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.

Thanks to the Horus Heresy novels, Ultramarines are actually kind of cool...

 AegisGrimm wrote:

-2nd edition was really not bad to play if everyone involved played with restraint.

So long as you didn't play against Eldar, or either of the two particularly nasty Space Wolf builds, 2nd edition was the bomb.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 First Among Gators wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Space Marines of all flavours except chaos should be junked from the next rules revision onward

why?

Because feth YEAH CHAOS!!!!!!!!!!1!!! or something. It's been this way ever since Chaos Codex 3.5 came out. I picture Chaos fans clutching the book in one hand, cutting themselves with the other, blaring HIM in the background, and dreaming of the glory days of having EVERYBODY'S cake and eating it, too.

Nope.

I've been around since before chaos was really fleshed out. and never played with 3.5 so missed that love in apparently.

I prefer my Loyalist Marines to be semi mythical angels of death. Paradoxically I'm all for Chaos to be the prime antagonist and renegades in power armour to be valiantly held back by the might of the IG who also fight Xenos of many flavours. Just think in canon and table top they are better represented this way.

Still, GW have had loads of my cash over the years for power armoured dudes. Maybe I am just jaded.

I think we ALL are. And 3.5 was more than "love", it was an abomination remembered fondly ONLY by those who ran the MANY power builds within.

 Duskweaver wrote:
40K is a fantasy setting, not a sci-fi one. Those who try to make sense of it with science-based or rationalist thinking are missing the point. Nothing in 40K is supposed to be remotely scientifically plausible. That's a feature, not a bug.

Nope, absolutely disagree. It is a sci-fi setting with fantasy elements, similar to star wars (except darker obviously). So, which one of us has the truly "unpopular" opinion?

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Chaos space marines codex fails more than any other codex at capturing the theme and nature of chaos both in rules and fluff

That's an unpopular opinion? I always felt like GW never gave much care in making the basic CSM stuff feel different than their Imperium equivalent (at least since I started playing 40k) outside of anything directly involving the four main gods.

Just take a look at the long line of people on this site alone that defend the chaos codex from 4th onwards, even 3.5 didnt go far enough but was a step in the right direction


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:

 First Among Gators wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Space Marines of all flavours except chaos should be junked from the next rules revision onward

why?

Because feth YEAH CHAOS!!!!!!!!!!1!!! or something. It's been this way ever since Chaos Codex 3.5 came out. I picture Chaos fans clutching the book in one hand, cutting themselves with the other, blaring HIM in the background, and dreaming of the glory days of having EVERYBODY'S cake and eating it, too.

Case in point haha

w1zard wrote:
a sci-fi setting with fantasy elements, similar to star wars (except darker obviously).

Star Wars is also a fantasy setting.

Seriously, though, I know there isn't really a hard line between sci-fi and fantasy. But if you put fictional universes on a scale from Asimov and Clarke at one end to Tolkien at the other, 40K is way over towards the Tolkien end. It's literal magic and wizards and demons and orcs and elves. Even the 'technology' might as well be magic for all the rigor with which it is 'explained'. The space-orcs and space-elves have technology that explicitly is magic. The tyranids would be completely non-functional in our reality because (amongst other things) biological material does not have sufficient energy density to use it as stuff like starship fuel. Starships and firearms don't make a fantasy setting into a sci-fi one. Nobody tries to claim that Spelljammer isn't fantasy, so why the reluctance to view 40K the same way?

As a scientifically literate person, if you want to actually enjoy 40K and not end up in a permanent frustrated rage with it, you have to view it as fantasy IMO. If you judge it as sci-fi, then it just looks appallingly bad.

If anything 40k is even further down the line than Tolkien.

 insaniak wrote:
Thanks to the Horus Heresy novels, Ultramarines are actually kind of cool...

 AegisGrimm wrote:

-2nd edition was really not bad to play if everyone involved played with restraint.

So long as you didn't play against Eldar, or either of the two particularly nasty Space Wolf builds, 2nd edition was the bomb.

Playing with restraint is recommended with each edition of 40K as each can be broken by a particular combination of units. 2nd was by far the most detailed version of 40K and thanks to the Dark Millenium boxed set provided you with a plethora of great templates and even rules for constructing your own vehicles. The last one was especially an Ork´s wet dream. And nowadays afaik the Orks can´t even bring a looted wagon to the battlefield. LOL!

 Just Tony wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 First Among Gators wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Space Marines of all flavours except chaos should be junked from the next rules revision onward

why?

Because feth YEAH CHAOS!!!!!!!!!!1!!! or something. It's been this way ever since Chaos Codex 3.5 came out. I picture Chaos fans clutching the book in one hand, cutting themselves with the other, blaring HIM in the background, and dreaming of the glory days of having EVERYBODY'S cake and eating it, too.

Nope.

I've been around since before chaos was really fleshed out. and never played with 3.5 so missed that love in apparently.

I prefer my Loyalist Marines to be semi mythical angels of death. Paradoxically I'm all for Chaos to be the prime antagonist and renegades in power armour to be valiantly held back by the might of the IG who also fight Xenos of many flavours. Just think in canon and table top they are better represented this way.

Still, GW have had loads of my cash over the years for power armoured dudes. Maybe I am just jaded.

I think we ALL are. And 3.5 was more than "love", it was an abomination remembered fondly ONLY by those who ran the MANY power builds within.

To be fair, the 3.5E chaos book had by far the best presentation, feel, and customizability to it of any book for many editions. Even without actually playing the game, that book was just a fun read, especially relative to the older pamphlet 3.0 codex, I don't think any other book has quite captured the background feel the same way since even in the non-rules elements of the book. It was abuseable, absolutely, but it's not like there weren't other similarly broken armies at the time (Eldar for example), and it's not like we haven't seen stuff since in subsequent editions that makes almost anything from that era look downright tame by comparison.

 Duskweaver wrote:
As a scientifically literate person, if you want to actually enjoy 40K and not end up in a permanent frustrated rage with it, you have to view it as fantasy IMO. If you judge it as sci-fi, then it just looks appallingly bad.

Scientifically literate person here. I don't. The setting has just enough pseudo-science to maintain suspension of disbelief, and the whole idea of the warp is actually interesting and pretty much unique to 40k. Star wars is actually much worse in that regard then 40k is (lightsabers lol). There is a difference between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi sure, but just because the setting trends more towards soft sci-fi doesn't mean it is more similar to Tolkien than Asimov. A lot of the background for the 40k universe came from Dune, which is undeniably sci-fi.

40k may have "orks" but they are nowhere close to Tolkien's orcs.

 Formosa wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Chaos space marines codex fails more than any other codex at capturing the theme and nature of chaos both in rules and fluff

That's an unpopular opinion? I always felt like GW never gave much care in making the basic CSM stuff feel different than their Imperium equivalent (at least since I started playing 40k) outside of anything directly involving the four main gods.

Just take a look at the long line of people on this site alone that defend the chaos codex from 4th onwards, even 3.5 didnt go far enough but was a step in the right direction

Chaos equipment is comprised of dated and broken tech. Here are a few things that are different from the imperial wargear:

Source Chaos Codex 2nd:

- Kombi-Bolters instead of Storm Bolters. The chaos version is supposed to be inferior in the fluff but GW managed to botch the implementation for the game as Kombi-Bolters were in some ediitons more effective in short range.

- Dangerous plasma weapons instead of more reliable and safer imperial version. Well, GW threw this nice difference out of the window and today there is no difference between the too.

- No functioning targeters on heavy weapons as opposed to the Imperium´s version. Chaos forces don´t have the same resource level like the loyalists and can´t replace damaged gear as swiftly. Today there is no such thing as targeters for heavy weapons any more.

- Autocannon/Reaper Autocannon for infantry instead of the more sophisticated assault cannon. Also no thunder hammers and storm shields.

- Difference in dreadnought role. The entombment of a chaos champion is a punishment and drives the occupant insane resulting in errant and unpredictable behaviour like the Kane Cyborg in Robocop 2 showed due to the withdrawal effects of a drug. This is the most interesting of chaos units that provided me and my fellow gamers with the most of joy in our past battles as you never could be sure that he would follow your orders and would blow up your own tank or annihilate your infantry at inopportune moments. How much more chaotic can you become? But to my utter disgust I had to learn that not a small amount of chaos players resented this unit as it was not as reliable as the imperial one and felt themselves slighted by GW (again) for not providing them with "competitive" unit.
On the other hand the imperial version is a prestigious way for an imperial hero of mankind to prolong his service to the Emperor.

-CSM infantry are equipped by default with bolt pistol, bolter and chainsword and the imperial version (Tacticals, Devastators) lack the chainswords. It shows the emphasis for chaos units to close the distance for their foes in order to rip & tear. But since 5th marines of any kind are laughed off the board for their rather meager damage output as everybody and his dog can pack a more serious punch than a round of bolter fire. And this is not a healthy development for the game. If you want today exciting action with your marines you have to play the Deathwatch boardgame.

-SM have apothecaries to care for their wounded as opposed to CSM who don´t have a use for a unit such as this. Anybody who needs the help of another is deemed a weakling and needs to be weeded out from the rest because only the strong have the right to flourish and prosper.

-Chaos did also had no access to techmarines & chaplains in the past but GW deemed it necessary to throw this important distinction into the trash bin as well.

I could go on with the vehicles but I don´t feel inclined to do so right now. Only one thing for me to say here: Chaos dinobots SUCK. Oh and the flying hellturkey is not better in any way. Why? Well, they look horrible imo and no amount of crazy ass over the top rules writing will the change my mind about them. Always remember folks: Rules change each edition as units are hit by the ugly nerf bat but ugly units always stay ugly regardless of edition.

w1zard wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:
As a scientifically literate person, if you want to actually enjoy 40K and not end up in a permanent frustrated rage with it, you have to view it as fantasy IMO. If you judge it as sci-fi, then it just looks appallingly bad.

Scientifically literate person here. I don't. The setting has just enough pseudo-science to maintain suspension of disbelief, and the whole idea of the warp is actually interesting and pretty much unique to 40k. Star wars is actually much worse in that regard then 40k is (lightsabers lol). There is a difference between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi sure, but just because the setting trends more towards soft sci-fi doesn't mean it is more similar to Tolkien than Asimov. A lot of the background for the 40k universe came from Dune, which is undeniably sci-fi.

40k may have "orks" but they are nowhere close to Tolkien's orcs.

I don't know about unique, other than the extremes they took it. The Marvel Universe has a psychic realm for much longer than 40K has been around, though it is called the Astral Plane instead of the Warp. This realm has creatures in it that are pure thought, including characters like the Shadow King. Sometimes powerful psionics can even pull these creatures in to the physical realm (which lead to the creation of the character Onslaught, though that was generated well after 40K).

One of the biggest problems of declarations of "hard sci-fi", "soft sci-fi", "space fantasy", and "space opera" is how little we know about our universe and all its potential extensions. It is pretty arrogant to say a futurist story is "soft sci-fi" if you are basing it on the knowledge of a specie that has yet to leave their PLANETARY system.

For myself, "hard" is more do they establish their own laws and keep them there, Battletech and the Honorverse are pretty solid here. "Soft" is that they don't explain the tech, it just works from their own perspective, Asimov's books tend to fit here. "Space opera" is more about having macguffins to propel the story for the people, both Star Trek with their "miracle of the week" and Star Wars both fit in to this category. "Space fantasy" often mixes some interplanetary concepts, but the actual tech seems to run shallow, with Dune actually fitting this dynamic almost perfectly. Now, those are MY definitions, just so I can keep my mind open as to possibilities for what WE can do.

w1zard wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:
As a scientifically literate person, if you want to actually enjoy 40K and not end up in a permanent frustrated rage with it, you have to view it as fantasy IMO. If you judge it as sci-fi, then it just looks appallingly bad.

Scientifically literate person here. I don't. The setting has just enough pseudo-science to maintain suspension of disbelief, and the whole idea of the warp is actually interesting and pretty much unique to 40k. Star wars is actually much worse in that regard then 40k is (lightsabers lol). There is a difference between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi sure, but just because the setting trends more towards soft sci-fi doesn't mean it is more similar to Tolkien than Asimov. A lot of the background for the 40k universe came from Dune, which is undeniably sci-fi.

40k may have "orks" but they are nowhere close to Tolkien's orcs.

It is entirely too hard to not point out that magnetically bottled plasma would behave exactly like a light saber except for the fact that A) current technology needs a machine the size of a house to generate that beam and B) even if you could miniaturize that machine into a sword handle the beam would be hot enough to kill the wielder and eveyone else within 20 feet of them.

Also, Dune is totally a fantasy setting. There's no plausible explanation in current science for how anything in that universe works.

If I was asked cold what the definitions were:
Fantasy: "A wizard did it."
Soft SciFi: "A techno-wizard did it IN SPACE!"
Hard SciFi: "Some technology we're on the edge of (immersive VR, flying cars) or something modern science suggests might be possible (wormholes, psycho-history) has panned out and become commonplace."

Chaos equipment is comprised of dated and broken tech. Here are a few things that are different from the imperial wargear:

Imperial tech consists of lost tech and tech they do not understand and yet they receive new units at more than 3 times the rate chaos does, if not worse.

- Kombi-Bolters instead of Storm Bolters. The chaos version is supposed to be inferior in the fluff but GW managed to botch the implementation for the game as Kombi-Bolters were in some ediitons more effective in short range.

Retconned, Heresy era bolters depending on type are either as good if not better that the godwyn pattern, but i dont expect that to be shown in rules, its too granular a demand, a bolter is a bolter game wise.

- Dangerous plasma weapons instead of more reliable and safer imperial version. Well, GW threw this nice difference out of the window and today there is no difference between the too.

Also more powerful and able to overcharge, now all plasma can overcharge, however several chaos ones do not have a choice and must always be the more powerful shot with the chance to inflict a mortal wound.

- No functioning targeters on heavy weapons as opposed to the Imperium´s version. Chaos forces don´t have the same resource level like the loyalists and can´t replace damaged gear as swiftly. Today there is no such thing as targeters for heavy weapons any more.

Retconned: novels with chaos marines show they have the same set of targeting software in their helms, all marine types still have them but there is no rule for it.

- Autocannon/Reaper Autocannon for infantry instead of the more sophisticated assault cannon. Also no thunder hammers and storm shields.

Retconned: imperials now have access to infantry autocannons on terminators, terminators that should not be in the imperial arsenal but only for chaos, good job GW

- Difference in dreadnought role. The entombment of a chaos champion is a punishment and drives the occupant insane resulting in errant and unpredictable behaviour like the Kane Cyborg in Robocop 2 showed due to the withdrawal effects of a drug. This is the most interesting of chaos units that provided me and my fellow gamers with the most of joy in our past battles as you never could be sure that he would follow your orders and would blow up your own tank or annihilate your infantry at inopportune moments. How much more chaotic can you become? But to my utter disgust I had to learn that not a small amount of chaos players resented this unit as it was not as reliable as the imperial one and felt themselves slighted by GW (again) for not providing them with "competitive" unit.
On the other hand the imperial version is a prestigious way for an imperial hero of mankind to prolong his service to the Emperor.

This is largely the same, however the hellbrute is bonded to the dreadnought now, also imperials use leviathans which drive the occupant insane over time in much the same manner as old chaos dreads and eventually kills them.

-CSM infantry are equipped by default with bolt pistol, bolter and chainsword and the imperial version (Tacticals, Devastators) lack the chainswords. It shows the emphasis for chaos units to close the distance for their foes in order to rip & tear. But since 5th marines of any kind are laughed off the board for their rather meager damage output as everybody and his dog can pack a more serious punch than a round of bolter fire. And this is not a healthy development for the game. If you want today exciting action with your marines you have to play the Deathwatch boardgame.

Expanded upon depending on legion modus operandi, but yes chaos lost this option and i agree its for the worse.

-SM have apothecaries to care for their wounded as opposed to CSM who don´t have a use for a unit such as this. Anybody who needs the help of another is deemed a weakling and needs to be weeded out from the rest because only the strong have the right to flourish and prosper.

Retconned or expanded upon: chaos also have apothecaries in the fluff and the TT, death guard can take them although they have a different role as befits nurgle.

-Chaos did also had no access to techmarines & chaplains in the past but GW deemed it necessary to throw this important distinction into the trash bin as well.

chaos has always had both depending on legion, word bearers for chaplains and iron warriors for techmarines, or at least analogues.

I could go on with the vehicles but I don´t feel inclined to do so right now. Only one thing for me to say here: Chaos dinobots SUCK. Oh and the flying hellturkey is not better in any way. Why? Well, they look horrible imo and no amount of crazy ass over the top rules writing will the change my mind about them. Always remember folks: Rules change each edition as units are hit by the ugly nerf bat but ugly units always stay ugly regardless of edition.

here is what we lack

Traitor guard as an army

Drop pods

Deamon engines of many many different types

Warp tech based weapons and vehicles

in codex heresy era vehicles

World eaters unique units

Emperors children unique units

Thousand sones unique units

Death guard unique units

Night lords unique units

etc.

large armoury of options to emphasise the warlord esqe nature of chaos lords and chaos characters

veteran skills

mutations

deamon weapons and relics

land raider variants

I could go on but suffice to say the chaos codex is bloody awful at doing what it is supposed to do, be a chaos marine codex.

The Newman wrote:

If I was asked cold what the definitions were:
Fantasy: "A wizard did it."
Soft SciFi: "A techno-wizard did it IN SPACE!" (And there is an implied or stated scientific explanation behind how the techno-wizard did it)
Hard SciFi: "Some technology we're on the edge of (immersive VR, flying cars) or something modern science suggests might be possible (wormholes, psycho-history) has panned out and become commonplace."

I added my own caveat on the underlined part, but otherwise I agree with you. It still doesn't make soft sci-fi analogous to fantasy.

 Charistoph wrote:
For myself, "hard" is more do they establish their own laws and keep them there, Battletech and the Honorverse are pretty solid here. "Soft" is that they don't explain the tech, it just works from their own perspective, Asimov's books tend to fit here. "Space opera" is more about having macguffins to propel the story for the people, both Star Trek with their "miracle of the week" and Star Wars both fit in to this category. "Space fantasy" often mixes some interplanetary concepts, but the actual tech seems to run shallow, with Dune actually fitting this dynamic almost perfectly. Now, those are MY definitions, just so I can keep my mind open as to possibilities for what WE can do.

I always viewed "hard sci-fi" as something that played close to real life science as possible whilst leaving a little wiggle room for something creative. A good example would be "The Expanse" T.V. series.

Regardless, I don't know why people are trying to define Dune as a "fantasy" or even "space fantasy" setting. Like, if you look up the literal definition of "Science Fiction" Dune is listed as an example for feths sake. Seriously, type "Science Fiction" into google right now it's like the second thing that pops up.

w1zard wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
For myself, "hard" is more do they establish their own laws and keep them there, Battletech and the Honorverse are pretty solid here. "Soft" is that they don't explain the tech, it just works from their own perspective, Asimov's books tend to fit here. "Space opera" is more about having macguffins to propel the story for the people, both Star Trek with their "miracle of the week" and Star Wars both fit in to this category. "Space fantasy" often mixes some interplanetary concepts, but the actual tech seems to run shallow, with Dune actually fitting this dynamic almost perfectly. Now, those are MY definitions, just so I can keep my mind open as to possibilities for what WE can do.

I always viewed "hard sci-fi" as something that played close to real life science as possible whilst leaving a little wiggle room for something creative. A good example would be "The Expanse" T.V. series.

And you missed my reason for that by skipping the previous paragraph. Quite simply, there is so little we do know about our universe that I don't like keeping "hard sci-fi" to what little we do know. By that definition, Voyage to the Moon was hard sci-fi based on what we knew at the time it was written.

w1zard wrote:
Regardless, I don't know why people are trying to define Dune as a "fantasy" or even "space fantasy" setting. Like, if you look up the literal definition of "Science Fiction" Dune is listed as an example for feths sake. Seriously, type "Science Fiction" into google right now it's like the second thing that pops up.

Have you actually read Dune? Have you read the rest of the series? You could literally write the book to be 7,000 years in the past, and the only things that would change would be the missing lasguns and talk about moving fiefdoms from planet to planet.

That would explain the hieroglyphs of giant alien worms in Egyptian tombs...

 Charistoph wrote:
Quite simply, there is so little we do not know about our universe that I don't like keeping "hard sci-fi" to what little we do know.

You're missing the point here. Hard science fiction isn't defined by how accurate it is decades after it's created, it's about the creator's intent. Hard SF is a work that attempts to reasonably extrapolate from known technology and science, minimizing the level of handwaving/space wizards/etc. It may turn out to get things wrong, but the intent was there. Soft SF gets more imaginative in its "what if"s and is willing to fudge the science a bit if it's necessary for plot or theme reasons. Space opera is just a heroic fantasy story with a superficial aesthetic layer of rockets and lasers and such replacing the swords and horses.

So, for example, the Honorverse is fairly soft. Yeah, it has some internal consistency (except when the author screws up things like the size of ships relative to their mass), but it's all just space magic. And it's space magic where the primary goal is not to extrapolate from known science/history/etc and imagine a future world, it's space magic that exists to have Napoleonic-era sailing fleets to go with the rest of its inspiration in real-world history.

 Charistoph wrote:
Have you actually read Dune? Have you read the rest of the series? You could literally write the book to be 7,000 years in the past, and the only things that would change would be the missing lasguns and talk about moving fiefdoms from planet to planet.

Yes, I have read Dune, at least the first two books. Enlighten me about these other fantasy series where movement between places are controlled by a navigator's guild whose members are hopped up on drugs that made them psychic and almost immortal, or a fantasy series where nuclear bombs, personal energy shields, laser guns, and cloning are commonplace.

People don't seem to understand the difference between sci-fi with fantasy elements (Dune and 40k), and straight fantasy (LOTR).

Peregrine wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Quite simply, there is so little we do not know about our universe that I don't like keeping "hard sci-fi" to what little we do know.

You're missing the point here. Hard science fiction isn't defined by how accurate it is decades after it's created, it's about the creator's intent. Hard SF is a work that attempts to reasonably extrapolate from known technology and science, minimizing the level of handwaving/space wizards/etc. It may turn out to get things wrong, but the intent was there. Soft SF gets more imaginative in its "what if"s and is willing to fudge the science a bit if it's necessary for plot or theme reasons. Space opera is just a heroic fantasy story with a superficial aesthetic layer of rockets and lasers and such replacing the swords and horses.

So, for example, the Honorverse is fairly soft. Yeah, it has some internal consistency (except when the author screws up things like the size of ships relative to their mass), but it's all just space magic. And it's space magic where the primary goal is not to extrapolate from known science/history/etc and imagine a future world, it's space magic that exists to have Napoleonic-era sailing fleets to go with the rest of its inspiration in real-world history.

No, I get their point. My counter-point still stands. There is so much we don't know about our universe that we cannot definitively call something "hard" or "soft" in relation to possibilities. The Honorverse could well be hard. Star Trek could well be hard. But because we know so little, it is presumptive of us to say what is possible or not. A hundred years ago, breaking the sound barrier or going to the moon would be considered soft by those standards. A world-wide communication system that can fit in the palm of your hand was incredibly soft. We have all of that today as hard because of the things we have learned about our universe. We will continue to learn more about our universe and can put some science fiction in to science fantasy and some in to definitive science fiction.

w1zard wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Have you actually read Dune? Have you read the rest of the series? You could literally write the book to be 7,000 years in the past, and the only things that would change would be the missing lasguns and talk about moving fiefdoms from planet to planet.

Yes, I have read Dune, at least the first two books. Enlighten me about these other fantasy series where movement between places are controlled by a navigator's guild whose members are hopped up on drugs that made them psychic and almost immortal, or a fantasy series where nuclear bombs, personal energy shields, laser guns, and cloning are commonplace.

Not necessarily navigators, but wizards or sorcerers who are addicted to their own power. After all, the Navigator's Guild was a guild of wizards, as were the Bene Gesserit (who were often referred to as witches with cause). Any knowledge or science that cannot be explained by the observer will seem like magic. The ability for the Navigators to safely guide a ship across light years would be magic. The Bene Gesserit to control a person with the Voice would also seem to be like magic. They were a feudal government where the soldiers fought with swords, knives, and shields. That is a very fantasy atmosphere where the space aspects were largely incidental.

As for nuclear bombs, read up on something called a "Light Web" from the Sword of Truth book series. Humorously, there is the Wiz series where someone used a combination of magic to create the "ultimate water balloon" by compressing water to a fusion state (read The Wizardry Cursed).

Lord of the Rings had a variant of cloning in the creation of some of the monster creatures.

w1zard wrote:People don't seem to understand the difference between sci-fi with fantasy elements (Dune and 40k), and straight fantasy (LOTR).

And you seem to not recognize that "space fantasy" was one of the descriptors used, not just fantasy.

Dune suffers from having a too imagnative world and violating a core rule of world building. That it comes off as alien to its viewer. Great book, but man was it hard to sink your teeth in.

 Charistoph wrote:
And you seem to not recognize that "space fantasy" was one of the descriptors used, not just fantasy.

If by "space fantasy" you mean soft sci-fi then yes we agree, but "space fantasy" isn't a genre. The closest thing to "space fantasy" would be "science fantasy".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

By that definition, Dune is science fiction, not science fantasy because it always has a scientific or rational explanation for all of the "supernatural" elements in the story. IE there is no such thing as "prophecies" merely stories implanted in primitive societies by the bene gesserit generations ago to serve a useful purpose in the future.. etc. Although I will admit, the psychic navigators is kind of stretching it. 40k sounds like science fantasy under the definition given, but science fantasy is a sub-genre of science fiction.

Hrm, the Prophecy stuff is pretty much a matter of interpretation. Dune is pretty Space Fantasy. Yeah, there's ostensibly technobabble about most of the stuff, but it could just as easily be magic the way it's described and referred to and much of it really falls apart under serious scrutiny. The universe is set among the noble elite of competing fuedal houses of a human Imperium with a rigid caste system, reliant on mystical orders of magicians evolved/trained people to do things in place of machines (often in place of things we've had machines to do for decades), a heavy reliance on hand to hand combat with blades in battle scenes, combat and battle is kept to very tactical levels and is relatively limited and decisive (the Harkonnen never bomb anyone from orbit for example, nobody ever calls in artillery support), etc.

There's some science fiction in Dune, but it really leans way more heavily in the Space Fantasy realm of things, which I think is fair to say is a thing on its own, even if it's not really recognized as a major category of its own. You could take Dune, repaint it, keep the storyline intact, and have it work just as well as a Fantasy story without changing any fundamental major plot point. Planets become realms or islands. The Spice remains the Spice. The Guild controls, something, maybe water navigation. The Bene Gesserit remain what they're considered already in Dune, Witches. The Fremen...remain unchanged. The Imperium...basically remains unchanged. The Atreides and Harkonnen remain...unchanged. Paul & Chani, The Baron and The Emperor, Feyd and Rabban, nothing really need change.

I love the Khorne Lord of skulls model, even over the Kytan Ravager model. I think its a terrible oversight that LOS didn't get a point drop in chapter approved. :(

Oh, I'm sure this is an unpopular opinon; I'd like to see 30% fewer factions, and more effort spent on updating/maintaining the remaining armies with model updates, etc. GW is way over the number of factions they can realistically support without having 4-5 year gaps for armies, which isn't a good thing for the consumer.

 Elbows wrote:
Oh, I'm sure this is an unpopular opinon; I'd like to see 30% fewer factions, and more effort spent on updating/maintaining the remaining armies with model updates, etc. GW is way over the number of factions they can realistically support without having 4-5 year gaps for armies, which isn't a good thing for the consumer.

If you include all armies (I mean ALL armies including Sister of Silence, Assassins, Ynnaries, Ultramarines as seperate then Space Marines, Inquisition) plus a few extras like the missing two Gods of Chaos army and a potential Black Legion exclusive. GW could refresh all its armies in a minimal of 2 and half year or so by releasing a new army every month which they have shown they can do. Let's be conservative and say 3 and a half year to let some exclusive time to Age of Sigmar and others. Three years and a half before getting new rules and potentially a few new models isn't all that bad. A well designed model should have a life expectancy of at least 10-12 years before looking too derp to live. Should we assume that an edition should last around 4 to 6 years (longer is better in my opinion), then it all seem to fall in place nicely. We even have room for more armies. Now the only problem I can see is the fact that GW doesn't want to treat all its armies equally since some sell a hell of a lot more then others (also the army diversity is actually lower then number alone might imply since a lot of them are Space Marines customisation). Marines sold so much that GW had no other choice than basically reboot completely the line to keep on milking them.

w1zard wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
And you seem to not recognize that "space fantasy" was one of the descriptors used, not just fantasy.

If by "space fantasy" you mean soft sci-fi then yes we agree, but "space fantasy" isn't a genre. The closest thing to "space fantasy" would be "science fantasy".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

By that definition, Dune is science fiction, not science fantasy because it always has a scientific or rational explanation for all of the "supernatural" elements in the story. IE there is no such thing as "prophecies" merely stories implanted in primitive societies by the bene gesserit generations ago to serve a useful purpose in the future.. etc. Although I will admit, the psychic navigators is kind of stretching it. 40k sounds like science fantasy under the definition given, but science fantasy is a sub-genre of science fiction.

By "Space Fantasy", I mean that it is set in space, but it largely operates on Fantasy concepts and tropes. The first three books of Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern would be considered "fantasy" until you reach the end of The White Dragon, and they introduce the fact that humans are not native creatures of Pern.

Weis and Hickman's Death Gate Cycle almost qualifies as "space fantasy", just lacking the "space" part in favor of "dimensional worlds", as it deals with magic being developed by humanity in the future and then they blow the world up, spreading it across several realms.

Vaktathi handles the rest pretty well.

Vaktathi wrote:Hrm, the Prophecy stuff is pretty much a matter of interpretation. Dune is pretty Space Fantasy. Yeah, there's ostensibly technobabble about most of the stuff, but it could just as easily be magic the way it's described and referred to and much of it really falls apart under serious scrutiny. The universe is set among the noble elite of competing fuedal houses of a human Imperium with a rigid caste system, reliant on mystical orders of magicians evolved/trained people to do things in place of machines (often in place of things we've had machines to do for decades), a heavy reliance on hand to hand combat with blades in battle scenes, combat and battle is kept to very tactical levels and is relatively limited and decisive (the Harkonnen never bomb anyone from orbit for example, nobody ever calls in artillery support), etc.

There's some science fiction in Dune, but it really leans way more heavily in the Space Fantasy realm of things, which I think is fair to say is a thing on its own, even if it's not really recognized as a major category of its own. You could take Dune, repaint it, keep the storyline intact, and have it work just as well as a Fantasy story without changing any fundamental major plot point. Planets become realms or islands. The Spice remains the Spice. The Guild controls, something, maybe water navigation. The Bene Gesserit remain what they're considered already in Dune, Witches. The Fremen...remain unchanged. The Imperium...basically remains unchanged. The Atreides and Harkonnen remain...unchanged. Paul & Chani, The Baron and The Emperor, Feyd and Rabban, nothing really need change.

The Navigators could be sailing chaotic seas by magic sense or magi in charge of arcane portals between islands, and one would see little difference in the story itself.

Elbows wrote:Oh, I'm sure this is an unpopular opinon; I'd like to see 30% fewer factions, and more effort spent on updating/maintaining the remaining armies with model updates, etc. GW is way over the number of factions they can realistically support without having 4-5 year gaps for armies, which isn't a good thing for the consumer.

Not unpopular by me. The Imperium itself could easily be reduced to just 3-4 core armies (Guard, Marines, Mechanicum, and maybe Sisters) with the rest of the Imperium solely as supplemental Slot add-ons (especially the Knights) like the Daemonhunters and Witch Hunters of old. The Eldar should get their act a little better, with the Harlequins and Ynnarri being supplemental ala the Knights, instead of being recognized as their own thing. Which leaves Chaos being the only one that makes sense being either split up or combined, but even then, I could easily set them up as the Daemonic, the Renegade, and the Cults.

As fascinating as the semantic debate over the difference between science fiction and science fantasy may be, it's not the topic of this thread. Let it go, folks.

There should be an official inquisitor in 40k names "Obiwan Sherlock Clouseau". He was the first named inquisitor in the original rogue trader book and should be made a character.



He could have the Clouseau rule which means attacks aimed at him have a chance of hitting a nearby friendly model.

And look at this guy, you know you want to paint him.

 insaniak wrote:
As fascinating as the semantic debate over the difference between science fiction and science fantasy may be, it's not the topic of this thread. Let it go, folks.

Well it IS about opinions which are unpopular, and some of the considerations as to the nature of 40K can be unpopular, such as what to call the story format, i.e. sci-fi, space fantasy, etc.

That having been said, sure.

If they have more than 5 wounds, killing an opponent's named character should be worth victory points. Ten thousand orks dying to slay Guilliman is a victory for the orks.

Of course, that comment should be irrelevant, because primarchs shouldn't be playable in matched play.