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.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:I get the making money part, But I think they could do different things to do that.

Why do they have to make all the characters. What happened to converting. The take away the bitz ordering so its harder to convert but yet they want us to. They really don't need to make a He' stan model in my opinion. Let us make him. Spend there time on units they have no models for. But that is really a different problem.

That would be great for all the people that like to convert, but for people like me I don't want to do that so I'm glad they offer an "already done it for ya" model.

Hahah, when I saw alot of marine vs marine, I picked up a xenos race and then went ape crazy on all the power armour XD

Dark Eldar, Eldar and tau!! I eat power armour for breakfast

And to satisfy my power armour cravings, I have my Nurgle serving Space wolves, and my Grey Knights

To any and all feeling that 40K is not for them do this:

Build an insanely fun large army list
find a friend with same size also fun army list
play planetstrike with no force org and apoc size armies
take strategems like status bomb and have your oppenet make this face:
:0 while you make this face:

I've only played since 4th edition but I don't like the change to herohammer. I preferred the chapter traits thing for SM so that Salamanders played a certain way and had certain disadvantages regardless of the big cheese being present. I recently made a Salamanders army (my first SM army) as they were the ones that always interested me most, but I don't like having to take Vulcan to make them Salamanders.

I hope in 6th edition things swing back a bit so that the SM dex has traits again (if the previous system didn't work well for make your own chapter than they should fix the problem instead of bin it). Other dexes as well that had differing armies within the dex (eg IG). That adds a lot of flavour to the game IMO.

the hobby has alot to offer. focus on the painting side of the hobby if you think the game sucks. or start a new hobby.

OH and since when do you have to take vulcan to make the marines you are playing salamanders?
I didnt know you had to take marneus calgar to play ultramarines! DIOS MIO!! ..... /end sarcasm

OH and since when do you have to take vulcan to make the marines you are playing salamanders?

*headdesk*

Have you not been paying attention?

Salamanders w/Vulkan: An army that has weapons and rules that reflect the personality and traits of the Salamanders Chapter.

Salamanders w/o Vulkan: Ultramarines painted green.


It'd be nice to be able to play an army with its unique traits without requiring the same character to always be there at every battle.

I've been a huge fan of 40k for about four years now, and am strongly considering getting into table-top for the first time(don't ask how I'm a 40k fan and am not into table-top :p). I'm leaning toward a Raven Guard army.

It certainly does suck, though that certain armies are fairly neglected(gameplay-wise only, I'd be totally for Tau, but from what I know, their rules are a bit dated) and they that don't release codices for the likes of Raven Guard, Salamanders, and White Scars(I imagine GW doesn't see it as worth it in some cases and some people would argue there's redundant doctrines and therefore gameplay styles for some chapters).

DeffDred wrote:Salamanders were same old marines with 2 assult weapons! wow! and an armour upgrade on tanks! and... a cape?

Seeing that I played that Salamanders list extensively, there's stuff in it that I adored and didn't make the transition to the 3.5ed codex.

Reinforced Ceramite - pretty sure this was left behind (and then found it's way to Black Templars as Blessed Hull). Negating the extra D6 for half range melta weapons was great. Especially since my friends favoured method of destroying my Land Raider before and after that list was a deep striking Crisis suit with twin fusion guns.
Any sergeant or above model could mastercraft anything and take artificer armour - I used this a lot. It wasn't always worth it, but I liked having master crafted plasma pistols on my squad sergeants. My Assault squad sergeant usually ran around with a master crafted power weapon.
Signums on sergeants - I hated it when this was removed from Salamanders. Being able to reroll to hit with the tactical squad heavy weapon was simply awesome. So many shots that would have missed a tank wound up blowing it to peices.
Flamers in assault squads and replacing missile launchers in tactical squads - Again, I loved this. I think this made the transition to the 3.5ed codex (but allowed two of any special weapon) and then got taken back out. This was a great way to add some burninating power to Salamanders without twin linking everything.

While the above didn't make it worth being an entirely separate codex, they're bits of flavour that Salamanders lost. Running Vulkan with Salamanders makes you run thunder hammers, flamers and meltas everywhere. That's a very simple view of them. Where's the representation of their artistry gone? Where have all the master crafted weapons and artificer armour gone, and technology like signums represented through basic squads? Sorry, but Vulkan may make a melta/hammernator heavy Space Marine force a lot more powerful, but he doesn't make them into Salamanders. Salamanders do more than mastercraft just hammers and burners.

Ok, seems like some of you missed the point of my thread.

The whole thing with the He'stan and Salamander was really an example. The same can be said for Craftworld Eldar, Guard and the lack of different types of guard, The different Clans of Orks. These all fight differently then what there codex's show. A Biel-tan army would have more in the ways of Aspect warriors then anything else. That is what they are known for. But with the Eldar codex you can still only have 3 units of aspect warriors. (Dire avengers not included in this statement) Iyanden Eldar should be able to take more of the ghost warriors. ie the Wraithguard and Wraithlords, They used to be taken as troops. Alaitoc had more Pathfinders then most and had a cool little chart to screw around with enemy deployment and stuff. Ok now we go to Guard. Catachans had infiltrate all over. They were limited on the vehicles they could take. There play style was a in your face and attack more then the normal Guard of sitting back and shooting. You do not get any kinda feel with the Catachans now even if you take the characters they say are Chatachans. Where is the Mordians, Valhallans just to name a couple? Now we can go to Orks clans. Where are the Goffs? They should have the biggest and badest of the Orks. What about the Bad Moons? Having a unit in the Ork codex does not make a Bad Moons army. ie Flash Gitz

Its not that I hate the game as much as dislike the way things have turned. Like someone said "Herohammer" I hate that. Yes the hero should be on a spot light but it should not comprise souly around him and what he does. The army is there to support him and follow him to battle.

Just painting your army Black does not make a Raven Guard army. They do have a different force org then the one in C:SM. Yes you can losely reproduc it by taking only scouts and jump infantry. but wouldn't it be a better list if you could take jump marines as troops but you must have a squad of scout or two in the list. You also were limited by some of the options in vehicles or what have you. Maybe you got LC's cheaper for your Jump Marines. These are things that could be done to an army list. It could be done in a White Dwarf for example like it used to be.

I just want more flavor from the game I like and want to continue to play. But that lack of flavor has made everything bland.

Thank you HBMC for helping, your analogy was well put.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well put -Loki-

Just painting your army Black does not make a Raven Guard army. They do have a different force org then the one in C:SM. Yes you can losely reproduc it by taking only scouts and jump infantry. but wouldn't it be a better list if you could take jump marines as troops but you must have a squad of scout or two in the list.

This is a perfect example of why the Raven Guard don't need a codex.

If you want jumppacking troops and scouts... play Blood Angels. Paint them black, give'm all beaky helms and give all the characters lightning claws. There. Raven Guard.

I agree that some of the older Multi-dexs were awesome (I played Salamanders, Black Templars and LatD for a bit) but they were a bunch of rules.

Just imagine, people hate the wait for new codexs, so if they brought back 4 armies per multi-dex then we'd have an even longer wait while older codexs were updated.

I think they should make codexs based around the race itself. Then multi-dexs would determine the lists.

Like an all encompassing marine book that would show all the diffent marine units, then a few dexs that focus on styles.

Blood Angels, Raven Guard and White Scars could have a multi-dex basedof the core book.

Then Ultramarines, Imperial Fists and Iron Hands.

Finally, Dark Angels, Space Wolves and Salamanders

Ventus wrote:I've only played since 4th edition but I don't like the change to herohammer.

Sorry, but you really can't use herohammer to describe the current game, or really the game at all since 3rd. Herohammer was 2nd, when my single Howling Banshee Exarch could take a charge from a mob of Ork Boyz, butcher 20 of them in one round of combat and still be standing, THAT was Herohammer!

This is a perfect example of why the Raven Guard don't need a codex.

If you want jumppacking troops and scouts... play Blood Angels. Paint them black, give'm all beaky helms and give all the characters lightning claws. There. Raven Guard.

Almost exactly what I'm doing, the BA dex is a very good fit for what I envision Raven Guard to be, I just have avoided any units that are a little too BA specific (no Priests with FNP bubbles for me )
Its almost such a good fit it could almost be deliberate....

edit: Whoo 100 posts!!!

It is herohammer to some extent. Its the hero that defines the army. That is what Herohammer means, IMHO. Yes what you are talking about could be called hero hammer, but I think that is more a one person army.

Ok so you are making your Raven Guard army using the BA codex. Ok so basically it is going to be a watered down Blood angels army. Not really a Raven Guard army then? There is a big difference between Blood Angels and Raven Guard. Yes you do have the similarities that you described, but there is no drawbacks. You do not have to take scouts with the Blood Angels codex as Raven Guard are known for. Sure you can make sure they are in there. But that is your choice to make.

I can make an theme I want with the C:SM book. If I want to do an Iron Hands army I could take multiple Dreads and take the MoTF to do so. But that still doesn't make it really an Iron Hands list. There are no cyber inhancements on my Tactical squads like there should be. I am not saying Fluff can't be done to some extent. I am saying that The fluff is lacking so you can't truely make a army feel like the army they represent.

Ok, seems like some of you missed the point of my thread.

A Biel-tan army would have more in the ways of Aspect warriors then anything else. That is what they are known for. But with the Eldar codex you can still only have 3 units of aspect warriors. (Dire avengers not included in this statement) Iyanden Eldar should be able to take more of the ghost warriors. ie the Wraithguard and Wraithlords, They used to be taken as troops. Alaitoc had more Pathfinders then most and had a cool little chart to screw around with enemy deployment and stuff.

You can have more than 3 different units of aspect warriors. You have Aspect Warriors in the Heavy Support, Fast attack, Troop and Elite slots. That's a lot more than 3 units.
You can still take Wraithguard as troops, it just has a numbers requirement.

There are just too many factions, to fit everything like this in the books anymore, and keep it well balanced and on a reasonable release schedule for everyone. I think the HQ switching FOC/Army abilities and what not, is a pretty good compromise.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:So I have been playing 40k for some 13 years now. Lately I have seen alot of changes that not only depress me about 40k but also maybe think it is not for me anymore. I want to know where the fluff went and why it isn't in the army lists any more. Back in 3rd Ed there was alot of different armies out there that had this. You had a codex that had a couple of different army listsin there. Take Codex:Armageddon, There was Salamanders, Ork: Speed Freek, Black Templars and Guard: Steel Legion. 4 very cool army lists that added to the fluff of Armageddon and who was fighting there. Now we have a character that makes the list and fluff.
.

because black templars were quite broken? remember the one of 4 vows they could take for free at the start of the game? plonk down eldar, and straight away they've all got free scout moves. and other stuff. GW decided to move on from the idea of these almost campaign specific minidexes and bring out each army with their own codex instead. i think they picked right. the minidexes simply are the wrong way to bring things to life, and really added nothing.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:
Lets take He' stan for example. He is a captain of the salamnders chapter. He makes twin linked meltas and flamers. Ok so that seems to be all he does. That is not fluff. That is abilities that make him who he is. Where is the limitations to the army list? Where is the advantages that the salamanders have as a whole? I am so tired of seeing the same list for He' stan. So is that the only way Salamanders fight? There is alot of back ground to the salamanders and other chapters/ Armies alike. Why is everything the same?
.

his fluff wont be found in the "rules" section. there is the whole character bio if you want that. limitations? well, you gotta pay points for stuff, right?

and things arent necessarily the same. there is background for them. they're just not the focus of C:SM, and GW wisely have brought some discipline to their design staff in not throwing out unique rules, unique FOC changes etc for every single army. i remember what it was like in third. there were more "exceptions" to the rules, and "unique" rules, than the rules themselves. it was ridiculous.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:Oh I know about the bitz sellers its not an issue of i can't do this or that, its the issue of GW dropping there bitz and what not.

The problem alos is I don't play in a competitive enviroment. Whihc brings me to another point that I have not liked as of late. The tournaments have gotten horrible. There is no sportsmanship anymore. The lack of army comp has taken away from my tournament playing. Its a different monster now. People only care about winning and not about meeting new people and having fun. Ever since they started Ard boys, everyone uses Rogue Trader style Tourneys as practice rounds for Ard boys.

comp was terrible. all it did was reward certain armies, and certain lists, and punish others. example is the "focus on troops" comp where an army "should" have more troops than non-troops. Fine for marines and chaos who can rely on excellent troops. look at tau and eldar? armies that rely on their other slots, and whose troops are extremely mediocre at best.

comp is nothing morr than an arbitrary decision with no sense, enforced by a douche who wants everyone to play the game he thinks they should play/

and sportsmanship. heres the thing. you go to a tourney, its kind of expected that you're gonna be a decent sport. hand shake before the game, etc? Why reward someone for doing what is part of a social hobby? Or why allow the opponent to have the chance to not give him any points? sportsmanship, often times was abused by players. as it is now, if youre a douche, you're punished. if you're a great guy, you have a good game with him.

and you'd be surprised how many people go to tourneys to meet new folks, drink and have a laugh. i think that is the most insulting statement by a long way.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:
Yeah that is so not an option for me. I hate that game even more. I used to play with a cryx army and a skorne army. I sold everything I have from them and vow never to play that game again. I am not a fan of the play style and rules of them game. It peaked my interest as it was different from 40k and they models looked kinda neat. If you are not a fan of powergaming then that is for sure not for you. It is all about that. I also describe it as MT:G with minitures. The combos that you have to do and what not. The last piece of cake for me was when I set up my army and lost before I even got to play. I said no more. I asked the other person was that fun? And he told me "Yay!"

Just some input on that game. Not trying to bash it for others. Its just not for me.

As a warmachine fan... when everything is broken, then nothing is broken. as to combo play and first turn kills, thats pretty much been relegated to the past with the mk2 rules. there is a reason WMH is exploding in popularity these last 2 years. the powergamer has far less room for manoevre in WMH than in 40k.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:

The whole thing with the He'stan and Salamander was really an example. The same can be said for Craftworld Eldar, Guard and the lack of different types of guard, The different Clans of Orks. These all fight differently then what there codex's show. A Biel-tan army would have more in the ways of Aspect warriors then anything else. That is what they are known for. But with the Eldar codex you can still only have 3 units of aspect warriors. (Dire avengers not included in this statement) Iyanden Eldar should be able to take more of the ghost warriors. ie the Wraithguard and Wraithlords, They used to be taken as troops. Alaitoc had more Pathfinders then most and had a cool little chart to screw around with enemy deployment and stuff. Ok now we go to Guard. Catachans had infiltrate all over. They were limited on the vehicles they could take. There play style was a in your face and attack more then the normal Guard of sitting back and shooting. You do not get any kinda feel with the Catachans now even if you take the characters they say are Chatachans. Where is the Mordians, Valhallans just to name a couple? Now we can go to Orks clans. Where are the Goffs? They should have the biggest and badest of the Orks. What about the Bad Moons? Having a unit in the Ork codex does not make a Bad Moons army. ie Flash Gitz

-

because Lots of flash gitz in the proper colours makes a flash gitz army. lots of boyz and nobz makes goffs. likes of trukks and bikes makes speed freaks. can you do that now? yes you can. there is no need to give everything special rules. thats bad design that smacks of ill discipline.

because eldar craftworlds was one of the most horridly written, overpowered and broken codices GW ever wrote? the 60man seer council? the disruption table? please. there is a reason they got rid of it. the eldar codex as is now, is designed to allow all those craftworlds without the need for an add-on codex that simply unbalanced the game. they are not any way less fluffy than they were.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:
Ok so you are making your Raven Guard army using the BA codex. Ok so basically it is going to be a watered down Blood angels army. Not really a Raven Guard army then? There is a big difference between Blood Angels and Raven Guard. Yes you do have the similarities that you described, but there is no drawbacks. You do not have to take scouts with the Blood Angels codex as Raven Guard are known for. Sure you can make sure they are in there. But that is your choice to make.

I can make an theme I want with the C:SM book. If I want to do an Iron Hands army I could take multiple Dreads and take the MoTF to do so. But that still doesn't make it really an Iron Hands list. There are no cyber inhancements on my Tactical squads like there should be. I am not saying Fluff can't be done to some extent. I am saying that The fluff is lacking so you can't truely make a army feel like the army they represent.

So all raven guard armies need scouts, eh? how about a first company raven guard army? spammed terminators. still raven guard. still fluffy.

In my opinion, you are equating "unique rules/codices" with a "better" game. I think thats a dangerous path to walk, my friend. Giving everything a codex, or something special is not better, in my opinion. Its "excessive". complicated is another word. I remember third ed. at one point there were 3 versions of true grit, and multiple rules doing virtually the same thing. its not needed, and it certainly doesnt help the game. i remember when there were dozens of variant lists in white dwarf to make one-off armies. it didnt make things any more unique, or flavoured. it simply cluttered everything up, and added an extra layer of unneeded, and unwanted fat to a game that didnt need it.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:
Ok so you are making your Raven Guard army using the BA codex. Ok so basically it is going to be a watered down Blood angels army. Not really a Raven Guard army then?

There's a few thousand Raven Guard and Blood Angels put together. There's a few hundred billion Imperial Guardsmen. You're upset that those few thousand marines much be so different from each other that they require entirely separate codexes, but are content that the billions are all the same?

No I am not upset that there isn't a codex for every marine chapter or what ever. I am just tired of seeing the same army over and over again. The "parking lot" Blood Angels, that is not how they would fight. So why do people make lists to do so? Because it wins and its powerful because they can get cheaper Razorbacks because of there rules. Its just kinda frustrating to see this as a person that would like alittle more out of a game then this. I might be wanting to much but hey thats what I want.

In my opinion, you are equating "unique rules/codices" with a "better" game. I think thats a dangerous path to walk, my friend. Giving everything a codex, or something special is not better, in my opinion. Its "excessive". complicated is another word. I remember third ed. at one point there were 3 versions of true grit, and multiple rules doing virtually the same thing. its not needed, and it certainly doesnt help the game. i remember when there were dozens of variant lists in white dwarf to make one-off armies. it didnt make things any more unique, or flavoured. it simply cluttered everything up, and added an extra layer of unneeded, and unwanted fat to a game that didnt need it.

But is it not like that now? You have 10 different characters in the Sm codex that have different and unique rules. I don't see that it gets cluttered. I just wish it was alittle more then just what that character does. GW could add a line in He'stans rules that say he can not take but one unit of speeders or his Vets can purchase master crafted weapons for +pts. I don't think that would be much to ask. These little additions give it a bit more interesting feel and a bit more fluff added to the army. I honestly miss the last ed marine codex. That is what I wanted out of a marine codex. I don't think that was to hard to nderstand or use. In fact it made alot of different armies from one codex to tailor it to what you wanted to do. It was simple and effective without being clutttered.

GW created this vaste world in there background. Yet you think it is fine with just having a hand full of ideas from it. There are over 1000 chapters in the space marnies. Yet we know of maybe 30 or so. There is no interest that 500 of them might not fight as the marine codex says. They might fight totally different. Might even have differnet units and weapons that they themselves created. Now Iknow it would be impossible to try to create all those chapters, I don't really want them to. I would like the ability to do that myself without having to use the generic rules that have been set upon me. I am just hoping that the 6th ed Marines codex goes back to what we had the last edition. It was a far better and more interesting of codexes. Same goes with the Guard codex. This Guard codex now is great for Cadian Guard, but for any other type it is horrible.

Hard to create codexes, models, etc for everything and keep any sort of schedule. Since GW claims models and modeling are priority 1 over the game hence why the rumors of 6th insist they want a core set of rules that don't change with each new edition. Might be similar to the old wd but who knows for sure.

Mmh. I'm steadily getting there these days. It started when I sought out a forum dedicated to wargaming, and WH40k in particular.

I started playing WH40k just over 10 years ago, when I was 13, toward the end of 2001. I'd come to my FLGS with a bunch of MageKnight minis, looking for a game. I found one of my friends there, and he and his friends were playing WH40k. I didn't go, "Oh my god, those minis are so cool!" I internally thought something about starting up an army so I could play with them. Three months of saving later, I had my very first box of Dire Avengers.

I gamed, lost a hell of a lot of the time, but had a lot of fun and kept on trukkin, started some new armies, and eventually stopped gaming in early 2004 when my situation degraded to the point I was locking myself in my bedroom and barricading the door until my parents went to work, then sneaking out during the day to use the computer and get food and drink, then returning to my room and barricading the door again before my parents got home. I was never in any danger from them, I just really didn't want them to bug me about going to school.

When the new school year star... Know what? I'll save ya some time. Long story short, it turned out I have schizophrenia, to this day I still haven't completed high school, and I didn't play WH40k at all for several years between 2003 and 2008 or 2009 because I didn't have any opponents at all, due to no one in my house playing, and a general unwillingness to socialize with strangers due to strong social anxiety. Right, anyways...

Then one day, in 2008 or 2009 - I don't remember which - I was painting some Sisters of Battle - I still liked the miniatures, liked painting them, so I bought the ones I liked and painted them or just assembled them - and complaining to my mom about my frustration that my models would never be put to use because I didn't have an opponent. To my complete and utter shock, my mom offered to play some games of WH40k with me. So I stuttered an acknowledgement, and we started to play games together.

It was awesome. I learned the rules in the rulebook I had and relied on my memories of 3e rules - and admittedly I had the 4e book which has in the past caused some rules SNAFUs when I went online or looked up a rule in the 5e rulebook just to find out I was remembering the 4e rule - and taught my mom the rules through gaming. We started small. A single model on the dining room tabletop at the very start, to show the basics of movement. Added an enemy model to demonstrate the basics of shooting and melee combat. Three to four years later, I have a gaming table me and my dad built - he doesn't play, but he's more comfortable with using power tools to saw through 4' of plywood than I am... I really hate power tools, especially power saws. They always feel so dangerous. Anyways, it's a 6' x 4' sheet of plywood with 4 former table legs screwed in - even managed to find screws short and fat enough to secure it tightly and not go all the way through - with a - oh, and the legs twist off of the things which keep them attached to the table, which is great for portability - with a spare clear plastic tablecloth laid overtop with the folds rolled flat with a rolling pin, and a GW battlemat over that.

I have a Realm of Battle gameboard, which I personally primed, painted, and flocked in about half a day. I have added TONS of stuff to my armies, and had an absolute BLAST playing with my mom for years.

When I found Dakka, I thought it was awesome. I'd gone looking for a forum site to talk about WH40k that was more active than the rare and highly inactive threads on another site I frequented. But I was wrong about Dakka, to be perfectly honest. I found myself going on Dakka, wanting to talk or even just read about WH40k stuff, and... Well, it just gets to me. The constant complaints, the trash-talking - though the trash-talking is a fethload more polite than the trash-talking on a videogame I play - of the company and the armies... It's worse than just feeling insulted by the complaints... No, I started to agree with the complaints. It has happened, several times, that I have been feeling good and wanting to go to Dakka to read and enjoy WH40k talk, and then I do, and about an hour later, I get up from my computer, go out into the other room, and go on a complete rant, an honest to god rant, about GW and their latest evildoings to their customers and my preferred army. I rant to friends, I rant to immediate family, I rant to online friends, I rant to perfect strangers on the Internet while playing videogames. Earlier tonight, just before I came to Dakka tonight, I went on a 7-paragraph rant on a videogame's official forums about WH40k.

Before I came to Dakka, I was happy and content with WH40k. I was playing every week, except when there was really exciting stuff to do in World of Warcraft.

But now?

I have an ongoing game on my table that has not moved since January, if not late December. Before that, my previous game was in September or October. Before that, I was playing a ton, but I was completely inactive on Dakka since a week after I made my account.

I dunno. I probably just have to stop coming to Dakka somehow. But the bad memories always fade, and optimism grows in its place. And I dunno... There's a forum I go to sometimes, another forum, where the regulars regularly insult me. I was a regular on that forum for years, enduring the constant insults every time I posted. But still, sometimes I go back and post, hoping they've matured. Hoping they've missed me. Often, if they notice at all, they ask whether I'd been committed to a psychiatric hospital - I did some checking into that one, and someone apparently deliberately started that rumor - or commented that they thought I'd committed suicide.

And now I feel terrible, and I'm gonna go hug my Master, and then maybe browse a different forum, where the QQ is hilariously silly and doesn't get to me at ALL beyond eventually feeling dead - or maybe numb, I dunno which - inside at such stupidity.

Seriously, am I the only person that understands balsak_da_mighty's point? It sure feels like it.

Its true. At least you understand what I am talking about. I do thank you for that.

Seriously, am I the only person that understands balsak_da_mighty's point? It sure feels like it.

No, we all understand. We just don't agree.

If you feel this way, then give it a break. Find anoter hobbt than Wargaiming of you feel that is what you need, besides, There is nobody forcing you to play is it?

I consider myself very lucky to have a group that plays a lot of different armies(all of them are played by someone except sisters). It keeps it fresh and entertaining. I can see where marine vs marine would get boring fast.

I am not talking about Marine vs Marine. I am talking lack of differenece between all the Marine armies. I don't care about playing Marine vs marine. What I care about is lack of difference between this Marine army and that Marine army. My army of choice is Actually Orks. I started with them and will always play them. I just miss any kinda flavor from army to army. They are all the same, no matter which Chapter they are from. Everyone has Hammenators and Devs with Missles. But yet they are all different Chpaters. There is no flavor and its boring.

There is nobody forcing you to play is it?

I hate these kind of responses. You are right no one is forcing me to play. But shouldn't I enjoy something that I want to play?

@Deffdred: So you don't agree that there should be more flavor? So you would be fine with 1 marine codex plan and boring. Every time you drop your army on the table and saw marines you would allready know what he had in his army. You would know exactly how to deal with it and know its weaknesses. That to me seems just boring and pointless. But I guess we agree to disagree.

@Deffdred: So you don't agree that there should be more flavor? So you would be fine with 1 marine codex plan and boring. Every time you drop your army on the table and saw marines you would allready know what he had in his army. You would know exactly how to deal with it and know its weaknesses. That to me seems just boring and pointless. But I guess we agree to disagree.

There are Vanilla Marines (With several characters to make several different types of armies), Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Black Templars, Grey Knights and Dark Angels.

That's more than enough "flavor".

And, yes, everytime I face a marine player I know what he's going to feild. Grey Knights? Draigowing.

Blood Angels... um? Razorspam, DCDread spam, and several other "flavors". Dark Angels will obviously be Deathwing or Ravenwing or some other "flavor".

Vanilla marines I can expect He'Stan. Unless they use Khan or Marneus or one of the other many "flavors".

Hmm... I guess I don't always know what they're going to field because there is so much diversity in the marine army choices.

Yes, it is my dream to have a single space marine codex. I dislike all the variety in the marine books.

Even GW said they were sorry for making so many variant marine armies.

I agree with the original poster, I think the game is too stream-lined and is being made more for competitive play. I loved the 3.5 Chaos Marines codex and the Eldar Craftwords. I used to keep all of the White Dwarf Chapter Approved articles, even the ones about the hated loyalists.

I think for people who are more into the competitive nature of 40K you will find no agreement. Universal rules and limited codices make it easier to play a quick game and you break down each opposing codex into a short list of threats. It is concise and easier. . . but I find it more bland.

Those who love the fluff and want their chapter, craftworld, clan etc. love the morass of small, unique rules that make your army not just a different color. We love the difference, not the ease of play. I started 40K in 3rd edition and I enjoyed when I played a new faction with a new rule that I was not prepared for. It was not annoying, like it would be for a competitive player, it was an interesting surprise.

Those disagreeing with your post and those who seem to be attacking you see 40K as improved and take offense that you want individuality in sub-armies. I don't think that they are getting that you actually love the game, just hate the direction.

The direction of 40K has me playing more fantasy now, but I still love 40K

balsak_da_mighty wrote:I am not talking about Marine vs Marine. I am talking lack of differenece between all the Marine armies. I don't care about playing Marine vs marine. What I care about is lack of difference between this Marine army and that Marine army. My army of choice is Actually Orks. I started with them and will always play them. I just miss any kinda flavor from army to army. They are all the same, no matter which Chapter they are from. Everyone has Hammenators and Devs with Missles. But yet they are all different Chpaters. There is no flavor and its boring.

There is nobody forcing you to play is it?

I hate these kind of responses. You are right no one is forcing me to play. But shouldn't I enjoy something that I want to play?

@Deffdred: So you don't agree that there should be more flavor? So you would be fine with 1 marine codex plan and boring. Every time you drop your army on the table and saw marines you would allready know what he had in his army. You would know exactly how to deal with it and know its weaknesses. That to me seems just boring and pointless. But I guess we agree to disagree.

I have to agree with the people that said maybe try another game. (Sorry if you talked about this already, I haven't read the whole thread). That works great for me, personally, maybe it will for you too. And yes, I started up warmachine but I switch between the games now with my friends and it keeps things pretty fresh.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:I agree with the original poster, I think the game is too stream-lined and is being made more for competitive play. I loved the 3.5 Chaos Marines codex and the Eldar Craftwords. I used to keep all of the White Dwarf Chapter Approved articles, even the ones about the hated loyalists.

I think for people who are more into the competitive nature of 40K you will find no agreement. Universal rules and limited codices make it easier to play a quick game and you break down each opposing codex into a short list of threats. It is concise and easier. . . but I find it more bland.

Those who love the fluff and want their chapter, craftworld, clan etc. love the morass of small, unique rules that make your army not just a different color. We love the difference, not the ease of play. I started 40K in 3rd edition and I enjoyed when I played a new faction with a new rule that I was not prepared for. It was not annoying, like it would be for a competitive player, it was an interesting surprise.

Those disagreeing with your post and those who seem to be attacking you see 40K as improved and take offense that you want individuality in sub-armies. I don't think that they are getting that you actually love the game, just hate the direction.

The direction of 40K has me playing more fantasy now, but I still love 40K

Funny you say they stream lined for competitive play. In most quotes GW has said they are more concerned with modeling then the competitive stuff. Thats why theyre trying to figure out a core rule set so they don't have to keep messing with codexes and focus more on the modeling. Not exactly easy to come out with ranges and codexes while trying to balance the game.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:I agree with the original poster, I think the game is too stream-lined and is being made more for competitive play. I loved the 3.5 Chaos Marines codex and the Eldar Craftwords. I used to keep all of the White Dwarf Chapter Approved articles, even the ones about the hated loyalists.

I think for people who are more into the competitive nature of 40K you will find no agreement. Universal rules and limited codices make it easier to play a quick game and you break down each opposing codex into a short list of threats. It is concise and easier. . . but I find it more bland.

Those who love the fluff and want their chapter, craftworld, clan etc. love the morass of small, unique rules that make your army not just a different color. We love the difference, not the ease of play. I started 40K in 3rd edition and I enjoyed when I played a new faction with a new rule that I was not prepared for. It was not annoying, like it would be for a competitive player, it was an interesting surprise.

Uh, quick question.
Why does it read like the two are incompatible ?
Streamlining, the way I understand it, doesn't require getting rid of things such as 3rd edition CSM, which was indeed a blast. Snowflake special rules for everyone does get in the way of comfort of play to some extent, but a set of USR still allows for flavourful armies.