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.

ccs wrote:
My most unpopular opinion amongst those that I currently play with is: Vehicles need firing arcs. Even simplistic ones would help

No thanks - it's ultimately meaningless and obnoxious to legislate during a game.

 r_squared wrote:
I think Astra Militarum are boring, and unimaginitive, and seem to be for people who take themselves far too seriously.
The game has a plethora of superhumans, aliens and mutants to chose from and some people still chose tanks, and dudes with rifles. May as well just play Bolt Action (a fine game) rather than mess about in a sci-fi universe.

My favorite part about Bolt Action is the ability to field entire companies of nuclear-powered multi-turreted tanks with an artificial intelligence and 11-man crew...

...oh wait.

Far too many people take this game seriously, the "rules" have always been stated as guidelines. And only in tournament play should they be ridgedly adhered to.

Orks are better shots than the rules has them. It should not take 100 orks firing to kill 1 space marine. Really irritates me the way everyone thinks of orks as dumb, and all there kit is about to fall to bits.

Agree with the opinions that 40k got too big, I like playing big battles too, but it is meant to be a skirmish game, not Epic, we had a perfectly good game for huge battles.

 Grimtuff wrote:
The HH series should have never been written.
Primarchs have no place in 40k
AoS will be a mistake in the long run
Primaris are terrible and out of scale. Cadians are the problem- not marines. This whole "bigger is better" paradigm just seems like small knob syndrome to me.
40k is a setting, not a storyline- no matter what Reddit says.
Titans have no place in 40k
I think painting guides are bad and homogenising an art form. They have their place, but they're guidelines- not rules.
Tau should be a republic of loads of minor alien races and not big battlesuits all the time. Both can exist in their background (and they do) but only one gets proper representation.
Memes killed people's correct appreciation of 40k's fluff.
Metal is not the devil incarnate
Plastic is not the saviour
Parts should be made out the material that is most appropriate. PP gets this yet GW wants to go plastic all the way at the expense of easily breakable spindly bits that by rights should be metal.

1. Agree
2.not sure
3.disagree
4.strongly disagree. Old marines look derpy
5.agree.
6.only disagree in very rare circumstances
7. Agree but handy as a learning tool not a guide. And they give you a good look at a new model.
8.agree. It’s the only thing that’s interesting about them.
9. Memes and the HH series.
10. Kind of is. Kills brushes and don’t like it.
11. But it is.
12. All plastic all the time.

I have a marine chapter with female marines in it and the fluff states that females actually take implants better than male marines and it was covered up because the emperor was a big old Harvey Weinstein.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Camkierhi wrote:
Far too many people take this game seriously, the "rules" have always been stated as guidelines. And only in tournament play should they be ridgedly adhered to.

Orks are better shots than the rules has them. It should not take 100 orks firing to kill 1 space marine. Really irritates me the way everyone thinks of orks as dumb, and all there kit is about to fall to bits.

Agree with the opinions that 40k got too big, I like playing big battles too, but it is meant to be a skirmish game, not Epic, we had a perfectly good game for huge battles.

Agree with a lot of this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disagree on the paints issue. GW make some great paints. Not all but their reds and yellows are hard to beat and the new metallics are cracking. Their shades are comparable to anyone else’s. And waaagh flesh is just lovely. I use other paints too but hating on GW paints is cutting your nose off to spite your face with certain colours. Use the best paint for the colour unare painting, be it Vallejo or citadel or whoever.

8th edition is a side shift of 7th and just as bad in its own way, people have been convinced by GW marketing that it’s better

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ccs wrote:
My most unpopular opinion amongst those that I currently play with is: Vehicles need firing arcs. Even simplistic ones would help

No thanks - it's ultimately meaningless and obnoxious to legislate during a game.

See what I mean? There's people who can't even handle drawing a straight line down the side of their tank & realizing that it'd indeed be silly to try and claim that the left side sponson could shoot out the right side of the tank.... Or agreeing that a gun in an obviously front only facing mount (ex: a vindicators main gun) can't fire out the rear of the tank.
I mean, I'm not asking you to do rocket science or micro-calculations or anything here.

GW writes rules to sell more miniatures, not to make a good game.

GW's main virtue is it gives people who sell crack to kids on p[playgrounds someone to feel morally superior to...

1. Horus Heresy is a significantly better game than 40k

2. 8th edition is one of the worst 40k editions.

3. I liked the faces in the previews for the new sisters of battle models, I saw a lot of people say they look too manly.

4. Primarchs shouldn't be in 40k.

5. I miss templates and firing arcs

ccs wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ccs wrote:
My most unpopular opinion amongst those that I currently play with is: Vehicles need firing arcs. Even simplistic ones would help

No thanks - it's ultimately meaningless and obnoxious to legislate during a game.

See what I mean? There's people who can't even handle drawing a straight line down the side of their tank & realizing that it'd indeed be silly to try and claim that the left side sponson could shoot out the right side of the tank.... Or agreeing that a gun in an obviously front only facing mount (ex: a vindicators main gun) can't fire out the rear of the tank.
I mean, I'm not asking you to do rocket science or micro-calculations or anything here.

See what I mean? There's people that can't even handle that the battle is an abstraction and think the tank never moves during the whole game and who can't realize that pointing a model that can't use all of it's weapons all of the time is really difficult.

And yes, it is a micro calculation with a 48" weapon with an unsteady hand when millimeters matter - especially when the tank isn't a box.

Primaris marines were a good idea.

8th is one of the best editions.
Primaris Marines are brilliant.
Horus' fall wasn't THAT bad.
Advancing the storyline was a good move.
Making jokes about Guilliman's name is kinda poor humour.
Primarchs are cool.
The Horus Heresy series is pretty good.
40k does have a defined canon, it's just that people choose to ignore the new canon in favour of old fluff.
The new GW management is the best it's been.

And the kicker:
Power Level is preferable to points.

Every single traitor legion faction needs its own codex. Every single one.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

And the kicker:
Power Level is preferable to points.

You're fired. Get out.

Tournament regulars (GT size and up,) tend to be some of the best sportsmen in the game, and are warm and welcoming. They also tend to understand the game from a balance standpoint better thanks to a lot of experience with different armies, opponents, and mission packs. (As well as actually knowing the rules.)

Small shop/garage groups, on the other hand, tend to have a much higher concentration of that-guy behavior. Prejudice based on your army and list choices, vocal lobbying for house rules that buff their army and nerf the rest, and outright cheating in games with nothing on the line, among other things, are common. They also tend to think they understand the game better than others despite a woeful lack of experience and exposure.

ccs wrote:
See what I mean? There's people who can't even handle drawing a straight line down the side of their tank & realizing that it'd indeed be silly to try and claim that the left side sponson could shoot out the right side of the tank.... Or agreeing that a gun in an obviously front only facing mount (ex: a vindicators main gun) can't fire out the rear of the tank.
I mean, I'm not asking you to do rocket science or micro-calculations or anything here.

Let me guess, you also tell your opponent he can't fire his SM at the target right in front of them because they clearly point their guns to the side?

I like how there are people who can't even notice they are OK with 90% of the models on the table being perfectly able to fire out of their butts but suddenly become anal about the remaining 10%...

1) Tau have no place in 40K

2) Close combat should be the main focus of the game

3) Any army that doesn't do assault is lame as feth

4) 40k is not sci fi, it's Fantasy in space.

5) Primaris fluff is garbage

6) The Primarchs shouldn't come back to 40K

7) 8th ed is just as bad as 7th edition, just in the polar opposite direction.

 Formosa wrote:
8th edition is a side shift of 7th and just as bad in its own way, people have been convinced by GW marketing that it’s better

Hold on a second, I'm just phoning up Peachy and Duncan so I can ask them to tell me how to respond to you.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I believe that close-quarters combat should not form the core element of lists. CQC units should provide support in form of skirmishing and interference. If I wanted to play a game about large blocks of soldiers fighting with swords, I'd have played Fantasy or some other medieval-based game.

Space Marine helmets are ugly as f***. At least they're not Terminators: tactical marine bodies look okay; there's nothing good about terminators.

Do you mean MK 6 or MK 7? I have to agree that the helmets of MK V, VII, and VIII all look like gak with that "le darth vader" angry face grille. MK II and mostly MK VI looks like something competently designed.

 Lotus Corgi wrote:
Every single traitor legion faction needs its own codex. Every single one.

Including the members of "Cabal 47"

47 Traitor Primarchs that Lorgar kept hidden from the emperor during the heresy.

 Irbis wrote:

ccs wrote:
See what I mean? There's people who can't even handle drawing a straight line down the side of their tank & realizing that it'd indeed be silly to try and claim that the left side sponson could shoot out the right side of the tank.... Or agreeing that a gun in an obviously front only facing mount (ex: a vindicators main gun) can't fire out the rear of the tank.
I mean, I'm not asking you to do rocket science or micro-calculations or anything here.

Let me guess, you also tell your opponent he can't fire his SM at the target right in front of them because they clearly point their guns to the side?

I like how there are people who can't even notice they are OK with 90% of the models on the table being perfectly able to fire out of their butts but suddenly become anal about the remaining 10%...

Lol I know right! I noticed this too. They don’t seem to have a problem with a biker pulling some crazy flip to fire his front mounted guns behind him, or a stormsurge pulls some John Wick nonsense, but an arbitrary class of models that used to have firing arcs can’t possibly fire while turning!

 Irbis wrote:

ccs wrote:
See what I mean? There's people who can't even handle drawing a straight line down the side of their tank & realizing that it'd indeed be silly to try and claim that the left side sponson could shoot out the right side of the tank.... Or agreeing that a gun in an obviously front only facing mount (ex: a vindicators main gun) can't fire out the rear of the tank.
I mean, I'm not asking you to do rocket science or micro-calculations or anything here.

Let me guess, you also tell your opponent he can't fire his SM at the target right in front of them because they clearly point their guns to the side?

I like how there are people who can't even notice they are OK with 90% of the models on the table being perfectly able to fire out of their butts but suddenly become anal about the remaining 10%...

It takes roughly a second or two for infantry to turn around and fire their weapon, possibly even less. Even a monster could probably whip around and fire off shots easily. A tank however has to either traverse the gun (which can take a while) or physically turn the tank around on its treads into a new facing. Both of which takes a lot longer than to simply turn around on your heel, take aim, and fire. Which also takes long enough that it should justify that it takes to turn around.

There is also no excuse at all for aircraft firing out of their arse. Aircraft should only be able to shoot at anything visible from the front of their initial starting space and their ending space in the movement phase. They shouldn't be able to shoot at infantry that is directly behind them and they never even flew over.

While we're talking about flyers, they shouldn't exist at the scale of 40k, their movement is clumsy and makes no sense.

 Aaranis wrote:
While we're talking about flyers, they shouldn't exist at the scale of 40k, their movement is clumsy and makes no sense.

Yeah they don't really work on the board at all. I love flight sims and I've never gotten over the idea of how the hell a jet is supposed to be on the table for anything longer than a single turn before instantly crossing it. It feels like to me that while maybe there should be something akin to an attack chopper or flying battlesuits, aircraft are more of a special ability or stratagem these days. Pay 3CP, draw a line down the table and everything on either side of the line for 5" gets hit by X amount of hits.

Just did some math, going by marine model height (7 feet to 3.3 cm), the table's roughly 259 feet wide "in scale". Even something as slow as an A-10 warthog (which there isn't, most 40k aircraft are insanely quick) would clear the table width-wise in under a second. In order for aircraft to take 3 turns to fly off the board, they'd have be travelling slower than a car. Or 40k takes place at a "speed" of under 1/3 of a second.

Flyers and Lords of war should never have been made in 40k scale.
The 3rd edition force org chart was better than what we have now.
Tau should not have suits bigger than crisis
Jervis Johnson is a great rules writer

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
1) Tau have no place in 40K

2) Close combat should be the main focus of the game

3) Any army that doesn't do assault is lame as feth

4) 40k is not sci fi, it's Fantasy in space.

5) Primaris fluff is garbage

6) The Primarchs shouldn't come back to 40K

7) 8th ed is just as bad as 7th edition, just in the polar opposite direction.

Question: By assault do you mean strictly melee? I'm building a Tempestus Scions list, and they are masters of close quarters shooting (not in melee, just within 9 inches), which could be construed as assault.

Boardgame plastic is the way forward.

 Aaranis wrote:
ITC ruleset is not Warhammer 40,000.

Thats not an opinion its a fact, ITC is a different game with warhammer models.

Primarchs are terrible for the 40k game

Invulns are too abundant and should have been made into Ward saves with the new edition

The people who believe that there are too many people who "take the game too seriously" are more harmful to the game than WAAC players.

Dark Imperium and Plague War are some of the best fluff I’ve read.

Primaris look much better than mini marines.

 Graysparrow wrote:
Special Characters / Named Characters need to go back to being 'with opponents permission only' in (matched) games.

That's not just fact, it's cold hard opinion.