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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 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?

That's exactly what Power Levels are.

The Ciaphas Cain books are fun, even if they're not likely to be the most accurate representation of Commissar interactions.

 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.

Ciaphas Cain is most definitely *not* a coward.

He is however extremely interested in his own continued existence above and beyond almost (though not quite) anything else.

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive things

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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

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

my opinion,


Necron Monolith is the worst model in 40k. It has less detail than a childs toy and what detail is there, looks cartoonish and poorly executed.

 First Among Gators wrote:
my opinion,


Necron Monolith is the worst model in 40k. It has less detail than a childs toy and what detail is there, looks cartoonish and poorly executed.

I like the model, but I agree it's pretty dated by modern 40K standards.

The flipside of this is that I think the Tesseract Vault is too busy - mostly because the insides look like an absolute nightmare to paint.

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.

ADB does a fantastic job of writing them.

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.

Ruin wrote:

 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.

Chaos space marines codex fails more than any other codex at capturing the theme and nature of chaos both in rules and fluff

So uh, unpopular opinion, modern tacticool Guard is pretty awesome and I much prefer it?

Space Marines of all flavours except chaos should be junked from the next rules revision onward

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Space Marines of all flavours except chaos should be junked from the next rules revision onward

why?

 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.

 First Among Gators wrote:

 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)

-Knights and superheavy tanks have no place in a standard 40k game, or possibly even non-Epic games

-2nd edition was really not bad to play if everyone involved played with restraint.

-Hating Ultramarines is just trying to be part of a popular crowd.

 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

This has been the case from the dawn of 3rd edition, excluding that brief moment when the 3.5 codex was a thing.

Wayniac wrote:

 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

This has been the case from the dawn of 3rd edition, excluding that brief moment when the 3.5 codex was a thing.

See?

The 3rd Ed. codex was more than playable, the 3.5 codex was a mass of imbalance and overpower.

 Just Tony wrote:

 First Among Gators wrote:

 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.

 Trickstick wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:
They should release the two missing primarchs and one should be a woman.

Thanks, I needed the free salt.

They both are, and one fell to chaos.

They were destroyed because they could birth new space marines.

Wouldn't that be an advantage?

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.