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.

Tyel wrote:
Kabalite Warriors are still as perfect as the day the kit came out...

But yes. I feel safe in saying Marines are the most popular faction because they've been in every starter set for the last 28 years (I'm guessing in Rogue Trader too but it predates my knowledge of the game.)

I think in the 90s and much of the 2000s Orks were by far the second most played faction. You saw them in stores, you saw them in White Dwarf etc etc. It turns out however that if you then run the faction into the ground and make it difficult/impossible to buy HQ choices, its popularity wanes. (I can't remember the internet drama, but wasn't there some outrage a couple of years ago that GW claimed they didn't have 4k of Ork models painted?)

You are correct, GW chose not to bring an Ork Army to Adepticon in the same year that "Orktober" became a thing or as we in the Ork community call it "Failtober".

The problem that I tried to articulate to Karol is that nobody gets the double whammy of GOOD rules AND new models to the same extent as Space Marines and especially not at decent prices

Orkz got Morkanaut/Gorkanaut's released...they were literally crappier versions of Imperial Knights and cost $$ the same.
Orkz got 6 new Buggies. All of them were trash on arrival except maybe the Scrapjet and unsurprisingly, its only good, not great.
Orkz got Mekgunz, they cost (and I am not kidding) $50 for 1. Smasha gunz are now 40pts each, and can be fielded in batteries of up to 6. So if you wanted an artillery themed ork army of 18 of these, well you are shelling out $900 for 18 models worth a grand total of....720pts.

And as to why other armies don't become as popular. how much does it cost to get 3 full sized brand new Primaris troops choices? from GW, $180. How about for Orkz? $324 And most ork players usually want twice that much where as I don't know of any Space Marine Players who want 30 intercessors, generally speaking they've been going for minimum sized troops choices for a bit now...basically since 7th edition demi and even than it was minimum sized squads, but a lot of them to get those free vehicles.

Long story short, no other faction gets the releases that SM's get and they usually have a higher barrier to entry than SMs.









Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


I presume people I'm arguing with know what I'm talking about and I'm not here to score points...so...*shrug*

-1T is way more useful when it persists turn to turn in both melee and ranged for any single weapon used rather than a section of an army picking up -1AP. A White Scars army generally gains no benefit until turn 3. Ultramarines will be on for only turns 2 and 3. DG are on 2 through 5, but generally 3 to 5 unless you employ other stuff to get the reach out there.

Correct me if I am wrong, i don't play Deathguard nor do I play against them often, but I believe someone mentioned the -1T aura is at less than 1' range...which means they are by definition in Close combat which means you can't shoot them except for the unit currently in CC with them. So that kind of negates 90%+ of the bonus to ranged combat does it not?

It goes up each turn - 1/3/6/9. You can punch it up by 6" (max 12) with a strat for one unit.

Fast movers can grant it to other units at range so Morty who counts as 9" all the time is popular.

And before someone gets any funny ideas - I'm not defending marines. I'm saying things aren't necessarily 1 for 1 and it takes a bit more time to get the full picture.

things aren't necessarily 1 for 1 and it takes a bit more time to get the full picture.

Hey! Guys! Daedalus is white knighting marines! Look at the quote!


Joking of course. At least we've apparently moved on from "Hur Dur pOpULaR"

I'm sure it will swing back around that way once a few more people get off work.

 Blackie wrote:


Stopping playing GW games COMPETITIVELY could be an excellent way, actually.

By definition they're competitive games. Do you mean not playing in tournaments?

Avoiding tournaments would probably be a good idea and playing with friends where you both know what you are going into the game to do. The game really functions best if played to win but played most importantly to have fun. It also cuts down with that mentality on people feeling they need the bleeding edge of units.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Avoiding tournaments would probably be a good idea and playing with friends where you both know what you are going into the game to do. The game really functions best if played to win but played most importantly to have fun. It also cuts down with that mentality on people feeling they need the bleeding edge of units.

Except there's other games you can play that don't require you to be better at game design than the people who made it to re-balance on the fly.

That is true, but yet again we go back to the girth of warhammer being a thing. Mostly in that people will play a worse game that promises people to play with than a better game that no one plays.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Avoiding tournaments would probably be a good idea and playing with friends where you both know what you are going into the game to do. The game really functions best if played to win but played most importantly to have fun. It also cuts down with that mentality on people feeling they need the bleeding edge of units.

The idea that people outside of tournaments, do not use tournament like combos or formations is very much wishful thinking. Because on one side some of the stuff is build in to the rule sub sets of specific armies, and on the other a ton of armies are forced, for many different reasons, in to one build. It is really hard to mess up a harli list, without making it illegal at the same time for example. Same with custodes , even without FW. On the other spectrum we have armies like tau in 9th, where trying to not run a super optimised lists ends in a very bad expiriance really fast. And there aren't many things that make you no longer play, then your opponent beating your 2000pts army with 1700pts of his, and not because he took a handicap.No, he just forgot to bring in reservs.

Karol I take your point of view seriously, but not everyone runs tournament lists every game. I have played this game an awful long time and honestly I have seen strong units but tournament lists ? Not so much.So that may very much be a your area thing to run into that all the time.

More games I've played have had some strong units but not been close to top tier lists.

Like I've not fought one Harli, and know one person who plays Custodes. So while these are horror stories from abroad they don't translate to everyone the same. Believe it or not you can play a game to win but not power crush the other guy in all ways.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Avoiding tournaments would probably be a good idea and playing with friends where you both know what you are going into the game to do. The game really functions best if played to win but played most importantly to have fun. It also cuts down with that mentality on people feeling they need the bleeding edge of units.

I find that win or lose I always have fun. If I don't do well I learn and I revel in those "narrative" moments.

But I also fill up a lot of time with other deep board games (not the deepest and not lately - eff you COVID) like Scythe, Root, Through the Ages, etc.

Even in the dark times of worst editions I've enjoyed playing the game. Though it doesn't hide the flaws but yeah if someone doesn't enjoy it, probably shouldn't play it as it will only breed hate.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
That is true, but yet again we go back to the girth of warhammer being a thing. Mostly in that people will play a worse game that promises people to play with than a better game that no one plays.

Don't these people have friends who would be willing to split a starter set with them?