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.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
He's a named Space Marine Chapter Master with some backstory. He's not THAT significant, powerful, or rare, is he? What sets him apart from any other Chapter Master?

Honestly, I recommend you go read about him first before I attempt to explain his significance in both the Blood Angel's Chapter and in the Imperium of Man:

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Dante

Oh, he's the Blood Angels' Gary Stu. That explains it then.

Guess he can be Apocalypse-only then.

I mean if you want to condense fluff into one overly coined phrase, sure; pretty sure you can call every Space Marine a Gary Stu on that basis though.

He used to be an HQ before the LoW system, IIRC

 General Annoyance wrote:
I mean if you want to condense fluff into one overly coined phrase, sure; pretty sure you can call every Space Marine a Gary Stu on that basis though.

He used to be an HQ before the LoW system, IIRC

He's not an HQ anymore, now he's a Lord of War.

If he legitimately belongs there, then he can stay the hell out of normal games and stick to Apocalypse-level battles where he claims to belong.

He'd be fine as a normal HQ in some sort of new edition.

 Blacksails wrote:
He'd be fine as a normal HQ in some sort of new edition.

Good.

Then he can stop pretending he's hot stuff that deserves special recognition, and sit in the HQ category with the other Chapter Masters.

 Pouncey wrote:
He's not an HQ anymore, now he's a Lord of War.

Doesn't mean he should be - I haven't played against him since 5th, so I'd need to read his rules, but ultimately such a point could be up for debate if he's roughly the same as he was when he was an HQ.

If he legitimately belongs there, then he can stay the hell out of normal games and stick to Apocalypse-level battles where he claims to belong.

You make it sound like it's a fictional character's fault for being powerful.

Also, define normal game in 40k. While LoW's shouldn't be allowed in games that are too small to counteract their abilities, they shouldn't just be limited to 3000+ point games.

EDIT: a misread. Probably because I'm hungry and tired

 Pouncey wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Annoyance wrote:
Chapter Master*

And he's a LoW because LoW's are done based on how powerful they are as a unit, as well as their rarity and/or significance. The presence of Dante is all three of those things - powerful, significant and incredibly rare.

He's a named Space Marine Chapter Master with some backstory. He's not THAT significant, powerful, or rare, is he? What sets him apart from any other Chapter Master?

A bunch of Chapter Masters (Calgar, Azrael, Dante, Grimnar, Draigo) got stuck in LoW with no actual stat changes in 7th for no readily apparent reason. And yet generic Chapter Masters and Helbrecht got left in HQ, for no readily apparent reason.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
He's not an HQ anymore, now he's a Lord of War.

Doesn't mean he should be - I haven't played against him since 5th, so I'd need to read his rules, but ultimately such a point could be up for debate if he's roughly the same as he was when he was an HQ.

You were just arguing to me that he meets the trifecta of criteria for being a Lord of War.

Should he be an HQ, or should he be a Lord of War?

I don't care which he is. If he wants to be an HQ, he can be a normal named HQ. If he wants to be a Lord of War, he can stay with the Baneblades and Emperor Titans in Apocalypse.

If he legitimately belongs there, then he can stay the hell out of normal games and stick to Apocalypse-level battles where he claims to belong.

You make it sound like it's a fictional character's fault for being powerful.

Also, define normal game in 40k. While LoW's shouldn't be allowed in games that are too small to counteract their abilities, they shouldn't just be limited to 3000+ point games.

If you want to bring in a Lord of War to a normal game, construct a specific scenario around it.

Also, no, I just have no tolerance for super-special Space Marine characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Annoyance wrote:
Chapter Master*

And he's a LoW because LoW's are done based on how powerful they are as a unit, as well as their rarity and/or significance. The presence of Dante is all three of those things - powerful, significant and incredibly rare.

He's a named Space Marine Chapter Master with some backstory. He's not THAT significant, powerful, or rare, is he? What sets him apart from any other Chapter Master?

A bunch of Chapter Masters (Calgar, Azrael, Dante, Grimnar, Draigo) got stuck in LoW with no actual stat changes in 7th for no readily apparent reason. And yet generic Chapter Masters and Helbrecht got left in HQ, for no readily apparent reason.

Then either cram them all back into HQ where they belong, or leave them in Apocalypse with the other Lords of War.

 Pouncey wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Annoyance wrote:
Chapter Master*

And he's a LoW because LoW's are done based on how powerful they are as a unit, as well as their rarity and/or significance. The presence of Dante is all three of those things - powerful, significant and incredibly rare.

He's a named Space Marine Chapter Master with some backstory. He's not THAT significant, powerful, or rare, is he? What sets him apart from any other Chapter Master?

A bunch of Chapter Masters (Calgar, Azrael, Dante, Grimnar, Draigo) got stuck in LoW with no actual stat changes in 7th for no readily apparent reason. And yet generic Chapter Masters and Helbrecht got left in HQ, for no readily apparent reason.

Then either cram them all back into HQ where they belong, or leave them in Apocalypse with the other Lords of War.

...My point was that 'Lords of War' is a silly category that needs to be chopped up and described sensibly more generally. Moving all the HQ units that got stuck there for no good reason back into HQ would be a good start. Restricting a 155pt five-Wound MC (the Avatar) or half the Chapter Masers but not the other half to Apocalypse-only because "he's a Lord of War!" would be moronic.

 Pouncey wrote:
You were just arguing to me that he meets the trifecta of criteria for being a Lord of War.

Should he be an HQ, or should he be a Lord of War?

I don't care which he is. If he wants to be an HQ, he can be a normal named HQ. If he wants to be a Lord of War, he can stay with the Baneblades and Emperor Titans in Apocalypse.

He meets the criteria that GW set around LoW's, yes. That doesn't mean he's necessarily one, or that the LoW system makes any sense overall.

If you want to bring in a Lord of War to a normal game, construct a specific scenario around it.

Also, no, I just have no tolerance for super-special Space Marine characters.

Why though? There's no reason to do that if there are enough points on the field to counterbalance having such a unit present.

Escalation is also a format that is played, although I don't know much about it.

I don't understand how people get so riled up about Space Marines being so heroic and over the top, in an over the top universe where they are described as essentially being the heroes that save the day (not that they always can, or do). Seems like such a petty argument to make when it's in the same universe with massive bio predators and magical daemons and sorcerers.

 General Annoyance wrote:
...I don't understand how people get so riled up about Space Marines being so heroic and over the top, in an over the top universe where they are described as essentially being the heroes that save the day (not that they always can, or do). Seems like such a petty argument to make when it's in the same universe with massive bio predators and magical daemons and sorcerers.

Mostly because the way GW writes it they sound like squeeing twelve-year-olds going on about comic book characters and it all sounds thoroughly stupid.

I've been ignoring fluff/canon since GW's editors read Matt Ward's draft of the 5e Space Marines book and not only didn't fire him but gave him another contract (and didn't report him to the police after the Khornate Knights incident). It's helpful for preserving sanity.

Personally I've always been able to believe the lore easily due to the over the top setup of the whole universe - it's never really struck me as a universe where such heroic stories can suspend belief or be considered to be rather silly overall. After all, stories are usually only known because they involved defying the expected outcome against all the odds. Sadly, that's ironically backfired, as most people will simply know that, whenever Space Marines are involved, it's going to be a win for the Imperium.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...My point was that 'Lords of War' is a silly category that needs to be chopped up and described sensibly more generally. Moving all the HQ units that got stuck there for no good reason back into HQ would be a good start. Restricting a 155pt five-Wound MC (the Avatar) or half the Chapter Masers but not the other half to Apocalypse-only because "he's a Lord of War!" would be moronic.

Then I agree.

I thought you were suggesting creating two categories of Lords of War, one of which would be Apoc-only, the other of which could be used in standard games or Apoc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
...I don't understand how people get so riled up about Space Marines being so heroic and over the top, in an over the top universe where they are described as essentially being the heroes that save the day (not that they always can, or do). Seems like such a petty argument to make when it's in the same universe with massive bio predators and magical daemons and sorcerers.

Mostly because the way GW writes it they sound like squeeing twelve-year-olds going on about comic book characters and it all sounds thoroughly stupid.

I've been ignoring fluff/canon since GW's editors read Matt Ward's draft of the 5e Space Marines book and not only didn't fire him but gave him another contract (and didn't report him to the police after the Khornate Knights incident). It's helpful for preserving sanity.

I do a lot of roleplaying and I was an avid reader of Baen sci-fi in my younger years. I'm also a major lore nerd and I take fiction way, WAY too seriously.

Games Workshop's lore is excruciating to read.

I've also developed a general sensitivity to Space Marines being treated as overly special. It's gotten worse as years go by and more and more 40k video games about Space Marines are released. It's gotten to the point where the instant I see or read that a new 40k game is about Space Marines, I lose all interest and shut off the video or close the article. I don't even bother to find out what genre of video game it is anymore.

An exceptionally sensitive area is Space Marines being treated super-specially though. I think it started years ago when Grey Knights had a rule about letting other Space Marine chapters live after witnessing demons, purely because of how special Space Marines are. It's gotten worse over the years.

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...My point was that 'Lords of War' is a silly category that needs to be chopped up and described sensibly more generally. Moving all the HQ units that got stuck there for no good reason back into HQ would be a good start. Restricting a 155pt five-Wound MC (the Avatar) or half the Chapter Masers but not the other half to Apocalypse-only because "he's a Lord of War!" would be moronic.

Then I agree.

I thought you were suggesting creating two categories of Lords of War, one of which would be Apoc-only, the other of which could be used in standard games or Apoc.

I thought I was suggesting setting the 'Lords of War' designation on fire, sticking non-Superheavy/GC units that are currently Lords of War back into HQ, inventing a category for small-scale superheavies to be legal in larger 40k games but not in smaller games, and inventing a category for really massive superheavies to be legal in Apocalypse only.

 General Annoyance wrote:
Personally I've always been able to believe the lore easily due to the over the top setup of the whole universe - it's never really struck me as a universe where such heroic stories can suspend belief or be considered to be rather silly overall. After all, stories are usually only known because they involved defying the expected outcome against all the odds. Sadly, that's ironically backfired, as most people will simply know that, whenever Space Marines are involved, it's going to be a win for the Imperium.

I think it was the 5e BRB which numbered Sisters of Battle in the tens of thousands.

That number was so stupid the only possible conclusion is that the person who came up with it didn't bother to look into Sisters of Battle lore at all. Sisters of Battle are a well-known sight to virtually every citizen in the Imperium. There are a million planets and quadrillions of humans in the Imperium. The conflict there between how recognizable Adepta Sororitas are, and how few of them there are, is so extreme I cannot imagine an adequate analogy to describe it.

Until you go very large or very small (as they've done with Apocalypse and Kill Team) I don't think you need new "rules" per se, but I think a modified army composition wouldn't hurt. However, a lot of folks here seem to get really butt hurt when they can't bring a super heavy tank in a 1,000 point game, etc.

You can be sure of one thing. Whatever decision GW makes...it'll be wrong (somehow, to someone).

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...My point was that 'Lords of War' is a silly category that needs to be chopped up and described sensibly more generally. Moving all the HQ units that got stuck there for no good reason back into HQ would be a good start. Restricting a 155pt five-Wound MC (the Avatar) or half the Chapter Masers but not the other half to Apocalypse-only because "he's a Lord of War!" would be moronic.

Then I agree.

I thought you were suggesting creating two categories of Lords of War, one of which would be Apoc-only, the other of which could be used in standard games or Apoc.

I thought I was suggesting setting the 'Lords of War' designation on fire, sticking non-Superheavy/GC units that are currently Lords of War back into HQ, inventing a category for small-scale superheavies to be legal in larger 40k games but not in smaller games, and inventing a category for really massive superheavies to be legal in Apocalypse only.

I'm saying I misinterpreted what you said, and offered that as merely an explanation of what I was imagining when I wrote the reply.

Yes, I do recognize you are suggesting the end of the Lords of War category and making it so no one brings a Baneblade to a starter league. I approve whole-heartedly.

If I may suggest a way to make certain superheavies legal?

Add the lesser ones to their armies' Codices, as a 0-1 selection with a caveat restricting them from being taken in armies below a certain points value. Perhaps require the opponent's permission as well (Tournament Organizers can allow/disallow in place of an opponent in tournament settings, of course).

Essentially just use the 3e rules for including named special characters in your army with virtually no changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
Until you go very large or very small (as they've done with Apocalypse and Kill Team) I don't think you need new "rules" per se, but I think a modified army composition wouldn't hurt. However, a lot of folks here seem to get really butt hurt when they can't bring a super heavy tank in a 1,000 point game, etc.

I have zero sympathy for those people and I am perfectly comfortable ruining their fun.

You can be sure of one thing. Whatever decision GW makes...it'll be wrong (somehow, to someone).

Of course.

As the saying goes, "You can make all of the people happy some of the time, or you can make some of the people happy all of the time." Essentially the player base encompasses such a large breadth of individuals that any change whatsoever will ruin someone's fun but also make someone else's fun way better. That's why there are always complaints, no matter what changes - different people hate the new changes each time, people who were previously upset but are now sated stop complaining. The trick to designing a game is to recognize that every change will make someone unhappy, and simply accept that as an inevitability, then try to improve the game to make it better.

 Pouncey wrote:
...If I may suggest a way to make certain superheavies legal?

Add the lesser ones to their armies' Codices, as a 0-1 selection with a caveat restricting them from being taken in armies below a certain points value. Perhaps require the opponent's permission as well (Tournament Organizers can allow/disallow in place of an opponent in tournament settings, of course)...

Oh God no. This is how superheavies become incredibly OP. Forge World's superheavies are usually fine (with a few exceptions), it's when GW's design team gets their hands on them that we get units that actually shouldn't be in the game.

About the LoW thingy, GW might go a completely different way.
If you look at AoS, it's not uncommon to a see huge model that makes up for half of the points of an army (sometimes even a 700pts model in a 1Kpts game). These basically correspond to 40K's LoW (the real ones, like the big FW stuff), brought to "normal" sized battles.
But the game mechanics are very different: these big models get weaker as they loose wounds, and because of AoS' fixed to hit/to wound, any unit can deal at least some damage to them (unlike AV14 or T9 creatures that are immune to most things in 40K), so they're less of a problem in that game.

That's not what I would personally like to see in 40K. But I think GW wants people to buy their big models, and it looks like it's working in AoS (at least I often see these huge models on the tables where I play). So maybe they'll try to come up with a way to tone down big stuff to make them work in normal 40K (and maybe fail, resulting in an even worse power creep).

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
...If I may suggest a way to make certain superheavies legal?

Add the lesser ones to their armies' Codices, as a 0-1 selection with a caveat restricting them from being taken in armies below a certain points value. Perhaps require the opponent's permission as well (Tournament Organizers can allow/disallow in place of an opponent in tournament settings, of course)...

Oh God no. This is how superheavies become incredibly OP. Forge World's superheavies are usually fine (with a few exceptions), it's when GW's design team gets their hands on them that we get units that actually shouldn't be in the game.

Huh? No, really, what?

Weren't you JUST suggesting keeping them in large games but out of smaller ones? How were you planning to do that?

And regarding Forge World, has the playerbase become more generally accepting of FW rules? I'm out of the loop but when I checked out there were still arguments about whether FW stuff is legal in standard games or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fresus wrote:
About the LoW thingy, GW might go a completely different way.
If you look at AoS, it's not uncommon to a see huge model that makes up for half of the points of an army (sometimes even a 700pts model in a 1Kpts game). These basically correspond to 40K's LoW (the real ones, like the big FW stuff), brought to "normal" sized battles.
But the game mechanics are very different: these big models get weaker as they loose wounds, and because of AoS' fixed to hit/to wound, any unit can deal at least some damage to them (unlike AV14 or T9 creatures that are immune to most things in 40K), so they're less of a problem in that game.

That's not what I would personally like to see in 40K. But I think GW wants people to buy their big models, and it looks like it's working in AoS (at least I often see these huge models on the tables where I play). So maybe they'll try to come up with a way to tone down big stuff to make them work in normal 40K (and maybe fail, resulting in an even worse power creep).

I'm at a loss for words.

What the feth happened around here in the past two years? Last I heard, Age of Sigmar was utterly despised and people thought any similarities to it should be avoided.

Did I somehow pass into a parallel universe where everything 40k is reversed?

I quite like Age of Sigmar. Its core rules are currently stronger than 40ks, due to the General's Handbook and FAQs.

 Verviedi wrote:
I quite like Age of Sigmar. Its core rules are currently stronger than 40ks, due to the General's Handbook and FAQs.

See, it's statements like that that are weirding me out.

Last time I was a regular here, people didn't say things like that.

The feth happened? GW's being good for the first time in a decade. People like GW. Sisters of Battle are getting their update. Age of Sigmar is loved. Kirby is gone. I even looked up Matt Ward on a Wiki and he's actually okay now.

I dunno what I missed, but I have no idea what's going on in the 40k tabletop realm anymore. Everything's different and it's not letting me be as angry as I want to.

Did someone pray to a deity for the salvation of 40k and a benevolent god granted the request or something?

Why couldn't they just adjust the min model count per unit depending on the points value of the game?

0-500 a unit counts as 2-5 models
501-1000 unit consists of 3-10
1001 - 1500 3-10 and one must be upgraded to sgt.
1501 - 2000 5-10
2000+ there is no min unit and squads must be maxed.

Something like that could work if you put some thought and effort into it.

But for me, I want to go back to the days where special characters were rare. With my group we rarely play above 1500 pts, no special characters, no forgeworld, and no allies. They're some of the most streamlined and quickest games we play.

Nvs wrote:
But for me, I want to go back to the days where special characters were rare. With my group we rarely play above 1500 pts, no special characters, no forgeworld, and no allies. They're some of the most streamlined and quickest games we play.

Honestly I prefer generic HQs to the named ones. The generic ones I can make my own stories around, but I can never stop calling Saint Celestine "Celestine" despite writing some crappy lore for my personal army's not-Celestine.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
I quite like Age of Sigmar. Its core rules are currently stronger than 40ks, due to the General's Handbook and FAQs.

See, it's statements like that that are weirding me out.

Last time I was a regular here, people didn't say things like that.

The feth happened? GW's being good for the first time in a decade. People like GW. Sisters of Battle are getting their update. Age of Sigmar is loved. Kirby is gone. I even looked up Matt Ward on a Wiki and he's actually okay now.

I dunno what I missed, but I have no idea what's going on in the 40k tabletop realm anymore. Everything's different and it's not letting me be as angry as I want to.

Did someone pray to a deity for the salvation of 40k and a benevolent god granted the request or something?

Granted the request? No, not that I know of. After all, I'm not on the design team yet

 Pouncey wrote:
I think it was the 5e BRB which numbered Sisters of Battle in the tens of thousands.

That number was so stupid the only possible conclusion is that the person who came up with it didn't bother to look into Sisters of Battle lore at all. Sisters of Battle are a well-known sight to virtually every citizen in the Imperium. There are a million planets and quadrillions of humans in the Imperium. The conflict there between how recognizable Adepta Sororitas are, and how few of them there are, is so extreme I cannot imagine an adequate analogy to describe it.

That sounds more like an error not accounted for by whoever wrote that piece rather than lore that suspends genuine disbelief within an already exaggerated universe.

 Pouncey wrote:
I dunno what I missed, but I have no idea what's going on in the 40k tabletop realm anymore. Everything's different and it's not letting me be as angry as I want to.

This seems to be a problem with most of the 40k community - they complain when things aren't changing for the better, without either expecting or wanting things to change.

Well GW's battle plan has changed, mostly for the better. They still have a ways to go, but 2016 has overall been quite positive for the hobby. I'm personally hoping for a full SoB release next year, if only because it will finally mean we can be done with the garbage fire Sister threads that appear here every month or so.


Back on topic:

A simple solution would be to impose a percentage limit on units powerful enough to be classified as Lords of War, i.e. such a unit can only be taken provided its points value doesn't exceed a certain percentage of the list it's being deployed in; this would mean that, in order to take a certain unit to the field, you will need enough points in the game to soften the power gap between it and regular units.

The real problem stems from the mistake of GW axing Epic and trying to make 40k do the same thing. This has the dual problem of having the scale of 40k being out but also removes chance for an alternate game. Moving around whole companies, giving orders that aren't immediately acted upon and using transports to actually transport (instead of to rush) and long range artillery support is a different game. One is concerned with occupying a building, the other should be concerned where each solder is firing from in the building.

Which is a long winded way of saying 40k and Epic can be different games and that's not a bad thing. I'd much prefer it to a 40k that tries to be all things and suffers for it.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
I think it was the 5e BRB which numbered Sisters of Battle in the tens of thousands.

That number was so stupid the only possible conclusion is that the person who came up with it didn't bother to look into Sisters of Battle lore at all. Sisters of Battle are a well-known sight to virtually every citizen in the Imperium. There are a million planets and quadrillions of humans in the Imperium. The conflict there between how recognizable Adepta Sororitas are, and how few of them there are, is so extreme I cannot imagine an adequate analogy to describe it.

That sounds more like an error not accounted for by whoever wrote that piece rather than lore that suspends genuine disbelief within an already exaggerated universe.

Well, regardless, it was two editions ago so it's outdated and irrelevant now. It listed the 6 most numerous Major Orders and their numbers of troops, none of which were higher than the low end of five digits. Basically they were less common than Space Marines.

This seems to be a problem with most of the 40k community - they complain when things aren't changing for the better, without either expecting or wanting things to change.

Well GW's battle plan has changed, mostly for the better. They still have a ways to go, but 2016 has overall been quite positive for the hobby. I'm personally hoping for a full SoB release next year, if only because it will finally mean we can be done with the garbage fire Sister threads that appear here every month or so.

That's kinda the thing. I came to this forum recently to rail against GW, but the more I hear, the more I realize that there's no reason to be angry at GW anymore.

I'm one of the people who would be all negative and mopey about Sisters for the past few years, and now I'm happy about what I'm seeing and have no reason to complain anymore.

I come here wanting to be angry, I start complaining, then I find out out the things I wanted to complain about have been improved so much there's no reason for me to complain.

And I basically missed the last year and a half of news because I withdrew from the playerbase and was totally out of the loop, so this is all new to me.

Back on topic:

A simple solution would be to impose a percentage limit on units powerful enough to be classified as Lords of War, i.e. such a unit can only be taken provided its points value doesn't exceed a certain percentage of the list it's being deployed in; this would mean that, in order to take a certain unit to the field, you will need enough points in the game to soften the power gap between it and regular units.

That's a much more fair way to do it than what I suggested, to be sure. Allows the weaker, cheaper Lords of War to see use more often, keeps the ridiculous stuff in high points value games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kojiro wrote:
The real problem stems from the mistake of GW axing Epic and trying to make 40k do the same thing. This has the dual problem of having the scale of 40k being out but also removes chance for an alternate game. Moving around whole companies, giving orders that aren't immediately acted upon and using transports to actually transport (instead of to rush) and long range artillery support is a different game. One is concerned with occupying a building, the other should be concerned where each solder is firing from in the building.

Which is a long winded way of saying 40k and Epic can be different games and that's not a bad thing. I'd much prefer it to a 40k that tries to be all things and suffers for it.

Epic certainly did have its niche. I'd like to see it return someday.

 Pouncey wrote:
Epic certainly did have its niche. I'd like to see it return someday.

The problem is, as I think others have alluded to, that 40k currently is Epic. Ideally GW would come out and say 'ok, this is the cut off, this stuff is just beyond the scale of 28mm' and everything that was in that category would be removed from 40k. Obviously this would be disastrous for customer relations and untenable but it would be what's best for 40k itself (IMO of course).

The real loss though is the different game though. I used to enjoy playing a variety of different games. Sometimes I was in the mood for 40k, other times for Epic, Necromunda or Bloodbowl. I still do that only now my roster includes games like Guildball and WM/H because GW took away my options (granted they've made some progress on this recently). People like options and GW was foolish to try and force all options to be 40k in one mode or another.

 Kojiro wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
Epic certainly did have its niche. I'd like to see it return someday.

The problem is, as I think others have alluded to, that 40k currently is Epic. Ideally GW would come out and say 'ok, this is the cut off, this stuff is just beyond the scale of 28mm' and everything that was in that category would be removed from 40k. Obviously this would be disastrous for customer relations and untenable but it would be what's best for 40k itself (IMO of course).

The real loss though is the different game though. I used to enjoy playing a variety of different games. Sometimes I was in the mood for 40k, other times for Epic, Necromunda or Bloodbowl. I still do that only now my roster includes games like Guildball and WM/H because GW took away my options (granted they've made some progress on this recently). People like options and GW was foolish to try and force all options to be 40k in one mode or another.

Offering gameplay for as wide a variety of interests as possible is a winning strategy in gaming.