I agree that Naval superiority is a huge factor in the Imperium, but a planet yields so much more in the way of resources, as well as population than a couple of asteroids ever could.

Forge worlds already build ships in space and you lose nothing by building a factory to crank out tanks in an asteroid instead of in a tunnel on a forge world.

I've also already shown that one object smaller than our moon can create enough habitats to house 21.7 billion people and provide food for them.

The main arguement against your theory Canadian 5th is that GW the creators of this world that we are debating decided to have mankind living on many planets. The other problem is that those space rocks in order for them to remain in the current orbits require those larger bodies such as stars and planets to hold them. If all mankind were living in those space rocks then all the enemy would have to do is destroy whatever heavenly body was responsible for the gravitational pull on the space rock and thus send those spinning off. This would then divide up humanity making them easier to pick off one by one. having humnity on planets gives the imperium more to fight for/over as well as giving the room for the large battles that the tabletop game is to represent.
Also take note that I do not say that your idea is a bad one nor unplausible just simply not a very good fit for the 40K universe.

Attacking people's countries is uncalled for.- Mannahninin


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commisar Wolfie wrote:The main arguement against your theory Canadian 5th is that GW the creators of this world that we are debating decided to have mankind living on many planets. The other problem is that those space rocks in order for them to remain in the current orbits require those larger bodies such as stars and planets to hold them. If all mankind were living in those space rocks then all the enemy would have to do is destroy whatever heavenly body was responsible for the gravitational pull on the space rock and thus send those spinning off. This would then divide up humanity making them easier to pick off one by one. having humnity on planets gives the imperium more to fight for/over as well as giving the room for the large battles that the tabletop game is to represent.
Also take note that I do not say that your idea is a bad one nor unplausible just simply not a very good fit for the 40K universe.

If the enemy is able to mass scatter a world then you lose anyway.

As for the rest, the setting is stupid in many ways. Very few people argue that.

that kind of insult to another's country really isnt called for.

REDACTED.

Oh god, insulting people's contries now, are we? Prepare for thread lock soon.

That's a touch far...

Back on to the original topic. I'm pretty sure the IG as diverese as they are, are more then capable of an equely diverse range of tactics.

Canadian 5th wrote:

REDACTED

Completely uncalled for.

Oh, stating the truth about a barely second world country is wrong now? It wasn't even a personal attack. Everything I said there was truth, much of it found on the CIA world fact book and the rest based on the quality of a degree that you can get from a place that allows Wiki as a source on essays.

The fact is Serbia is verifiably a worse place to live than most European, North American, Oceanic and some Asian nations. It has an HDI of 0.735 and is below bankrupt nations such as Greece and Spain for quality of life. It has a corruption index of 3.5 which is less than half of what Canada and even the stats has. The GDP is abysmal, at $10,900 USD per capita. Inflation rates of above 12% are among the highest in the world while real earnings growth of around 2% after a 3.1% drop the previous year is among the lowest anywhere. The Serbian dinar is fast falling to the value of an American penny and unemployment is at a frightening 19.2% with underemployment being even higher than that.

Due note none of this is opinion, it is taken from the highly regarded CIA world factbook. With citations on corruption coming from the Corruption Perceptions Index released yearly by Transparency International. The HDI numbers are from the UN Human Development Report.

This isn't a personal attack, it's just a statement of fact.

The same thing done for Canada looks like this:

Literacy: 99%
Education in Years: 17
HDI: 0.888
CPI: 8.9
GDP: 39,400
Growth: 3.1%
Inflation Rate: 1.2%
Dollar Compared to the US Dollar: 0.9627 Canadian Dollars per USD

There, now I'm impartial and this can't be considered an attack. I was just pointing out the flaws in saying anything about a developing second world nations education system by stating facts.

Oh, and Canada's worst metric is its growth which is 40th, with most metrics being in the low twenties or better. Serbia has issues cracking the top 60 anywhere. The US also has issues when compared to many first world nations often ranking lower than contemporary nations due to class and race issues.

We also rank 3rd in education standards, Serbia isn't ranked, the US is ranked 14th, and Germany is 16th. So when people from countries with world class institutions tell you wiki isn't valid, you should listen. Your country could use the help. I notice a lack of Serbian schools in the top hundred universities list as well...

Multidimensional Poverty Index also ranks Serbia below such stellar nations as Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. Canada the US and Germany aren't ranked.

Canadian 5th wrote:Oh, stating the truth about a barely second world country is wrong now? It wasn't even a personal attack. Everything I said there was truth, much of it found on the CIA world fact book and the rest based on the quality of a degree that you can get from a place that allows Wiki as a source on essays.

The fact is Serbia is verifiably a worse place to live than most European, North American, Oceanic and some Asian nations. It has an HDI of 0.735 and is below bankrupt nations such as Greece and Spain for quality of life. It has a corruption index of 3.5 which is less than half of what Canada and even the stats has. The GDP is abysmal, at $10,900 USD per capita. Inflation rates of above 12% are among the highest in the world while real earnings growth of around 2% after a 3.1% drop the previous year is among the lowest anywhere. The Serbian dinar is fast falling to the value of an American penny and unemployment is at a frightening 19.2% with underemployment being even higher than that.

Due note none of this is opinion, it is taken from the highly regarded CIA world factbook. With citations on corruption coming from the Corruption Perceptions Index released yearly by Transparency International. The HDI numbers are from the UN Human Development Report.

This isn't a personal attack, it's just a statement of fact.

The same thing done for Canada looks like this:

Literacy: 99%
Education in Years: 17
HDI: 0.888
CPI: 8.9
GDP: 39,400
Growth: 3.1%
Inflation Rate: 1.2%
Dollar Compared to the US Dollar: 0.9627 Canadian Dollars per USD

There, now I'm impartial and this can't be considered an attack. I was just pointing out the flaws in saying anything about a developing second world nations education system by stating facts.

Oh, and Canada's worst metric is its growth which is 40th, with most metrics being in the low twenties or better. Serbia has issues cracking the top 60 anywhere. The US also has issues when compared to many first world nations often ranking lower than contemporary nations due to class and race issues.

Honestly we just managed to get the thread back on topic like 5 seconds ago. let's not bring any of it back up like the wiki or the bible thing and get back to IG

You're missing the point, you just come across as being rude and condescending.

Anyways, this topic has changed no less than three times so far.

How about we all take a shot of whiskey, shake hands, and sing 'Why Can't We Be Friends?'.

As for the original topic, I for one maintain the Guard can use any strategy it so deems necessary to achieve a desired result, as exemplified by the variety of regiments that specialize in different aspects of war.

Canadian 5th my last post arguing the living in space idea was missed let's start there

Your post was read, noted, and passed over. It added nothing new and made no strong points. Until you can show me why feeding people is impossible in space and show that mining resources is less efficient (hint it isn't) then I can safely ignore your arguments.

Canadian 5th wrote:Your post was read, noted, and passed over. It added nothing new and made no strong points. Until you can show me why feeding people is impossible in space and show that mining resources is less efficient (hint it isn't) then I can safely ignore your arguments.

Never said impossible it's just easier and cheaper to do it planetside, because you wouldn't have to do the extra things you would need to get things in space. My idea was they could simply do both using moon for military purposes while still having the easy resources provided by the planet. I also stated that crowding the populace in a smaller place makes much more casualties in the event of an attack. All of these are valid points you ignored completely and were new compared to any other argument

Nicholas wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:Your post was read, noted, and passed over. It added nothing new and made no strong points. Until you can show me why feeding people is impossible in space and show that mining resources is less efficient (hint it isn't) then I can safely ignore your arguments.

Never said impossible it's just easier and cheaper to do it planetside, because you wouldn't have to do the extra things you would need to get things in space. My idea was they could simply do both using moon for military purposes while still having the easy resources provided by the planet. I also stated that crowding the populace in a smaller place makes much more casualties in the event of an attack. All of these are valid points you ignored completely and were new compared to any other argument

It's really not. Using a modern example the space shuttle carries at most 13 metric tons to orbit at a cost of $450 million per launch. You would save a ton of money in launch costs by building in space and you can build large objects easier in Zero G so suddenly a person can move a Leman Russ across a factory by hand. As for crowding my numbers are roughly equal to that of a place like Beijing, which is to say not the crowded by IoM standards. There, you happy now?

Brother Coa wrote:

purplefood wrote:
History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Coa wrote:Ok this is all very interesting, there are lot's of truth from other side. But I don't believe it that some of you agreed that IG commanders and useless. Just see Creed for example, the man defended Cadia several times from enemy that surpass even Angels of Death, and with minimal casualties.

While I agree that most of Guard personnel lack proper training I must point to the worlds that those man come from - from worlds that never saw war or bigger engagement ( like Kal have said big number of planets in the Imperium never saw war ). And then you have Regiments from Vostroya or Cadia or Elysia with highly trained troops and skilfull commanders.

And while I agree with Canadian 5'th that Guard tactics are obsolete for today and that they lack proper equipment sometimes I must point that he is wrong when it comes to Guard WW1 strategies. While those strategies might be good against Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tau they pale in comparison to Orks, Tyranids, Chaos and Necrons who have legions of fighting troops. And average Guardsman is never going to fight Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons or Tyranids. Mostly he will fight Orks, Chaos and local rebel PDF.

But it is my personal view that Guard should focus a little more on air power on a planet. Surely having massive bombing support or Spectre Gunship kind of plane means much when fighting trenched warfare. Just loook at Earth today, US have around 4000 planes, Russia around 3500. Not to mention other countries. And surely Imperial planet can have around that number of fighter planes to.

History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Who captured the islands close enough to Japan so that the B-29s were in range? And holding actions are extremely important, do not underplay their importance.

Sorry, air power won Midway so even in the sea the planes were key.

Iraq was softened by airpower, this is quite different than being broken by it. The word softened implies "made easier to break for someone else," in this case, Coalition armor and infantry.

Sorry, had they sent no ground forces in Iraq would still have given in. Given free reign the airforce would have won on their own.

And you're right about the Falklands, but again, it's softening; by itself, the air power would have accomplished little.

No, without air power the Brits lose, period. Even though Argentina had a poor air force had the Brits not had planes they would have lost due to poor AA weapons and good tactics by the Argentinian pilots. As it stands British ships were lost only to air power.

Actually the truth is history has proven that air power CAN break a country or nation. In today's nuclear age pick a country, drop nuke...it and all of it's people, industry, history, etc. are gone overnight. That said what people forget, is in places like the Vietnam war, the pilots were handicapped not just by the terrain, but more importantly the politics of the war. Vietname would have been over in a week and some change without setting one U.S. soldier's foot on the ground if someone had the spinal column to turn North Vietnam into a crater field. The other thing is in modern war unlike years past the United States military has had to be overtly conserned with hitting 'civilian' targets in a warzone where the 'targets' are the civilians or can blend into the civilian pop. So in today's time, we can't hit the schools where the terrorists are, we can't bomb the religious centers, where the terrorists are, or the streets, or the open markets, etc.etc. The airpower has to go over and make doubly damn sure they can 'hit' the enemy without hitting Little Timmy and having a PR nightmare. Or at least limit the PR nightmares. You unchain an airpower force it can do anything, your just going to have alot of blood on your hands, which is something I don't think ANY 40k army has a problem with.

The other thing I'm putting my 2 cents on is the equipment issue. While yes 40k is supposed to be advanced thanks to this wonderful thing called the Dark Age of Technology the actual tech base is closer then you think. In fact fluff-wise a lasgun might be better then the M-16, but compare the actual game rules wise and real world, the M-16 would out range over several times the max range of the lasgun. IIRC someone told an M-16 (or an M4 again not 100% sure) in 40k would be close to 72" max range & 48" effective. Also the lasgun's only advantage is number of shots it can produce and actual hitting power. So game terms average U.S. soldier with M-16 is going to have a S2 AP 5-6 72" weapon compared to S3 no ap and max 24". I could go on comparing tanks, and aircraft as well. It's only until you add in space travel, super heavy tank, force fields, and plasma and melta weapons you start to tip the scales.

KingmanHighborn wrote:

Brother Coa wrote:

purplefood wrote:
History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Coa wrote:Ok this is all very interesting, there are lot's of truth from other side. But I don't believe it that some of you agreed that IG commanders and useless. Just see Creed for example, the man defended Cadia several times from enemy that surpass even Angels of Death, and with minimal casualties.

While I agree that most of Guard personnel lack proper training I must point to the worlds that those man come from - from worlds that never saw war or bigger engagement ( like Kal have said big number of planets in the Imperium never saw war ). And then you have Regiments from Vostroya or Cadia or Elysia with highly trained troops and skilfull commanders.

And while I agree with Canadian 5'th that Guard tactics are obsolete for today and that they lack proper equipment sometimes I must point that he is wrong when it comes to Guard WW1 strategies. While those strategies might be good against Eldar, Dark Eldar and Tau they pale in comparison to Orks, Tyranids, Chaos and Necrons who have legions of fighting troops. And average Guardsman is never going to fight Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Necrons or Tyranids. Mostly he will fight Orks, Chaos and local rebel PDF.

But it is my personal view that Guard should focus a little more on air power on a planet. Surely having massive bombing support or Spectre Gunship kind of plane means much when fighting trenched warfare. Just loook at Earth today, US have around 4000 planes, Russia around 3500. Not to mention other countries. And surely Imperial planet can have around that number of fighter planes to.

History has proved that air power cannot and will not break a country or a nation.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Who captured the islands close enough to Japan so that the B-29s were in range? And holding actions are extremely important, do not underplay their importance.

Sorry, air power won Midway so even in the sea the planes were key.

Iraq was softened by airpower, this is quite different than being broken by it. The word softened implies "made easier to break for someone else," in this case, Coalition armor and infantry.

Sorry, had they sent no ground forces in Iraq would still have given in. Given free reign the airforce would have won on their own.

And you're right about the Falklands, but again, it's softening; by itself, the air power would have accomplished little.

No, without air power the Brits lose, period. Even though Argentina had a poor air force had the Brits not had planes they would have lost due to poor AA weapons and good tactics by the Argentinian pilots. As it stands British ships were lost only to air power.

Actually the truth is history has proven that air power CAN break a country or nation. In today's nuclear age pick a country, drop nuke...it and all of it's people, industry, history, etc. are gone overnight. That said what people forget, is in places like the Vietnam war, the pilots were handicapped not just by the terrain, but more importantly the politics of the war. Vietname would have been over in a week and some change without setting one U.S. soldier's foot on the ground if someone had the spinal column to turn North Vietnam into a crater field. The other thing is in modern war unlike years past the United States military has had to be overtly conserned with hitting 'civilian' targets in a warzone where the 'targets' are the civilians or can blend into the civilian pop. So in today's time, we can't hit the schools where the terrorists are, we can't bomb the religious centers, where the terrorists are, or the streets, or the open markets, etc.etc. The airpower has to go over and make doubly damn sure they can 'hit' the enemy without hitting Little Timmy and having a PR nightmare. Or at least limit the PR nightmares. You unchain an airpower force it can do anything, your just going to have alot of blood on your hands, which is something I don't think ANY 40k army has a problem with.

The other thing I'm putting my 2 cents on is the equipment issue. While yes 40k is supposed to be advanced thanks to this wonderful thing called the Dark Age of Technology the actual tech base is closer then you think. In fact fluff-wise a lasgun might be better then the M-16, but compare the actual game rules wise and real world, the M-16 would out range over several times the max range of the lasgun. IIRC someone told an M-16 (or an M4 again not 100% sure) in 40k would be close to 72" max range & 48" effective. Also the lasgun's only advantage is number of shots it can produce and actual hitting power. So game terms average U.S. soldier with M-16 is going to have a S2 AP 5-6 72" weapon compared to S3 no ap and max 24". I could go on comparing tanks, and aircraft as well. It's only until you add in space travel, super heavy tank, force fields, and plasma and melta weapons you start to tip the scales.

The fact that lasguns have only 24" range in game is simply for game balance. Standard infantry weapon ranges have been reduced in the game for every side. If you read the books and fluff, a lasgun is much superior to its in game equivalent, and is also superior to a stub gun (equivelent to a lasgun in the game), the equivalent of modern guns.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Nicholas wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:Your post was read, noted, and passed over. It added nothing new and made no strong points. Until you can show me why feeding people is impossible in space and show that mining resources is less efficient (hint it isn't) then I can safely ignore your arguments.

Never said impossible it's just easier and cheaper to do it planetside, because you wouldn't have to do the extra things you would need to get things in space. My idea was they could simply do both using moon for military purposes while still having the easy resources provided by the planet. I also stated that crowding the populace in a smaller place makes much more casualties in the event of an attack. All of these are valid points you ignored completely and were new compared to any other argument

It's really not. Using a modern example the space shuttle carries at most 13 metric tons to orbit at a cost of $450 million per launch. You would save a ton of money in launch costs by building in space and you can build large objects easier in Zero G so suddenly a person can move a Leman Russ across a factory by hand. As for crowding my numbers are roughly equal to that of a place like Beijing, which is to say not the crowded by IoM standards. There, you happy now?

So now we are applying our world technology to the 40K universe? The fact of the matter is that the entire point of wether the imperium decides to give up all of it's worlds in order to move everyting into space only operations is just not going to happen. When the imperium has absolutly no problem in solving problems by simply throwing more and more men at it until it goes away does not suggest that the expense (whatever expense there happens to be if at all) would matter to them at all. So there for your point is pointless in the actual topic at hand here which is the Imperial GUARD's strategies.

The fact that lasguns have only 24" range in game is simply for game balance. Standard infantry weapon ranges have been reduced in the game for every side. If you read the books and fluff, a lasgun is much superior to its in game equivalent, and is also superior to a stub gun, the equivalent of modern guns.

Yup, hamfisted balance for a poorly designed game.

If you dislike the game so much why pray tell are you on a forum for that game?

Commisar Wolfie wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:

Nicholas wrote:

Canadian 5th wrote:Your post was read, noted, and passed over. It added nothing new and made no strong points. Until you can show me why feeding people is impossible in space and show that mining resources is less efficient (hint it isn't) then I can safely ignore your arguments.

Never said impossible it's just easier and cheaper to do it planetside, because you wouldn't have to do the extra things you would need to get things in space. My idea was they could simply do both using moon for military purposes while still having the easy resources provided by the planet. I also stated that crowding the populace in a smaller place makes much more casualties in the event of an attack. All of these are valid points you ignored completely and were new compared to any other argument

It's really not. Using a modern example the space shuttle carries at most 13 metric tons to orbit at a cost of $450 million per launch. You would save a ton of money in launch costs by building in space and you can build large objects easier in Zero G so suddenly a person can move a Leman Russ across a factory by hand. As for crowding my numbers are roughly equal to that of a place like Beijing, which is to say not the crowded by IoM standards. There, you happy now?

So now we are applying our world technology to the 40K universe? The fact of the matter is that the entire point of wether the imperium decides to give up all of it's worlds in order to move everyting into space only operations is just not going to happen. When the imperium has absolutly no problem in solving problems by simply throwing more and more men at it until it goes away does not suggest that the expense (whatever expense there happens to be if at all) would matter to them at all. So there for your point is pointless in the actual topic at hand here which is the Imperial GUARD's strategies.

Yes, the guards strategies which are shaped by the IoM's overall flaws and poor decision making. They could have gone to space habitats and thus had less issues than they have, they didn't. They could break the admech monopoly on production, but they don't. They could try some real diplomacy with several of the other races, but they won't. In short the IoM is run by petty morons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commisar Wolfie wrote:If you dislike the game so much why pray tell are you on a forum for that game?

Note the name, note the FoW and historical section...

In short the IOM is exactly how the designers wanted it to be in order to have a tabletop WAR game not a tabletop diplomacy game.

Commisar Wolfie wrote:If you dislike the game so much why pray tell are you on a forum for that game?

So he can argue and act superior?
Also, if you think the game sucks so much, why play it? There are plenty of other games out there for you to play if you hate WH40k. ( I know you play FoW, but why go on the WH part of the forum if you hate it so much?)

note which forum your in 40K general discussion. just in case you couldn't read it.

Commisar Wolfie wrote:In short the IOM is exactly how the designers wanted it to be in order to have a tabletop WAR game not a tabletop diplomacy game.

Oh, so they wanted a fairly stupid game with unbalanced rules and poorly planned fluff?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

General Seric wrote:

Commisar Wolfie wrote:If you dislike the game so much why pray tell are you on a forum for that game?

So he can argue and act superior?
Also, if you think the game sucks so much, why play it? There are plenty of other games out there for you to play if you hate WH40k. ( I know you play FoW, but why go on the WH part of the forum if you hate it so much?)

Yes, while also producing evidence for my claims and backing them up with facts. Also, I used to play 40k, waste of money that was, I now only use the models I have and the books that I can get for free. Inow have much more fun proxying and playing whatever I want to try.