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.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Jpogfreak886 wrote:
I'm disheartened when I see a ForgeWorld model that has been poorly painted. It seems like a waste.

That's unpopular? It's even worse when the barrels are all bendy.

Haha ok, maybe not unpopular, but I feel like a dick when my first reaction is "You don't deserve expensive models if you're going to paint them like that"

 Jpogfreak886 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Jpogfreak886 wrote:
I'm disheartened when I see a ForgeWorld model that has been poorly painted. It seems like a waste.

That's unpopular? It's even worse when the barrels are all bendy.

Haha ok, maybe not unpopular, but I feel like a dick when my first reaction is "You don't deserve expensive models if you're going to paint them like that"

Sometimes the right reaction is the dick one.

I think too many people defend GW especially when GW is in the moral wrong.

 lolman1c wrote:
I think too many people defend GW especially when GW is in the moral wrong.

What is the moral wrong in this case? Running a luxury goods manufacturing company that produces plastic models and game systems is pretty morally agnostic. You could argue that their pricing, sales structure or customer service are bad business but it's not like they're hurting anyone.

 Luciferian wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
I think too many people defend GW especially when GW is in the moral wrong.

What is the moral wrong in this case? Running a luxury goods manufacturing company that produces plastic models and game systems is pretty morally agnostic. You could argue that their pricing, sales structure or customer service are bad business but it's not like they're hurting anyone.

I'm trying to think of a moral wrong they have done, they seem pretty amoral to me. Maybe some of their legal stuff was a bit weird, like the "Spots the Space Marine" thing, but I would call that more stupid than immoral. Have they screwed over staff at some point? That's the only thing I can think of.

Here's mine:

Space Marines are perfectly fine as they are. For an introductory, common faction, I'd want an army that's somewhere middle-tier tournament-wise with many (MANY) options for customization. I think all the whining is either from people who are (a) misinformed or (b) just biased because they want their personal armies to be stronger.

There we go, knew one of mine w8uld get a reaction eventually. Especially from people so eager to stand up for GW. ; )

Round 2:

Either Tempestus Scions should go down by 1 ppm, or Hot-Shot Lasguns should not cost anything. Or, Hot-Shot lasguns should get an increase in range so they can be used in rapid fire range out of Aerial Drop.

 lolman1c wrote:
I think too many people defend GW especially when GW is in the moral wrong.

This almost elicited a laugh from me...I'd love to see some immoral things they've done.

 Apple Peel wrote:
Round 2:

Either Tempestus Scions should go down by 1 ppm, or Hot-Shot Lasguns should not cost anything. Or, Hot-Shot lasguns should get an increase in range so they can be used in rapid fire range out of Aerial Drop.

I'm honestly for Assault 2 as long as they go up a point or two.

 Elbows wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
I think too many people defend GW especially when GW is in the moral wrong.

This almost elicited a laugh from me...I'd love to see some immoral things they've done.

I'm sure it's more along the lines of "prices I don't like" or "balance decisions I don't agree with" than the actual immoral things large corporations do. Like, say what you want about GW, but at least their models aren't produced in far eastern sweatshops.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:
Round 2:

Either Tempestus Scions should go down by 1 ppm, or Hot-Shot Lasguns should not cost anything. Or, Hot-Shot lasguns should get an increase in range so they can be used in rapid fire range out of Aerial Drop.

I'm honestly for Assault 2 as long as they go up a point or two.

And then bump the Volleyguns by a few points and let them be assault as well.

My unpopular opinion:

-1 to hit as a mechanic, is not only fine, but actually beneficial to the game - INCLUDING stacking. This game is overly dominated by shooting armies even WITH it's presence, and the game needs simply defense against shooting mechanics like this.

95% or more of instances of -1 are not just units that aren't OP or top tier, they are units that would likely be crippled without it. You know Tyranids can stack a -4 between two units? Space Marines I believe can get up to -5? This stuff is handed out sensibly and in controlled instances, so it's not a problem.

The response to this is always "b-b-b-buh ALAITOC!!1!", and if this IS the case, that there's a single instance of a mechanic being overpowered then, *gasp* nerf Alaitoc, not the mechanic. The same way you don't try to nerf every T8 unit in the game because the Castellan is unbalanced. (Not that Alaitoc is either in the broader scheme of things, but if it's a balanced army that gets free wins against certain lists without making severe trade offs to do so, yeah that should probably be looked into)



My underlying belief is that the whining mostly stems from the fact that most players of this game play shooty lists, and most shooty lists are not used to dealing with any sort of counterplay. I don't see the same pushback about units with fly, some of the fastest units in the game, being able to fallback for free out of assault when they are finally caught. I don't see the same pushback around ignores LoS that completely counters melee units only other real defensive mechanic. -1 to hit is not a problem. In fact it's an important mechanic.

I think 40k as a game just sucks by design. Too many special rules and stuff going on. When every single unit in the army has special rules its a bit much. And then your opponent has auras and debuffs and everything counteracts each other. Its enough to make steam billow out of my ears. It takes a while to play but has less fun value than is worth the effort. I prefer a more concise and structured game like blood bowl or necromunda but especially blood bowl. Easy to learn, takes time to master. And I don't have to rebuy the rules every year or two. 40k is and imo always has been a hot mess. Love the setting though...especially before cawl and guillimans return.

If -1 to hit was more easily accessible to every faction rather than just a select few it would be less of an issue - that's where the problem is.

Some factions get the buff army wide, some factions only get it on select units, most other factions don't even get the option.

Bring back "Go to Ground" - declare when a unit is targeted in the shooting phase, for the rest of the phase any units targeting this unit are at -1 to all hit rolls. As a cost that unit can only hit on 6's the following turn and can not charge a unit in the Charge phase.

 NurglesR0T wrote:
If -1 to hit was more easily accessible to every faction rather than just a select few it would be less of an issue - that's where the problem is.

Some factions get the buff army wide, some factions only get it on select units, most other factions don't even get the option.

Bring back "Go to Ground" - declare when a unit is targeted in the shooting phase, for the rest of the phase any units targeting this unit are at -1 to all hit rolls. As a cost that unit can only hit on 6's the following turn and can not charge a unit in the Charge phase.

Absolutely not. Knights, Drukhari, Guard, etc, these sorts of armies do not need -1 to hit. Completely unnecessary they have other mechanics which means they don't need it. You've completely missed the point of my post which is that this way of trying to "blanket change" everything is silly. Every faction should get a Knight! Every faction should get a Shining Spears! Every faction should have Hive Guard!

no, not every faction needs -1 to hit, only... the ones that do.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
If -1 to hit was more easily accessible to every faction rather than just a select few it would be less of an issue - that's where the problem is.

Some factions get the buff army wide, some factions only get it on select units, most other factions don't even get the option.

Bring back "Go to Ground" - declare when a unit is targeted in the shooting phase, for the rest of the phase any units targeting this unit are at -1 to all hit rolls. As a cost that unit can only hit on 6's the following turn and can not charge a unit in the Charge phase.

Absolutely not. Knights, Drukhari, Guard, etc, these sorts of armies do not need -1 to hit. Completely unnecessary they have other mechanics which means they don't need it. You've completely missed the point of my post which is that this way of trying to "blanket change" everything is silly. Every faction should get a Knight! Every faction should get a Shining Spears! Every faction should have Hive Guard!

no, not every faction needs -1 to hit, only... the ones that do.

You need to chill. That's not what I was saying and you know it.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
If -1 to hit was more easily accessible to every faction rather than just a select few it would be less of an issue - that's where the problem is.

Some factions get the buff army wide, some factions only get it on select units, most other factions don't even get the option.

Bring back "Go to Ground" - declare when a unit is targeted in the shooting phase, for the rest of the phase any units targeting this unit are at -1 to all hit rolls. As a cost that unit can only hit on 6's the following turn and can not charge a unit in the Charge phase.

Absolutely not. Knights, Drukhari, Guard, etc, these sorts of armies do not need -1 to hit. Completely unnecessary they have other mechanics which means they don't need it. You've completely missed the point of my post which is that this way of trying to "blanket change" everything is silly. Every faction should get a Knight! Every faction should get a Shining Spears! Every faction should have Hive Guard!

no, not every faction needs -1 to hit, only... the ones that do.

You need to chill. That's not what I was saying and you know it.

Huh?

You literally said "If -1 to hit was more easily accessible to every faction rather than just a select few it would be less of an issue - that's where the problem is."

In fact you literally suggested a universal mechanic for giving it to every single army.

I'm struggling to understand how I've taken what you were saying the wrong way.

You need to chill. This is just discussion, and I disagree with you.

You advocated that -1 to hit is a good defensive mechanic in a game that is dominated by shooting.

I agree and suggest that the problem is most factions don't get the option and by effect causes balance issues.

I suggest a way for armies to get it at a cost that neuters them next turn for the chance to increase defense - in a thread that's all about bringing forward unpopular opinions no less.

You then, to use your words, literally "Every faction should get a Knight! Every faction should get a Shining Spears! Every faction should have Hive Guard!"

Where did I say such thing?

You need to chill.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

You then, to use your words, literally "Every faction should get a Knight! Every faction should get a Shining Spears! Every faction should have Hive Guard!"

Where did I say such thing?

You need to chill.

When did I say you said such a thing? I don't see them anywhere in your post? I didn't put them in quotation marks? Those are my words. I'm using them as a device to highlight the issue with the concept of blanket balancing a mechanic like that, or this idea that every race should have the same tool - the idea that you put forth concerning the -1 mechanic, in the post immediately preceding my own.


and you need to chill and stop gaslighting

Here's a popular opinion;

Both of you take it to PM!

I remember a time when you could disagree with someone's statements on this forum without getting lit up for twisting their words and needing to chill / being upset / whatever other buzzword is trending for gaslighting that day.

Sometimes I wonder if people even know what a forum is for. You have your opinion, I have mine. Thread is literally called unpopular opinions. Learn to deal with a single dissenting voice with some measure of class. Not entirely directed to you NurglesROT, but over the past few months its feeling kinda impossible on this place.

I like Primaris Space Marines. Their stats and models fit the scale I envision Space Marines possessing better. Also, their models are much cleaner looking and not bogged down with loads of pointless details (read: Skulls Everywhere). They are so much easier to paint as a result. The only model in their line I hate is the Repulsor.

I also think the Dark Angels are Traitors has gotten old.

Edit: I agree with TheCustomLime below. Primaris Space Marines are not going to replace regular Marines any time soon, if at all.

I think clear-basing is tacky-looking.

Primaris Space Marines won't replace normal space marines for the forseeable future.

Citadel paints are better than P3 paints.

Tau are an excellent looking line and have a place in 40k. Melee focused armies should suffer in a futuristic setting.

Catachans are actually kind of cool models and I'd like to collect them.


Custodes should not have been their own army.

Overly airbrushed models look bad and unrealistic. An airbrush is a tool in a painter's toolbox not the focus.

Edit accident

Castellan Knight should have never existed. Releasing stronger and stronger units is a good way to ruin the game.

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

I can agree with this one, on the condition that the remaining five loyalist First Founding Chapters get their own books (and special releases) as well. Black Templars and Crimson Fists can be rolled into the Imperial Fist book, then, rather than the core SM book.

Zustiur wrote:
Tau should not have suits bigger than crisis
Jervis Johnson is a great rules writer

Can't argue with these two.

Sir Heckington wrote:
And finally, bring back Malice. As much as people like to meme about it, I actually think Malice was a cool story point (Even if it has to be done under another name for copyright shiz). Malice could be something akin to the Tau's warp entity they accidently made.

Do you mean Malal here? The god who was referenced with the Sons of Malice CSM army in one of the CSM books?

 Talizvar wrote:
I actually dislike that Chapterhouse sued GW, now every codex is made with the rule "if we do not have the model, we are not making the rules for one".

Can we stick to unpopular opinions which are based on facts? GW sued Chapterhouse, not the other way around...

 Kommisar wrote:
the horus heresy was dumb

Out of interest, which bit (or bits) do you think is dumb? The miniature line, the game, the board game, the CCG, the novels, or the concept of the HH itself?

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Here's a popular opinion;

Both of you take it to PM!

Have an exalt

 SHUPPET wrote:
I remember a time when you could disagree with someone's statements on this forum without getting lit up for twisting their words and needing to chill / being upset / whatever other buzzword is trending for gaslighting that day.

Sometimes I wonder if people even know what a forum is for. You have your opinion, I have mine. Thread is literally called unpopular opinions. Learn to deal with a single dissenting voice with some measure of class. Not entirely directed to you NurglesROT, but over the past few months its feeling kinda impossible on this place.

People disagreeing with you is not gaslighting. Asking/suggesting you chill out is not gaslighting.

Gaslighting is a form of mental abuse, and should not be taken lightly.

And if you keep thinking that you're running into issues when you post, may I suggest that you look at the single common factor that all these posts you think are "gaslighting" are responding to - your posting style. As a neutral party reading through the thread, you seemed to jump down NurglesROT's throat, with a hyperbolic comparison, rather than taking a post to ensure you were both on the same wavelength, and not talking past each other (which it looks like you were).

***

Not sure if it is an unpopular opinion, but the KEYWORD system should've been used on weapons as well, as it would allow for clarity of interactions - for example, if weapons had keywords such as Flamer, Melta and Plasma (regardless of race), the Avatar of Khaine could easily keep the rule from older editions which gave enhanced survivability against suitable types of weapon.

Also, Universal Special Rules weren't a bad thing - after all, you should really have your core rulebook with you when you're playing anyway. If you want to combine them with distinct names on a datasheet, that's fine, but it makes more sense to have a rule in the core book which you can reference with variables. For example, the to-hit aura ability a lot of characters have could be a USR, with variables for range and faction. That way, if you need to update the wording for how the rule works, you do it once, rather than potentially missing an example squirrelled away in an Index or a minor Codex.

Finally, people should be suspended from forums for comparing rules to cancer, easily defeating their opponents to rape, and other such distasteful verbiage - there are accurate words for what you're trying to express which won't risk bringing up traumatic experiences for other users, so use those words or face appropriate consequences.

Judging a rules set by restrictions placed upon it by an outside body is daft.

Yes, I mean, ‘BUT ITC SAID’ stuff.

 SHUPPET wrote:
My unpopular opinion:

-1 to hit as a mechanic, is not only fine, but actually beneficial to the game - INCLUDING stacking. This game is overly dominated by shooting armies even WITH it's presence, and the game needs simply defense against shooting mechanics like this.

95% or more of instances of -1 are not just units that aren't OP or top tier, they are units that would likely be crippled without it. You know Tyranids can stack a -4 between two units? Space Marines I believe can get up to -5? This stuff is handed out sensibly and in controlled instances, so it's not a problem.

The response to this is always "b-b-b-buh ALAITOC!!1!", and if this IS the case, that there's a single instance of a mechanic being overpowered then, *gasp* nerf Alaitoc, not the mechanic. The same way you don't try to nerf every T8 unit in the game because the Castellan is unbalanced. (Not that Alaitoc is either in the broader scheme of things, but if it's a balanced army that gets free wins against certain lists without making severe trade offs to do so, yeah that should probably be looked into)



My underlying belief is that the whining mostly stems from the fact that most players of this game play shooty lists, and most shooty lists are not used to dealing with any sort of counterplay. I don't see the same pushback about units with fly, some of the fastest units in the game, being able to fallback for free out of assault when they are finally caught. I don't see the same pushback around ignores LoS that completely counters melee units only other real defensive mechanic. -1 to hit is not a problem. In fact it's an important mechanic.

I keep saying it's an important mechanic to keep gunlines in check.

 Dysartes wrote:

People disagreeing with you is not gaslighting. Asking/suggesting you chill out is not gaslighting.

Gaslighting is a form of mental abuse, and should not be taken lightly.

And if you keep thinking that you're running into issues when you post, may I suggest that you look at the single common factor that all these posts you think are "gaslighting" are responding to - your posting style. As a neutral party reading through the thread, you seemed to jump down NurglesROT's throat, with a hyperbolic comparison, rather than taking a post to ensure you were both on the same wavelength, and not talking past each other (which it looks like you were).

If gaslighting isn't the right word for it, it's the closest one I've got for describing this form of gak posting where someone disagrees with an opinion, and the person being disagreed with responds "lol you so mad" "chill out" "dont get upset" etc, when there is literally nothing to indicate any sort of anger, just a discussion and you not being able to handle dissenting voice.

I didn't at any point say it's just me, or that I'm the one common factor in this phenomena. I see it happening all the time on here, and I often jump in when I see others doing it to others, when I have the energy. I expressed exasperation in how this forum seems to have devolved to currently doing it at every turn as though it gives you some sort of rational high ground, and its beyond transparent whenever I see it.

I didn't "jump down anyone's throat". He said something I disagreed with and I gave relevant examples as to why that sort of reasoning or approach is completely flawed to the core. Its the thin skinned individuals on here who take that as some sort of personal affront nowadays, if you are going to post an opinion be prepared that people may disagree with it.



or, in other words:

tl;dr: calm down bro you're obviously reading too far into into my post, what did I say to make you so upset lolol?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
My unpopular opinion:

-1 to hit as a mechanic, is not only fine, but actually beneficial to the game - INCLUDING stacking. This game is overly dominated by shooting armies even WITH it's presence, and the game needs simply defense against shooting mechanics like this.

95% or more of instances of -1 are not just units that aren't OP or top tier, they are units that would likely be crippled without it. You know Tyranids can stack a -4 between two units? Space Marines I believe can get up to -5? This stuff is handed out sensibly and in controlled instances, so it's not a problem.

The response to this is always "b-b-b-buh ALAITOC!!1!", and if this IS the case, that there's a single instance of a mechanic being overpowered then, *gasp* nerf Alaitoc, not the mechanic. The same way you don't try to nerf every T8 unit in the game because the Castellan is unbalanced. (Not that Alaitoc is either in the broader scheme of things, but if it's a balanced army that gets free wins against certain lists without making severe trade offs to do so, yeah that should probably be looked into)



My underlying belief is that the whining mostly stems from the fact that most players of this game play shooty lists, and most shooty lists are not used to dealing with any sort of counterplay. I don't see the same pushback about units with fly, some of the fastest units in the game, being able to fallback for free out of assault when they are finally caught. I don't see the same pushback around ignores LoS that completely counters melee units only other real defensive mechanic. -1 to hit is not a problem. In fact it's an important mechanic.

I keep saying it's an important mechanic to keep gunlines in check.

I'm right here with you, and it's certainly not the most "unpopular" opinion, but it's definitely not in agreement with the majority on this one!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Judging a rules set by restrictions placed upon it by an outside body is daft.

Yes, I mean, ‘BUT ITC SAID’ stuff.

Hmmm, a couple of points on this one:

ITC restrictions are pretty mild nowadays, and serve mostly to gently shape the game into what most feel is a balanced set of missions. There's not many people who think that the issues with 40k lie in ITC's rulings, and I don't think it's an unpopular opinion at all to say that most would disagree with them.


In the past, ITC was a lot more of a dictatorship, and people that felt their race was hard done by may have had this complaint. However, the fact that the game needed ITC rules and these were still an improved for competitive play than the base rules, suggests that the ruleset itself DOES have a problem, for ITC to be so necessary to begin with.