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.

 Formosa wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The interesting thing is how different people remember editions.

I remember 5th being... very confrontational. True Line of Sight wasn't in itself an unreasonable thing - but the amount of arguments it produced was amazing. Wound allocation abuse did likewise. People built car parks because they could.

I guess you can say codexes did it in - and maybe this is towards the end of the edition - but I remember BA, SW, GK and Necrons being obnoxious to play - even more so than Taudar. To this day I probably dislike SW and GK the most out of all the factions - and I can only assume this stemmed from 5th or bleed over into 6th.

I think 4th is the only edition that comes close to 8th - and even then you had stupid vehicle rules (and terrible transports), along with a range of other problems (that set us down the path of strangling assault).

How did LoS work in 4th and before?

What were the problems with vehicules/transports rules?

Just for personal knowledge.

area terrain blocked line of sight for all intents and purposes, so that tree line could be seen into but not through, believe it was 3” or 6” into and out of.

This basically means that TLOS was not a thing as the abstraction precluded that.

Those were only the rules for area terrain, which were unique to certain terrain features. The rest of the game used TLOS.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The interesting thing is how different people remember editions.

I remember 5th being... very confrontational. True Line of Sight wasn't in itself an unreasonable thing - but the amount of arguments it produced was amazing. Wound allocation abuse did likewise. People built car parks because they could.

I guess you can say codexes did it in - and maybe this is towards the end of the edition - but I remember BA, SW, GK and Necrons being obnoxious to play - even more so than Taudar. To this day I probably dislike SW and GK the most out of all the factions - and I can only assume this stemmed from 5th or bleed over into 6th.

I think 4th is the only edition that comes close to 8th - and even then you had stupid vehicle rules (and terrible transports), along with a range of other problems (that set us down the path of strangling assault).

How did LoS work in 4th and before?

What were the problems with vehicules/transports rules?

Just for personal knowledge.

area terrain blocked line of sight for all intents and purposes, so that tree line could be seen into but not through, believe it was 3” or 6” into and out of.

This basically means that TLOS was not a thing as the abstraction precluded that.

Those were only the rules for area terrain, which were unique to certain terrain features. The rest of the game used TLOS.

I said it was for area terrain, as almost every price on a table was area terrain it meant that TLOS wasn’t really a thing, if something is in the open then yep TLOS, as soon it’s in or behind cover... TLOS goes out the window.

Backfire wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A lot of people took issue with my post earlier, but forgot my point:

The purpose of a game is fun.

Yes, and this is my issue with 8th edition. It is no fun at all. 7th edition, despite all the crap it had loaded on top of it, was nevertheless fun...sometimes. 8th is never fun. It is boring and featureless and lacks all the visualness and cinematics of the earlier editions. Everything is boring and grey.
Yeah, it takes slightly less time to play but since all that time is mind-numbing boring-ness, net fun is actually much less. Which is why I haven't played a 40k game for 6 months.

Yes, fun is subjective. But popularity is a good indication of it being fun for more people. A business, rightfully, should seek to please as many people as possible, since that achieves 2 goals:
1) Makes business sense, obviously.
2) Brings the greatest pleasure to the greatest number.

Wanting a popular, fun game to change to suit you, alone, is selfish and unhelpful. I won't deny 40k can be improved, but that should be a matter of popular consensus, not a matter of "I want it this way!". The popular consensus for 8th is that it's pretty damn fun, for the people who play it. Silent majority and all that.

Karol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A lot of people took issue with my post earlier, but forgot my point:

The purpose of a game is fun.

The purpose of a McDonalds is not to be healthy. So saying "McDonalds is unhealthy but still popular" is dumb, because McDonalds' purpose is not to be healthy.

Things are popular when they fit their stated purpose, because people know what to expect when they go, they go, and they enjoy it. If that stated purpose appeals to more people, then it'll get more people.

The purpose of Bud Light is to be an affordable and passably good beer. It may not be the "best" beer, but it's not trying to be, because it's goal isn't to be the best. Its goal is to be affordable and passably good.

Similarly, the goal of a hobby wargame is fun. Defense industry wargames have different goals, such as education (training), analytics, and CONOPS development. Similarly, Business wargaming is not concerned with how fun it is.

But GW makes a hobby wargame, and so the goal is fun, and I think 8th edition's popularity compared to earlier editions means it has done better than could have been expected.

As for whether or not it beats some hypothetical perfect 40k? Sure, no, it doesn't, but hypothetical perfection is both utterly subjective and unrealistic simultaneously, so using it as the point of comparison is like complaining that cotton isn't as good at cutting as my knife.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The only problem with this is that, fastfood is cheap, discount beer is ultra cheap specially if it is "tax" free. w40k is probablly many things, but cheap is not one of those things. I think that many people are unhappy about GW games, because once they spend 900-1000$ on an army, they expect to have fun with it when they play. And they do not always seem to get that. Armies that are always good seem to make people happy, have not seen many eldar player pissed at GW, angry BA or orc players are a lot more common.

This is just an issue of money, which is of subjective value. Some people are okay spending $900-$1000 on an army and then having to adjust it and expand their collections now and again to make it fun. Other people would not, but no one's forcing them to.

You are not required to buy discount beer if you want better; similarly, you are not required to buy Warhammer stuff if you find it unfun. However, the crucial difference is that I don't see people who avoid buying Bud Light turning around and saying "No-one else should buy or enjoy this; it's bad and you should feel bad" like I see from people who don't enjoy/like Warhammer.

You are not required to buy discount beer if you want better; similarly, you are not required to buy Warhammer stuff if you find it unfun. However, the crucial difference is that I don't see people who avoid buying Bud Light turning around and saying "No-one else should buy or enjoy this; it's bad and you should feel bad" like I see from people who don't enjoy/like Warhammer.

Ok I think am not getting the example here. There is no other version of GK I could buy for more, or less money. No matter for how much I buy them, they are bad.. I see a ton of people who bought a w40k army and thought, or were told by the selling people that the army they are buying is good, and find out that either they were lied too or the definition of good includes playing and buying twice as many models from other factions.

This is just an issue of money, which is of subjective value. Some people are okay spending $900-$1000 on an army and then having to adjust it and expand their collections now and again to make it fun. Other people would not, but no one's forcing them to.

you don't really see the difference between an eldar player spending 700$ on an army and someone spending 700$ on GK, and getting a totaly different type of product. I armies were cars the GK one would have no engine and would have no way to get a new engine inside, and everyones fix to it being in the forum of buying another car and towing it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
However, the crucial difference is that I don't see people who avoid buying Bud Light turning around and saying "No-one else should buy or enjoy this; it's bad and you should feel bad" like I see from people who don't enjoy/like Warhammer.

You don't know any micro-brew snobs, do you? I've never been, but I imagine their forums are the WORST.

Well simply the cost brarrier is in no way subjective. That's a game and not everyone can afford a game that would get to expensive to them. Just that. They can move to another one where they could follow: basic example we most probably (i do at least) know poeple who would be interested in 40k yet can't afford to give away that much. And even if you can afford you don't necessarely feel like it will be worht it. I firmly believe that if 40k is that much criticised all the time it is also because provided their pricing we could rightfully expect something of top notch quality on the whole. As of now if the edition is bad it feels like daylight robbery, if it is good then it still isn't enough for the price. I'm fairly sure that such reasoning has something to do with the debates really.

While 40k is definitely not the game I would recommend for people on a tight budget (there are way too many phenomenal skirmish games out there at a quarter of the price or better) I don't think any minis game is really a very good monetary investment for just the game.

You have to at some level enjoy building and hopefully painting or there's just more game to get out of card and videogames IMO. This is pretty much true out of any minis game. Certainly a big part of the fun is bringing the army to life, and 40k is one of the better experiences in that regard overall.

Karol wrote:

You are not required to buy discount beer if you want better; similarly, you are not required to buy Warhammer stuff if you find it unfun. However, the crucial difference is that I don't see people who avoid buying Bud Light turning around and saying "No-one else should buy or enjoy this; it's bad and you should feel bad" like I see from people who don't enjoy/like Warhammer.

Ok I think am not getting the example here. There is no other version of GK I could buy for more, or less money. No matter for how much I buy them, they are bad.. I see a ton of people who bought a w40k army and thought, or were told by the selling people that the army they are buying is good, and find out that either they were lied too or the definition of good includes playing and buying twice as many models from other factions.

This is just an issue of money, which is of subjective value. Some people are okay spending $900-$1000 on an army and then having to adjust it and expand their collections now and again to make it fun. Other people would not, but no one's forcing them to.

you don't really see the difference between an eldar player spending 700$ on an army and someone spending 700$ on GK, and getting a totaly different type of product. I armies were cars the GK one would have no engine and would have no way to get a new engine inside, and everyones fix to it being in the forum of buying another car and towing it.

You can't pay more for a better Bud Light either, you're looking at a specific brand there. The accurate equivalent would be keeping it to the genre, like you can spend money for better quality beer and you can also spend more for a better written table top if you want. No, you can't spend money and buy "Bud Light exactly the same in every way but GOOD" and you can't buy another game that is "literally 40k with different, better written rules", but that was never the example.

This feels more like a GK balance complaint than an actual criticism of the ruler anyway however.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Well simply the cost brarrier is in no way subjective. That's a game and not everyone can afford a game that would get to expensive to them. Just that. They can move to another one where they could follow: basic example we most probably (i do at least) know poeple who would be interested in 40k yet can't afford to give away that much. And even if you can afford you don't necessarely feel like it will be worht it. I firmly believe that if 40k is that much criticised all the time it is also because provided their pricing we could rightfully expect something of top notch quality on the whole. As of now if the edition is bad it feels like daylight robbery, if it is good then it still isn't enough for the price. I'm fairly sure that such reasoning has something to do with the debates really.

Probablly a subjective expiriance of mine. But GW games are the only table tops being played in my town. Even if there are cheaper games, I would have to play them solo. And I started w40k, only because my friends who already played w40k told me it is going to be fun, and that I should start and that we are going to play all summer etc. Now I invested my money for summer in to an army that doesn't seem to work, and the update time is anything between a year and five years. I don't know how many people had expiriances like that, but I could imagine those people to not be very happy.

You can't pay more for a better Bud Light either, you're looking at a specific brand there. The accurate equivalent would be keeping it to the genre, like you can spend money for better quality beer and you can also spend more for a better written table top if you want. No, you can't spend money and buy "Bud Light exactly the same in every way but GOOD" and you can't buy another game that is "literally 40k with different, better written rules", but that was never the example.

Ok now I am lost in english. There is only one w40k, or at least that I know of, and the difference is the armies. I don't even know what a bud light is and if it has different types or brands, but here in general the same brand of beer has multiple different types.

This feels more like a GK balance complaint than an actual criticism of the ruler anyway however.

But my army is getting worse because of rules changes. I bought it before the rule of three, and the deep strike nerf. The advice given to me was to deep strike my whole army, use gate to move around and use rhinos to hold objectives etc. Later I found out that terminators can't use rhinos, I have to have half of my army on the table and I can't deep strike turn 1. Am not saying my army was top tier pre those changes, but it sure got a lot more sucky after them. What is worse the nerfs weren't balanced by any sort of buffs. It is as if GW had problems with some build from a different army, and instead of nerfing that one unit, they did a broad change that hit multiple armies. And what is stranger, there was no article or at letter from the design team explaing how they think GK should be played after the changes.

Not deep striking turn one is the only one of those things that is a change.

Rhinos for terminators has never been a thing and everything deep striking has not been a thing for several editions.

Incorrect, Rhinos could carry Terminators in RT/2nd edition. (Rhinos could also carry a dreadnought, and tow artillery pieces)

 Elbows wrote:
Incorrect, Rhinos could carry Terminators in RT/2nd edition. (Rhinos could also carry a dreadnought, and tow artillery pieces)

maybe but 3rd edition is absicly the beginning of "modern 40k" innit?

Karol wrote:

You can't pay more for a better Bud Light either, you're looking at a specific brand there. The accurate equivalent would be keeping it to the genre, like you can spend money for better quality beer and you can also spend more for a better written table top if you want. No, you can't spend money and buy "Bud Light exactly the same in every way but GOOD" and you can't buy another game that is "literally 40k with different, better written rules", but that was never the example.

Ok now I am lost in english. There is only one w40k, or at least that I know of, and the difference is the armies. I don't even know what a bud light is and if it has different types or brands, but here in general the same brand of beer has multiple different types.

There are plenty of other tabletop wargames though.


Do a quick Google search for Bud Light before saying you don't understand the example and maybe you would begin to. Bud Light isn't in my country either, although I've seen it throughout pop culture. But what I learned within 30 seconds is that it's a specific brand of beer. It has sub-brands within it like Bud Light Lime, Getaway, whatever. But I understood the example.

40k is a specific game. It has sub-brands beneath within it like GK.


If you don't like Bud Light because you wanted a beer crafted with a different objective, you go buy a different brand. You can't say that it's made "wrong", because what it is is extremely popular they WAY it is, it's just not to your taste.

If you don't like 40k because you want a set of rules crafted with a different objective, you go buy a different game. You don't say that the rules are made wrong, because they are not - they are probably in the best shape they've been so far, seems what you want from a wargame atm is just not what 40k is catering to.


Whether or not this all applies to you is a different matter and it's possible it doesn't. I'm just explaining the example he gave.

Karol wrote:

This feels more like a GK balance complaint than an actual criticism of the ruler anyway however.

But my army is getting worse because of rules changes. I bought it before the rule of three, and the deep strike nerf. The advice given to me was to deep strike my whole army, use gate to move around and use rhinos to hold objectives etc. Later I found out that terminators can't use rhinos, I have to have half of my army on the table and I can't deep strike turn 1. Am not saying my army was top tier pre those changes, but it sure got a lot more sucky after them. What is worse the nerfs weren't balanced by any sort of buffs. It is as if GW had problems with some build from a different army, and instead of nerfing that one unit, they did a broad change that hit multiple armies. And what is stranger, there was no article or at letter from the design team explaing how they think GK should be played after the changes.

Cool, some armies sucked in every edition, just because its your one this time doesn't make the game as a whole objectively worse. In fact even just looking at the number of trash armies, 8th is well ahead of other editions in terms of playability.

reall the only "Trash tier" codex in 8th right now is Grey Knights. All the others are perfectly viable

Read the first page.

Read the last page.

Already predicted what the thread would have become.

To the OP. Your answer really depends where you go and who are you talking too? If you main source of 40k is here then you're going to find yourself in a fun, rehashed thread topic-made-over-and-over... Unfortunately Dakka outside of the forum and in the wider community everywhere else has the reputation of being a cesspit of negativity Regardless of critique, weather it's legit or not because it's just a small, vocal minority who come and repeat the same things over and over in overgeneralised matter with a mindset that they assume that everyone else knows what they are saying, and they cover up the more genuine and refined critiques with the same arguments they make with lots of different members of this community on a regular basis. They probably have not realised that GW aren't going on these forums and have probably blacklisted places like these. Their not listening here and so any critique won't be heard.

If it's your local area that's complaining then listen to the specific arguments. 9/10 they can be solved with gentlemen's agreements that takes 2mins tops to make. If it takers anymore time then chances are you won't want to play that person.

My Best advice? I wouldn't listen to these forums. Go to FB faction specific groups and conversions/lore/painting groups on FB. You might get a bit of moaning there but, it far more enjoyable for you there as it's filled with more positive and productive posting there than here. In addition if the P&M forms here are your safest bet to stay away from the toxicity here. Hope this helps

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yes I am about to moan about moaning, but anyone sick of hearing people moaning about 8th's rules. GW have just changed the game completely, totally changed their whole business model, are doing the best they've ever done to make the game good and its only been a few months since 8th was released. I'm always first to moan about GW when they do something stupid and I hate people that think they can do no wrong, but I think everyone needs to chill out and give GW a little time to get the game where it should be.

I haven't heard much in the way of complaints. Just ignore the internet, they'll go away...

 The Warp Forge wrote:
They probably have not realised that GW aren't going on these forums and have probably blacklisted places like these. Their not listening here and so any critique won't be heard.

Do you feel the same way about people like the OP posting positive things about 8th? After all, GW has blacklisted the forum and isn't listening to any praise either.

9/10 they can be solved with gentlemen's agreements that takes 2mins tops to make.

Hardly. 8th edition has major problems at the core of its rules, they can't be solved without a major re-write of the entire game. Things like IGOUGO or the over-homogenization problem go way beyond things like "{unit} is overpowered, can you not spam it".

BrianDavion wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Incorrect, Rhinos could carry Terminators in RT/2nd edition. (Rhinos could also carry a dreadnought, and tow artillery pieces)

maybe but 3rd edition is absicly the beginning of "modern 40k" innit?

Not really. While 3rd-7th were all the same rule set, the basic structure and lore was solidified in 2nd edition with the first launch of the official codices. Everything since then has been based around that model, and the decisions they made there.

 Peregrine wrote:

 The Warp Forge wrote:
They probably have not realised that GW aren't going on these forums and have probably blacklisted places like these. Their not listening here and so any critique won't be heard.

Do you feel the same way about people like the OP posting positive things about 8th? After all, GW has blacklisted the forum and isn't listening to any praise either.

9/10 they can be solved with gentlemen's agreements that takes 2mins tops to make.

Hardly. 8th edition has major problems at the core of its rules, they can't be solved without a major re-write of the entire game. Things like IGOUGO or the over-homogenization problem go way beyond things like "{unit} is overpowered, can you not spam it".

Ok, first point: I actually don't care. You see the thing is when I was younger (and more impressionable) I used to be on Dakka too much. Metaphorically you could say I treat it like a surrogate father the amount of time I used to read up thread after thread here, and it was not healthy at all. I used to get riled up and repeat all the problems I had with my CSM on these threads and similar. The issue was that I used to rehearse the same 'concerns and issues' back in real life in my local area, and it slowly pushed people away from wanting to play me. It was until I took a long and hard look and realised that the internet and the forum are a totally different mindset to reality, that I realised that it was all irrelevant. the issues that people have here only really apply to the top tier competitive scene and by then it's a different world to the majority of the 40k community in real life. So yeah you're right they aren't listening to the praise either but in all fairness the only real place they listen too is probably their FB pages, and if you want to make a true impact then I would suggest you make a very thoughtful and refined response to your concerns and critiques over there. What I see here is an OP who has a problem with negativity and want's to feel enthusiastic about their plastic man-dollies, not drained of blood from internet vampirism.

Second point: This is where the internet and real life clash. On the internet critiques like yours are usually gravely over-exaggerated. In my experience I've taken into account the opponents I play against and I talk to them, gauge where they stand then talk about what game they want. if they match my ideas of the game then we have fun. If they don't then we are better suited to other opponents as much as I would be and so we won't be wasting each others time.

Do I think the game has problems? Sure but nowhere near as dire for a rewrite as you suggest. For me the game has the following problems:

1) Min/Maxing in the detachments
2) Power creep with sub-factions (Legions/Dynasties/Chapters/etc)
3) IGOUGO
4) More for the high competitive tourney scene, but how the bubble effect concept feels ripped off from WM/H and with the compliment of power creep has already fallen stale.

All in all, I enjoy 40k more than ever, sure it has problems that I will not deny but it will probably never be my main competitive game. I have other games for that and for me I've never ran into major problems with the rules where the core rules from the rulebbok and CA became dysfunctional.

There is nothing wrong with wanting 40K to be suitable for competitive play.

 greyknight12 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with wanting 40K to be suitable for competitive play.

Nothing wrong with that at all, but the reality is that GW are never going to produce a game like that, because in fairness the game is over saturated in players for it not to break. this was a reality that hit me. I would love it if my Night Lords had an equal footing as say, Papa G and his ultra buddies but I came to the realisation that complaining and/or critiquing about it here would get me nowhere. 8th was filled with good intentions but ultimately like other wargames there will always be points where it will break and once someone finds it and shares that info, it then becomes mainstream. Asking the world for what I want is just too much and GW will not listen to many things other than praise over on FB. So I just came to the conclusion that there are other games more suited towards my needs and I found it. You can try to voice your concerns directly to them, and I praise anyone for doing so in a respectful and thoughtful manner but the reality is that you will be mocked, poked and insulted by Imperial fanboiis and GW apologists, but if you try, you may never know where it may lead you. You never know, the internet could smile on you that day and they might take your thoughts into consideration

 greyknight12 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with wanting 40K to be suitable for competitive play.

No, there isn't. A balanced ruleset benefits everyone. I shouldn't have to find someone else with a weak army, or ask them to take bad units, to be able to enjoy the game.

 greyknight12 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with wanting 40K to be suitable for competitive play.

40k as a whole is suitable for competitive play. Why not just say what you mean and ask for GK buffs in the gk thread

 Peregrine wrote:

 The Warp Forge wrote:
They probably have not realised that GW aren't going on these forums and have probably blacklisted places like these. Their not listening here and so any critique won't be heard.

Do you feel the same way about people like the OP posting positive things about 8th? After all, GW has blacklisted the forum and isn't listening to any praise either.

9/10 they can be solved with gentlemen's agreements that takes 2mins tops to make.

Hardly. 8th edition has major problems at the core of its rules, they can't be solved without a major re-write of the entire game. Things like IGOUGO or the over-homogenization problem go way beyond things like "{unit} is overpowered, can you not spam it".

so you don't like the game, I don't recall seeing you ever say anything positive about the fluff, what is it about 40k that you do like Peregrine? Other then complaining about it on the internet?

BrianDavion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 The Warp Forge wrote:
They probably have not realised that GW aren't going on these forums and have probably blacklisted places like these. Their not listening here and so any critique won't be heard.

Do you feel the same way about people like the OP posting positive things about 8th? After all, GW has blacklisted the forum and isn't listening to any praise either.

9/10 they can be solved with gentlemen's agreements that takes 2mins tops to make.

Hardly. 8th edition has major problems at the core of its rules, they can't be solved without a major re-write of the entire game. Things like IGOUGO or the over-homogenization problem go way beyond things like "{unit} is overpowered, can you not spam it".

so you don't like the game, I don't recall seeing you ever say anything positive about the fluff, what is it about 40k that you do like Peregrine? Other then complaining about it on the internet?

You answered your own question lol

 The Warp Forge wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with wanting 40K to be suitable for competitive play.

Nothing wrong with that at all, but the reality is that GW are never going to produce a game like that, because in fairness the game is over saturated in players for it not to break. this was a reality that hit me. I would love it if my Night Lords had an equal footing as say, Papa G and his ultra buddies but I came to the realisation that complaining and/or critiquing about it here would get me nowhere. 8th was filled with good intentions but ultimately like other wargames there will always be points where it will break and once someone finds it and shares that info, it then becomes mainstream. Asking the world for what I want is just too much and GW will not listen to many things other than praise over on FB. So I just came to the conclusion that there are other games more suited towards my needs and I found it. You can try to voice your concerns directly to them, and I praise anyone for doing so in a respectful and thoughtful manner but the reality is that you will be mocked, poked and insulted by Imperial fanboiis and GW apologists, but if you try, you may never know where it may lead you. You never know, the internet could smile on you that day and they might take your thoughts into consideration

I guess you're right on the fact that they most probably don't look much at forums like dakka, which is sad and although there is negativity and stuff, i guess it wouldn't be impissiblle to skimm through threads and posts, try to see what's debated over and over again and make it a guideline to investigate the game and check whether an improvment could be made.
I do not agree with the OP at all to the extend that firstly it is not to early, secondly it is not necesseraly negative to point at what you consider shortcomings of the games, thirdly thus whole negativity, to my mind, is in some way aroused by the constant fight between the fanboyism and positiv pleb versus the grumpy and hating pleb: i'll try to clarify my thought

I take a stance for criticising, as I deem it mandatory for a game to advance, but in a constructive way of course, because if it were perfect or nearly,if there was no reason to be upset, poeple wouldn't spend any time complaining (see warlord games' bolt action as usual). There are legitimate reasons to be upset even if those can vary from a person to another (karol's gk or cost barrier for instance). But at the same time whoever raises a question about this is faced with the rude and blunt overreaction in the fanboys (see this topic for example at some points), which kind of spark a fistfight rather than a gentlemen's dispute.

However I 100% support your claiming that the competitive part of the game represented on the internet is another dimension to many casual players, but I think that they indirectly influence the casual play whatsoever.

PS: everyoe who even read te thread's title FORESAW how it would end up

 Elbows wrote:
Incorrect, Rhinos could carry Terminators in RT/2nd edition. (Rhinos could also carry a dreadnought, and tow artillery pieces)

Has never been a thing - anytime recently enough for someone to be telling a new player that in error.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Incorrect, Rhinos could carry Terminators in RT/2nd edition. (Rhinos could also carry a dreadnought, and tow artillery pieces)

Has never been a thing - anytime recently enough for someone to be telling a new player that in error.

Towing would be great tbh, maybe not that useful but definitively cool. If we actually had a greater range of more "traditional" canons apart from FW.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 The Warp Forge wrote:
They probably have not realised that GW aren't going on these forums and have probably blacklisted places like these. Their not listening here and so any critique won't be heard.

Do you feel the same way about people like the OP posting positive things about 8th? After all, GW has blacklisted the forum and isn't listening to any praise either.

9/10 they can be solved with gentlemen's agreements that takes 2mins tops to make.

Hardly. 8th edition has major problems at the core of its rules, they can't be solved without a major re-write of the entire game. Things like IGOUGO or the over-homogenization problem go way beyond things like "{unit} is overpowered, can you not spam it".

so you don't like the game, I don't recall seeing you ever say anything positive about the fluff, what is it about 40k that you do like Peregrine? Other then complaining about it on the internet?

You got a good point there Brian, it’s something a few of us has noticed

So yeah, peregrine, when was the last game you played? What about the fluff do you actually like? How’s about posting something positive for a change ?

The problem with these threads is always that people who like the game feel personally attacked by any criticism of the game and start gak slinging.