Poll |
 |
|
 |
Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 14:13:35
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Perfect Shot Black Templar Predator Pilot
|
Which one faction would you remove from the 40k setting and why?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 14:19:43
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Human Auxiliary to the Empire
|
(I expect people only voted tau empire because they know that tau are a good army and the lose to them)
(I am also going to get hate for this)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 0041/12/16 00:23:04
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Slippery Scout Biker
SPARTA
|
Tau and necrons are 2 of the most popular.
what a surprise
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/15 14:24:39
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 14:30:30
Subject: Re:Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Xeno-Hating Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
Tau, of course.
I am surprised that some people voted Inquisition. The big ][ are the quintessence of 40k climate!
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 14:32:37
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc
The darkness between the stars
|
Woops meant to click Necrons. Now, don't get me wrong. I find at least their own premise to be cool. But they are the, we are you but better everybody++;
More numerous then orks, better tech then eldar, etc, etc, etc. Also orbital star destroyer cause why not and the eldar that are reported to have the general best divination units? NAw necrons that can't be psykers have somebody that can predict perfectly everything about the future.
In terms of tau... Eh. I don't really like them honestly, but I also get what they are supposed to represent. The under dog. The army that is still making new tech and at a quick rate, a hopeful race to represent the smaller xenos races within the galaxy but too minor to have a codex for them. And that is what I like about them (on another note my favorite turn is assault and well tau are the opposite of that so....)
|
2375
/ 1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 14:36:01
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka
|
Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels. Marines are Marines, and if they can wrap Templars into the main Marine dex, they can wrap these in too. All other factions are actually worth keeping.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 14:40:37
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Slippery Scout Biker
SPARTA
|
Redbeard wrote:Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels. Marines are Marines, and if they can wrap Templars into the main Marine dex, they can wrap these in too. All other factions are actually worth keeping.
I do see where you are coming from but i think gw are trying to get as big a variety as possible of mankind armies for people who don't want to play as aliens (some people I know genuinely refuse to play alien or vice versa)
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/15 14:41:26
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 14:46:24
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Cosmic Joe
|
I'd vote "none" if there was that choice. Every faction, no matter how much you think you are justified in disliking them, is the favorite faction of someone else. There are some factions I wouldn't play, but they each have their place in Warhammer. I've been around since RT and I welcome all factions to the table.
|
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 14:58:53
Subject: Re:Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
West Midlands (UK)
|
Imperial Guard
Keep the Sci-Fi/Fantasy Sci-Fi/Fantasy and leave the Rambo-knock-offs and Tanks to Bolt Action or whatever.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 15:05:27
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Agile Revenant Titan
In the Casualty section of a Blood Bowl dugout
|
Are we on about removing an army from the table-top wargame, or from the background lore? Most people's answers would be different depending which one it is, I imagine.
I'd probably vote some Space Marine chapter (like Dark Angels, or something) for both instances because I think we have plenty of Space Marines already, thank you very much.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 15:05:49
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Wight Lord with the Sword of Kings
|
Space Wolves.
Seriously. They're not cool. Automatically Appended Next Post: MWHistorian wrote:I'd vote "none" if there was that choice. Every faction, no matter how much you think you are justified in disliking them, is the favorite faction of someone else. There are some factions I wouldn't play, but they each have their place in Warhammer. I've been around since RT and I welcome all factions to the table.
Good point.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/15 15:06:07
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 15:09:20
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
I said Space Marines. I know without them there would be no 40K, but from a non SM player (well I do play Dark Angles, but since they are not in the SM codex  ) just tired of them getting allot of the goodies, while a lot of Xenos get neglected.
Also I play Tyranids. I want to play Tyranids. Why does the army play like Space Marines? If I wanted to play SM, I would play SM. I want Nids to be different. Here is hoping the new codex will be different.
Also to anyone who says Nids play Different here is why I say this.
Before SM were slower. They moved what 4" per turn. Now they move at 6" per turn like everyone does now. Free buff for them. Nerf for other armies who moved faster with no point costs adjusted.
Then Nids and Eldar could run. Now SM can run for free. Again, Nids and Eldar had to pay for those point costs, (points included in their profile) while SM get them for free.
SM gets grenades for free, and can pick ammo when before they had to choose. So basically a non thinking army choose what and when you want. Makes it easier.
So basically SM get easier and cheaper and free stuff, while other armies don't. Gets frustrating at times.
|
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong". |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 15:37:57
Subject: Re:Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Hellish Haemonculus
|
Tyranids. They have no characterization, their fluff is practically nonexistent. The only reason I can see to play their army is so you can 'win' a game against other people without having to get involved in the universe.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 15:46:16
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets
|
Alternate Space Marines, specially the Space Wolves.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 16:17:01
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Crushing Black Templar Crusader Pilot
|
Redbeard wrote:Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels. Marines are Marines, and if they can wrap Templars into the main Marine dex, they can wrap these in too. All other factions are actually worth keeping.
A solid answer with no drawbacks.
|
BLACK TEMPLARS - 2000 0RkZ - 2000 NIDZ - WIP STEEL LEGION - WIP
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 16:44:47
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
I'd take out the Tau.
I wanted to say Space Marines, because of being Mary Sues, but then I wouldn't have my CSM.
So I decided Tau would have to take one for the team.
Damn space communists...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 16:50:46
Subject: Re:Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Hardened Veteran Guardsman
Cadia
|
Eldar. I find them extremely boring, except for the banshees.
Damn Tau and Necron haters! Purge them all!
|
Savior of Tartarus
Veteran of the assault on Lorn V
Conqueror of Kronus
Lord of the Kaurava system
Hero of the Aurelian Crusade |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 16:52:00
Subject: Re:Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Brigadier General
The new Sick Man of Europe
|
STOP HATING ON TAU.
OT: Sisters of battle, we have enough imperial fractions.
|
DC:90+S+G++MB++I--Pww211+D++A++/fWD390R++T(F)DM+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 17:01:05
Subject: Re:Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre
Missouri
|
Why does anything need to be removed? Is there not enough room in the universe for more than four factions all of a sudden?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/15 17:01:25
Desubot wrote:Why isnt Slut Wars: The Sexpocalypse a real game dammit.
"It's easier to change the rules than to get good at the game." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 17:03:29
Subject: Re:Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Brigadier General
The new Sick Man of Europe
|
Sidstyler wrote:Why does anything need to be removed? Is there not enough room in the universe for more than four factions all of a sudden?
What are you going on about? there are at least 12 factions in 40k.
|
DC:90+S+G++MB++I--Pww211+D++A++/fWD390R++T(F)DM+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 17:09:32
Subject: Re:Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar
|
TT Wise: Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Dark Angels. Just make a big C:SM with special chapter tactics for each variant chapter.
Fluff wise: Necrons and Tyranids. Necrons are cool as a concept but, as others pointed out, they really are just a "We are better than you so die" faction. If they had some weaknesses like most other factions then I'd be okay with this but they don't seem to have any. Tyranids too. Boring army with ugly models. I think Chaos should be the ultimate threat since at least Chaos is interesting.
|
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 17:16:29
Subject: Re:Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces
|
Nothing must be removed. If anything we need more factions, not less. However, if I were forced to remove one, I would pick Tau, because they are stupid anime fan crap. And people who hate on SM are probably just jealous because they get so much attention Dark Angels and Blood Angels could be merged into the C: SM, but SW probably not, as their organisation is radically different. They do not use any 'standard' marine units at all. Necrons are cool IMO, but their fluff could do with some rewriting. Orks, IG, Eldar and Tyranids are just plain awesome.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/15 17:20:52
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 17:17:04
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc
The darkness between the stars
|
Rory1432 wrote: Redbeard wrote:Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels. Marines are Marines, and if they can wrap Templars into the main Marine dex, they can wrap these in too. All other factions are actually worth keeping.
I do see where you are coming from but i think gw are trying to get as big a variety as possible of mankind armies for people who don't want to play as aliens (some people I know genuinely refuse to play alien or vice versa)
So that warrants the Imperium of Mankind having... Inquisition, SoB, GK, BA, DA, SW, SM, Imperial Guard = 8 codices?
Heck, chaos, a prime threat that infects imperial citizens, marines, xenos, and then you have the daemons itself are crammed into 2 codices and have no real way of representing the xenos parts and hardly can offer any way to properly represent the infected citizens and guardsman  . And then you have xenos that each have vast or unique races that rely upon a total of 1 book each (and in the end being xenos = 6 codices. There are 8 codices of Imperial and 8 non-imperial codices I dunno just find it silly
|
2375
/ 1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 17:17:26
Subject: Re:Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Brigadier General
The new Sick Man of Europe
|
I playDA but I have to say they could be just like BT rules-wise.
|
DC:90+S+G++MB++I--Pww211+D++A++/fWD390R++T(F)DM+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 17:20:51
Subject: Re:Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
Ugly? Who're you calling ugly?
Fluffy here is utterly beautiful:
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/15 17:22:10
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 17:24:09
Subject: Re:Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc
The darkness between the stars
|
Selym wrote:Ugly? Who're you calling ugly?
Fluffy here is utterly beautiful:

Take one home today. All he needs is a bit of love, paint, and copious amounts of biomass per day and will eventually consume you too. Buy now! (then again, I can't say much, I think a couple zerglings are somewhat cute and Kog'maw is absolutely adorable and I love ymgarl genestealers but i think that's more because I see lovecraft)
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/15 17:25:29
2375
/ 1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 17:25:53
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar
|
I vote for None. They're all interesting with detailed back stories and Lore.
It was way before my time (as I only heard of Warhammer 40K about 2003 when I began reading White Dwarf, and didn't begin playing it myself until 2008 with 5th Ed) but I'd be in favour of bringing back and updating the Squats as a playable race - perhaps as a mini -Codex supplement similar to Inquisition. IIRC Mantic Games have some Space Dwarf - like miniatures for their War Path range that might work well as proxies.
All these races have an important place in the fluff, game and player's affections and to just yank out an entire race deleting it from the fluff and game would leave a massive gaping hole.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/15 17:28:48
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 17:26:57
Subject: Re:Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
StarTrotter wrote: Selym wrote:Ugly? Who're you calling ugly?
Fluffy here is utterly beautiful:

Take one home today. All he needs is a bit of love, paint, and copious amounts of biomass per day and will eventually consume you too. Buy now!
Special offer!
Buy one Tervigon, and recieve unlimited baby Gaunts for free!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 17:27:28
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces
|
StarTrotter wrote:Rory1432 wrote: Redbeard wrote:Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels. Marines are Marines, and if they can wrap Templars into the main Marine dex, they can wrap these in too. All other factions are actually worth keeping.
I do see where you are coming from but i think gw are trying to get as big a variety as possible of mankind armies for people who don't want to play as aliens (some people I know genuinely refuse to play alien or vice versa)
So that warrants the Imperium of Mankind having... Inquisition, SoB, GK, BA, DA, SW, SM, Imperial Guard = 8 codices?
Heck, chaos, a prime threat that infects imperial citizens, marines, xenos, and then you have the daemons itself are crammed into 2 codices and have no real way of representing the xenos parts and hardly can offer any way to properly represent the infected citizens and guardsman  . And then you have xenos that each have vast or unique races that rely upon a total of 1 book each (and in the end being xenos = 6 codices. There are 8 codices of Imperial and 8 non-imperial codices I dunno just find it silly 
I think the size of the IoM warrants it. About 80% of the universe belongs to the IoM. It is by far the largest faction and thus really needs the variety. Otherwise 40k would become a much more boring place. Chaos does really need its The Lost and the Dammned codex back though.
|
Error 404: Interesting signature not found
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/12/15 17:32:35
Subject: Which faction would you remove from the 40k setting?
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
Iron_Captain wrote: StarTrotter wrote:Rory1432 wrote: Redbeard wrote:Space Wolves, Blood Angels, and Dark Angels. Marines are Marines, and if they can wrap Templars into the main Marine dex, they can wrap these in too. All other factions are actually worth keeping.
I do see where you are coming from but i think gw are trying to get as big a variety as possible of mankind armies for people who don't want to play as aliens (some people I know genuinely refuse to play alien or vice versa)
So that warrants the Imperium of Mankind having... Inquisition, SoB, GK, BA, DA, SW, SM, Imperial Guard = 8 codices?
Heck, chaos, a prime threat that infects imperial citizens, marines, xenos, and then you have the daemons itself are crammed into 2 codices and have no real way of representing the xenos parts and hardly can offer any way to properly represent the infected citizens and guardsman  . And then you have xenos that each have vast or unique races that rely upon a total of 1 book each (and in the end being xenos = 6 codices. There are 8 codices of Imperial and 8 non-imperial codices I dunno just find it silly 
I think the size of the IoM warrants it. About 80% of the universe belongs to the IoM. It is by far the largest faction and thus really needs the variety. Otherwise 40k would become a much more boring place. Chaos does really need its The Lost and the Dammned codex back though.
Yes, and we could do with a mercenary dex too.
And something to represent a planet's local gribblies. I really wanna see how that towel-monster from catachan would work on the TT
|
|
 |
 |
|